Talk:U.S. Route 2 in Washington

Laws

 * 1907?
 * State Road No. 7, or the Snoqualmie Pass road: This road shall begin at North Bend, in King county, Washington, and run thence by the most practicable route to the summit of the Cascade mountains at the Snoqualmie pass; thence over the line as surveyed for the said road as nearly as practicable to Easton, in Kittitas county.

In 1909 it was extended to Seattle and Idaho east of Spokane.


 * 1913 c. 65
 * A highway starting from the Pacific Highway at Renton, Washington; thence over the most feasible route by the way of Snoqualmie Pass into the Yakima River Valley; thence by way of Wenatchee, over the most feasible route, through Waterville and Spokane, to the state boundary, which shall be known as the Sunset Highway.

Branches

 * SR 202, Monroe to Bothell (ex-PSH 15 BM)
 * Changed in 1970: Bothell to North Bend
 * SR 203, Monroe to Fall City (ex-SSH 15B)
 * SR 204, Everett to Lake Stevens (ex-SSH 15A)
 * SR 206, Mead to Mount Spokane State Park
 * SR 207, Winton to Telma (ex-SSH 15C and SSH 15D)
 * Changed in 1992: Winton to Lake Wenatchee State Park
 * SR 209, Leavenworth to Lake Wenatchee State Park (ex-SSH 15C)
 * Dropped in 1992

Cascade Highway
A disambig page says this highway is called the Cascade highway. I've never heard of this before this is not the case, then the reference should be deleted from at least 2 disambig pages (Cascade and Cascade Highway).

Also, I didn't see the mention of Stevens Pass Highway, a name commonly used from Snohomish to Leavenworth.

71.212.4.53 (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Content Dispute Resolution
Hi SounderBruce. Unfortunately you have received a warning about a content dispute happening on this article. I understand that you like the article the way you think it should be. Please note that the access-date and link updates are not unnecessary as there are people who rely on these links to get information. Some of the links are dead and others have had a date update both of which may be a valid reason to update access-date regardless of content change. Remember do not bite the newcomers and remember that I am here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. If you like you may at any time request the protection to be lifted as this article is currently semi-protected by user Kinu which will expire on 15:13, 5 December, 2019 (UTC). If you have any further questions please answer at my talk page or go to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. (73.157.56.233 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC))

SounderBruce resolve the content dispute by commenting here. (73.157.56.233 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC))

SounderBruce I am waiting for an answer. Why do you seem to be ignoring me? (2601:601:9980:5D80:C810:284C:114F:3F49 (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC))
 * Typically, when a citation is added alongside a piece of content that is being cited, the access-date in the citation is left unchanged unless there is a major update to the content that requires an updated citation. This is for several reasons: for one, new versions of the same citation may in fact differ or outright rebuke the original, creating a mismatch between citation and content. There is also the issue of dead citations, and it makes our lives a lot easier if the access-date remains the closest to the original content so that an archived version with the appropriate content can be found.
 * It would have been fine to simply update the out-of-date URLs for the KOMO article and the rail map (although it is now superseded by other rail materials), but changing every single access-date is overkill. The harassment on my userpage and at 3RR has got to stop as well.  Sounder Bruce  01:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry for re-adding content that you deleted and was considered harassment on my part. However still you should in the future not revert good faith edits without a very good reason. Also you appear to be overstating. I did leave some of the access date of things that did not get updated alone. Updating access dates is part of a normal source update. So I advise you to revert and also correct a mistake I made by leaving the link status for a new link dead and I want you to change that to live. As for the reporting it was for precautionary reasons and to really make sure your conduct did not violate Wikipedia policy. Also many of the links also still contain the same information. If there is any that is contradictory please include up to date information. Remember you should also not game the system. Doing that may result in a block. Thank you. (2601:601:9980:5D80:C810:284C:114F:3F49 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC))

SounderBruce I am waiting for a reply. (2601:601:9980:5D80:B15D:BE07:3071:B6B9 (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC))
 * Per WP:BUSY, please assume good faith and be patient in waiting for a reply. -- Kinu t/c 15:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello SounderBruce. I still have not gotten any message from you at all. I thank you for archiving dead links. If you have any questions please answer them here. Remember do not WP:OWN this article as neither you nor anyone else has ownership of the article. Thank you. (2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC))


