Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/State highways in Essex County, New York

State highways in Essex County, New York
Yay! 12-13 months of work have finally finally paid off. Here's the 3rd in the series of NY Touring Routes in the county of Essex, New York. This project has been in the works for a very long time and has a lesser overlap with the other two topics:Hamilton and Warren. The only overlaps are NY 28N & 8 (which is in Warren and Hamilton) and NY 9N (which is in Warren only). The interesting part is that while this topic was in the works, the New York State Department of Transportation added a new route in Essex County, NY Route 185. Anyway,, there are 5 featured items and 8 good articles, so it meets that piece of the topic criteria. Also NY 73, although set as a Good Article, passed my WikiProject's A-class review and is A-class.

Note: The FLC promotion occurred after GimmeBot ran on 0000 UTC July 5, so the article has not been update it, but this addition to the Goings-on page proves that it has reached Featured List. Anyway, all comments are welcomed and thanks a lot to Rst20xx, who set up the topic thing for 3 topics. :) - Mitch/HC32 15:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments - 1/3 of the articles are featured content, so it meets that criteria. However, I am a little concerned about the the relevance of the main article (List of highways in Essex County, New York) to the topic. This topic is supposed to cover state highways only, but the list also mentions Interstate, U.S., and county routes. Dough4872 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We'ze have precedent - see the Warren topic - Mitch/HC32 19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - My concern has been addressed. Dough4872 (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Even if there are other items in the topic, we can expand it later to include Interstates and U.S. routes. –CG 15:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm not particularly fond of the county-by-county lists, but this topic meets the criteria, so I can't complain. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I don't really like the precedent of just including the state routes and not including the US/Interstate ones. Sorry, I just think it's oversplitting - rst20xx (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually maybe it's worth talking about this a little bit more now. Looking at List of Interstate Highways in New York and List of U.S. Routes in New York, you could actually make topics out of both of these. And then it would seem natural to exclude the US/Interstate routes from these county topics and that would remove a lot of overlap problems. Does that make sense? rst20xx (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It make sense, but that also means Warren, which you said needs the other routes, will probably never get them. Every time I split out Routes 911E/912Q, they get merged again. Also, as I have said, Hamilton has neither of those to warrant a problem. Also, why are you opposing now, if you want to talk about this?Mitch/HC32 12:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I only worked out that might be a good idea after I weak opposed. Anyway, oppose struck! rst20xx (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I'll see what I can do, as those route levels are not my cup of tea. Thank you though.Mitch/HC32 23:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - So NY8 and NY192 are the two routes with articles that formerly went through Essex but no longer do? rst20xx (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8 and 192 are weird. The alignment of 8 is now 9N, 9N/22, and 185. The alignment of 192 is now a county route, but most of 192 was in Franklin County, mostly 86 in Franklin County and CR 55. It is CR 81 in Essex.<i style="color:red;">Mitch</i>/<i style="color:black;">HC32</i> 23:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Question cansomebody clearly explain what is the difference between a state touring route, a state reference route, and an interstate? And also, why an article focusing on all of these three (and more) deserves to be the lead for only one of them? Nergaal (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Different levels of highways done by the New York State Department of Transportation & United States Department of Transportation for NY. And, the list is a summary, also because the precedents, Warren and Hamilton Counties, follow the same process.<i style="color:red;">Mitch</i>/<i style="color:black;">HC32</i> 17:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think precedents are good examples (because they have not have had unanimous votes). I am asking if this topic is very similar to having "Planets in the Solar System" topic in which the main article is Solar System and contains the 8 planets. Nergaal (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, and even if there was, its barely close - and where the solar system is 8, this numbers over 300 - 900.<i style="color:red;">Mitch</i>/<i style="color:black;">HC32</i> 15:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm going to give my general opinion on this type of topic. I agree with Nergaal that citing precedent is not always good. I think these county topics should try and be as general as possible and include as many non-county highways as possible, both current and former. Clearly focussing on just state touring routes then disagrees with this desire. Though running contrary to this general principle, there is a strong argument to be made (as above) that the US and Interstate routes should be excluded and instead be placed in 2 topics covering the whole of these types of road across New York - this stops articles appearing in topics many times.