 * I'm not seeing any WP:OWN type behavior here 2601:601:9980:5D80:0:0:0:0/64. In fact short of someone outright claiming ownership it's poor form to make that accusation. Also keep in mind everyone here is a volunteer, prompt replies are the exception not the norm. If the silence lasts sufficiently long WP:SQS may apply but that's a different matter. I don't yet have an opinion on the merits of the dispute, but reverting a bunch of changes to access-dates without any edit summary or indication you'd actually checked them is perfectly reasonable. Also when dealing with registered users it's often polite to give them a courtesy ping when your discussing their actions somewhere by linking there username as I'm about to do shortly.


 * courtesy ping in case you have something to add, I don't mean to speak for you. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)
I have once again semiprotected the article in its current status quo ante version. That being said, the crux of this matter is two-fold, and knowing the answers to both of the following questions would be helpful. In this edit summary you state "access date updates are necessary as part of normal editing." They are necessary if the answers to both questions are in the affirmative. An edit summary that vaguely indicates what you are doing without why, i.e. what content is being changed so it can be verified by other users, is disruptive, especially when that what is a mass change of access dates without any justifiable rationale, coupled with repeated baseless accusations of WP:OWN issues. -- Kinu t/c 05:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Are you actually accessing every single source for which you have been changing the access dates?
 * 2) Are you verifying that any substantive content changes at said the sources are reflected in the article? If so, what specifically is being updated?

I have accessed all the sources for which the access date has changed. I have looked carefully at all the sources for which there was a date or link change and I did not see changes that needed to be reflected on the article. If you do find changes that need to be reflected. Please let me know and tell me what source is affected and what information has changed so I can try to reflect that on the article once dispute has been resolved and semi-protection lifted. Thank you for asking. (2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC))


 * So, let me see if I've got all this, 'cause I'm struggling to see what the fuss is about. You read the article, reviewed all the citations, found either that they hadn't changed at all, or alternatively that the changes had no bearing on the content of the article, and then updated the access-dates? If that's the case there's nothing wrong with the change in that it validates yes these citations are still good as of date X, but it's not really needed either because the information is still valid and the exact time of review is irrelevant for most purposes. Further this won't affect 99% (yes per the signpost only 1 in 100 of our viewers click the link to a single cite) of the tiny number of visitors to this article, and you guys are Edit-Warring over this. Someone help me out, either I misunderstanding everything completely or this is about as WP:LAME as it gets. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder for all of you involved. Please try to resolve the dispute by Christmas Day. This is still an ongoing dispute and I would like a reply to the answers I provided. Thank you for your patience. (2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC))