 * On the other hand, looking at state reference routes, back when the first of these topics was promoted, I think we got it wrong here. We decided not to include them at all because some of them were having notability problems - they weren't meriting stand-alone articles. If you look at the lengths of the state reference routes it is clear to see why - they're all under a mile. However I think instead of including none, we should have included those that have managed to get articles, and left it at that. So here this would mean adding Blue Ridge Road and that's it. (We would also then want to add Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway to the Warren topic.) I seem to recall that I for one took a somewhat "all or nothing" attitude when Warren was promoted and I guess as I've learned more about the road system and general fringe-notability issues on Wikipedia (which you see A LOT of around here, over time), I've changed my mind, so sorry about that, but does that make sense? Then I feel we could generalise the name of these topics to "State highways in..." which is certainly better.
 * Also this topic includes all the former routes, but I don't think the Warren topic does, and I think this should be changed - or am I wrong? I find this a little confusing and it would be helpful to add former routes to the tables in the leads, a la the Marquette County, Michigan topic, which is excellent in this regard - rst20xx (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Warren has 32B, and will have 9M as soon as I FTC supplement that one, both of which are decommissioned. In the regards of Michigan, this is totally different standards because of different states. I've wanted Prospect in Warren since the beginning, and I don't mind BRR here. Essex has three other decommissioned routes, but all of which have been supplanted by something else (427 & 86A are both part of 73, 195 is part of 9N). I do care though that if you oppose me over this, I will be ticked. I can fix things, but not everything is necessary.<i style="color:red;">Mitch</i>/<i style="color:black;">HC32</i> 16:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Decommissioned routes are in. Shall I go ahead and add BRR to the topic?<i style="color:red;">Mitch</i>/<i style="color:black;">HC32</i> 17:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh don't worry I'm not going to oppose, I'm just trying to talk it out and see what is general consensus but it appears there is much agreement between you and I at least so in fact I will support. I only compared to Michigan when it came to former routes and I see you've added them to the Essex table now - looks good, but I think you need to add a column stating when a route became decommissioned. As the decommissioned routes have been supplanted, I think that having just redirects is fine as they are covered in the articles on the new configurations (as is the case with Michigan). I would be happy to see you add BRR but I think feedback from others on this would be good - rst20xx (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done for the decommissioned routes, but I don't think a new column that would be 3/4 empty is necessary.<i style="color:red;">Mitch</i>/<i style="color:black;">HC32</i> 17:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to have forgotten to add 192 to the table - rst20xx (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed.<i style="color:red;">Mitch</i>/<i style="color:black;">HC32</i> 17:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And one final thing (sorry to drip these out). Where should New York State Route 347 (mid-1930–1950s) redirect to? rst20xx (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I don't know why that's an exact problem though - <i style="color:red;">Mitch</i>/<i style="color:black;">HC32</i> 19:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Great work, Mitch.  It was a (God-awful) pleasure to help a little bit.  Durova  278 18:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - no-one has come forward in the last 2 days to say that they oppose Blue Ridge Road being added so I think we can add it. Also this means the topic can be renamed to "State highways in Essex County, New York" - rst20xx (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All the changes are made.<i style="color:red;">Mitch</i>/<i style="color:black;">HC32</i> 20:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, nice work.  The left orium  19:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - before I promote this, there appears to be a minor edit war going on as to whether Blue Ridge Road should be piped to say "New York State Route 910K", i.e. the portion of the road that is a state highway. While 910K only forms a tiny portion of the Blue Ridge Road, I would be inclined to pipe as being the only portion that is a state highway it is the only portion relevant to this topic, and the reason for the article's inclusion in this topic. What does everyone else think? rst20xx (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say then Prospect for Warren would be New York State Route 917A - I don't mind now, but I would prefer to use actual names of the articles.<i style="color:red;">Mitch</i>/<i style="color:black;">HC32</i> 15:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway could IMO be either because the entirety of the route there is also New York State Route 917A, but I don't mind which of the two names that article is included under - rst20xx (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The only portions of the roads that actually fit under the topic scope are the new york state routes, which is the reason I think the article titles should appear as the new york state routes in the topic box. I also think that it just looks much cleaner for all the articles to appear in the same format in the topic box. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that setting on 910K here would be the most amicable solution - rst20xx (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Close with consensus to promote - Mitch gains his 4th featured topic (and 5th topic full stop!), and we get our first two articles to appear in 3 topics - rst20xx (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS feel free to start a supplementary nom for Prospect ;) rst20xx (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)