Okay, So I actually have a question for you. Can you tell me exactly whether you still think my edits are disruptive and if so tell me exactly why and what in the edit. Simply saying it is not good enough. Also please discuss here before changing from status quo post bellum. Thank you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:9980:5d80:dcc1:b8b3:c4f9:10da (talk • contribs)
 * Arbitrarily updating the citation access-dates without having a corresponding change in the content cited or a significant change in the cited webpage is deceptive to readers and editors. An access-date from a few years back will indicate to a reader that the information in the article is from that time and that some things may be outdated, even without it being stated outright via update. When making the rounds to update content, editors should not have to delve deep into the history section to find out how old the content may be, and thus whether to prioritize this entry for updating. It's just not how we do things here.  Sounder Bruce  04:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It is clear that these updates are not arbitrary as I correctly answered questions from user Kinu. Also please cease any involvement in edit-warring as your involvement is considered disruptive editing. Also please do not misuse Twinkle per WP:TWINKLEABUSE as a tool to edit-war. You should discuss here instead of edit-war. Remember also that under WP:3RR you may be blocked by an admin if you continue to get involved in persistent edit-warring even if you did not violate the three-revert rule. Continued warring on your part may also result in U.S._Route_2_in_Washington getting temporarily protected and it may be either status quo ante bellum or status quo post bellum depending on the admin who receives the request. (2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC))
 * @2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA, et al., as a somewhat disinterested bystander, I have to agree with SounderBruce that it is not necessary, and probably disruptive, to arbitrarily update the access dates in this fashion. If no information is being updated in the article as a result of re-accessing the sources, then changing the dates masks when the information from those sources was originally added. It can also cause problems by prompting InternetArchiveBot to refer to a different archival copy of a source than it should. It is also bordering on obsessive your pursuit of this issue in multiple fora with demands for resolution by specific deadlines. We have no deadlines here, and editors have real-life commitments that can explain why they aren't responding as immediately as you would seem to prefer. I would caution you to be more judicious in word choice as well. You're using a fuller rendition of a Latin phrase in a way that's heightening drama instead of diffusing it. Rather than using status quo ante ("the way things were before"), you're using status quo ante bellum ("the way things were before the war"). I've never seen the fuller expression used outside of the context of armed conflict and restoration of borders and pre-war governments, and unless either you or SounderBruce has taken up arms and invaded the other's territory, I think the embellishment in the phrasing is doing more harm than good. The TL;DR summary is as follows: if you seek resolution here, ratchet down the rhetoric and ratchet down the urgency. This is essentially a trivial issue. If I were in your situation, I'd have walked away long ago and left the access dates alone after the first time the change was contested.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I used the latin term in it's fullest because SounderBruce was also edit-warring when this dispute happened. Also I would say this I only updated the access dates on the sources that had their publish dates updated as well or had their links change. I never updated the access date for things that had neither of these two changes because that would be unnecessary. These updates that I did however were not malicious or deceptive and a bot is not necessary to find archives as a human can easily do the work if they know what to look for. Also the old links and publish dates and access dates can be found in history as long as that has not been deleted. Finally I did these updates for verifiablility purposes and any up to date information that is not in these sources should not be used as that is original research. To let you know I did not find anything from the sources that contradicts what is said in the article but if you or any other user finds something please let me know. Another thing is that this edit-war has been going on for about a month and is already making history less useful as well as making this article no longer a good article. Maybe another thing and I don't mean it to be a personal attack is that maybe he is having a fuss about my edits partly because I am only an IP user. After this dispute is over with I will probably be an IP no longer. Thank you. (2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC))
 * Again, I'd say that you've ratcheted up the rhetoric by using the longer version of that phrase, and unless either of you has literally taken up arms, the "war" in "edit-warring" is only figurative and does not qualify. Additionally, by any measure, you've been just as guilty of any edit-warring, and you're just as open to any sanctions as he.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that both me and SounderBruce are equally guilty of edit-warring. However my use of the latin phrase in it's fuller term is not a personal attack or incivility and certainly to take up arms can also be used figuratively. So I don't know what your problem is. (2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC))

Currently there is no consensus clearly defined on this dispute. If you have any further questions or concerns about the proposed source update please discuss here. (2601:601:9980:5D80:E5B0:B824:4B35:9D0E (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2019
Please add this page to my new category, 02. Thank you in advance. HighwayTyper (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You know, Category:U.S. Highways by State. I want to add this page to that category, which I created, but I can't due to this page being protected.

I'm sorry but you did not provide a specific description of what needs to be changed and why it should be changed. Therefore the request is rejected. However you may make another request that is more specific and descriptive. Or you can make a comment on the dispute resolution discussion above if that is what you're concerned about. Thank you however for your efforts. (2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC))

Still not good enough I need to know what needs to be changed and why do you think the change is SNUS see WP:EDITREQ for information on how to make a good request. (2601:601:9980:5D80:DCC1:B8B3:C4F9:10DA (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC))
 * As the article is semi-protected, I kindly ask that you defer the handling of such edit requests to editors who are able to edit the article in case some action is needed. -- Kinu t/c 19:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ Given the deletion discussion about the similar Category:Interstate Highways by State, I am hesitant to add this category at this time, until some sort of consensus about that one appears. While this seems like a discussion for another venue, I personally do not see the value of the category you have created, as it is seemingly redundant to and less useful than the similarly-named (and more properly-named, due to the casing) Category:U.S. Highways by state. -- Kinu <i style="color: red">t</i>/<i style="color:red">c</i> 19:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)