Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/State touring routes in Warren County, New York/archive1

State touring routes in Warren County, New York
I worked my dang head off on this Featured topic for about 5-7 months. The articles are all at GA or FA and is probably one of my best works to date. As a little background, this is all the highways maintained by New York State Department of Transportation and have touring route shields & reference markers (for prospect). This topic has 12 articles, 3 of them FAs, and 9 GAs. Mitch 32contribs 13:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What about New York State Route 911E and New York State Route 912Q? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  14:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 911E added to topic, 912Q merged to I-87. Mitch 32contribs 14:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Gary  K ing ( talk ) 16:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Until New York State Route 911E New York State Route 32B passes GA or is audited. Then you'll have my full support. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't see that one; I've added the B-icon so it's more clear. Gary  K ing ( talk ) 17:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Update - Can I have this postponed for a week. 911E is going to merged in for a new article on something else. If its possible this can be postponed, it would help. Mitch 32 17:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to do this would be to withdraw this nom and nominate it again when it is ready. Also, if you plan to choose a new article for the topic, then there is clearly no strictly-defined topic. Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  18:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you justify the recent merging of New York State Route 911E and New York State Route 912Q into New York State Route 32B and Interstate 87 respectively? rst20xx (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 911E and 912Q shouldn't have existed in the first place per notability guidelines, the best thing to do was to merge them. This is my fault and I surely regret it. Oppose this FTC if you wish, just please, give me a chance - I don't wanna see 5-7 months of work go out the window. Mitch 32 22:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * These are roads that are maintained by the state but are unsigned as such. They are primarily remnants of realignments of other state roads and their history is tied to those other roads. Merging is a perfectly appropriate course of action here. --Polaron | Talk 23:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fine, though I'm not convinced you carried across as much information as you could have when you merged them in, in fact what you did was simply redirect them to the other articles. (And I don't see how any of this is sending 5-7 months' worth of work out the window :/) rst20xx (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What about U.S. Route 4 and U.S. Route 9W? Surely if we're to include some former routes, such as New York State Route 32B, we should include them all? (Well I guess the former should be included via the U.S. Route 4 in New York article, so that's one of the two dealt with) rst20xx (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We can, but you'd have to give me some time to work on it, along with a possible New York State Route 9M, but that along with New York State Route 9K (which is redundant to 9N), would be very hard to work an article for.
 * Addendum: We've decided after a discussion to remove 32B from the topic and just leave it for current routes, all fo which are GA or higher. This should be enough - (12 articles at 20% = 2.4 or 3 FAs). Mitch 32 14:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Former routes probably don't need to be included at all. US 4, US 9, and NY 32B are already described in the history section of another current route. The roads used by the above former routes are still state highways although numbered differently now. --Polaron | Talk 14:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But doesn't this now mean 911E isn't dealt with by any of the articles currently in the topic? And I still don't think you've addressed my concerns that you just redirected 911E and 912Q, as opposed to merging them into other articles, anyway. (Though I'm contented with not including 4/9/32B and would say that that could be a possible future expansion should you choose to make it :P) rst20xx (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 911E is discussed in New York State Route 254. 912Q is really just a long exit ramp, which probably shouldn't have its own article anyway. In any case, I agree that the merging wasn't quite done as well as it should have been and should be fixed. However, these two reference routes aren't really "routes" in the sense that one is supposed to follow them to go someplace and is only tangentially related to the topic in that they are roads maintained by the state. --Polaron | Talk 15:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, well if Mitchazenia fixes the merges then I'll support, but until then I Oppose - rst20xx (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it look better - there's more details of 911E and 912Q in the articles they were merged to. Mitch 32 21:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you could also move the Major Intersections/Exit Lists section across, as well as the road infoboxes. But anyway, neither 32B nor 87 are part of the topics, so 911E and 912Q aren't covered by articles in the topic as it stands. Polaron pointed out that you could merge 911E into 254 instead of 32B. Also, I now realise that Interstate 87 should clearly be in the topic, but isn't! Not sure how I missed this before. Why is 87 not currently in the topic? It passes right through Warren! It's currently a B-class article, but if it's brought up to scratch and added, it would fix the problem for 912Q.
 * So in summary, if you add I-87 to the topic, move 911E stuff into 254, move 912Q stuff into an in-topic article and move more 911E/912Q stuff into their respective articles in general, then I'll support. - rst20xx (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposed topic is "State Highways in Warren County, New York". I-87 is an Interstate Highway. Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  00:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also a state highway, since the state maintains it. --NE2 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahhh yes. Well that explains that. But my other two objections still stand! rst20xx (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 911E is merged into 254 now - but 912Q doesn't have another in-topic article to merge to. Mitch 32 18:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, well, I think technically for that reason I-87 should still have to be in the topic, but I don't want to be a complete prick over an exit ramp, so I'm gonna let it slide, just saying that I hope in the future you get I-87 up to GA and add it to a (slightly-modified-title) topic. Support - rst20xx (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Seems to meet the criteria, at least for a few minutes until you decide to mess with it again. ;) Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  14:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support This looks good now. Gary <b style="color:#02b;"><i style="font-size:large;">K</i>ing</b> ( talk ) 15:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. It's a little unclear what exactly the topic being nominated here is.  If it's only the "touring routes" – that is, routes signed with [[Image:NY-blank.svg|20px]] shields – then U.S. Route 9 in New York should be removed (it is now), and it would be correct not to include the two reference routes (911E and 912Q).  Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway should also be removed though.  If it's all state-maintained highways, then U.S. and Interstate routes should be added back in, as should all of the reference routes in the county.  If you're using List of highways in Warren County, New York as the main article for the topic, then that seems to support the latter interpretation. -- Kéiryn (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So the definition being used for this FT is those highways which pass through Warren, 1) are current and 2) are entirely in New York. So NY 32B (a B-class GA) is exluded for the first reason, US 9 (which is a GA) and I-87 (a B-class) are excluded for the second reason and US 4 (a GA) and US 9W (a Start-class) are excluded for both reasons. NY 912Q should be covered in the FT under the current definition, but is merged into I-87 and hence currently isn't. However, Mitch32 argues it's only an exit ramp. Clear? :P rst20xx (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, no; I-87 is entirely in New York, but is part of the Interstate Highway System. The definition is apparently roads that are not numbered as part of a national system. --NE2 20:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, so it is. Well that's a tweak to 2) then - rst20xx (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment – So what is the final definition of this topic's scope? I'm a bit concerned about whether this is still a unified topic of study.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point, for future ones, it'll only be state touring routes, aka ones in the style shown above by Keiryn. If there are anymore questions, please ask. Mitch 32(UP) 19:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But Kéiryn says that in that case Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway shouldn't be included, which it currently is...
 * (As an aside: note you could now add NY 32B if you wanted to! And then historic routes would be included too. But anyway...)
 * Let me ask a question. I continue to leave my support up for this topic as (912Q mess aside) I think it just meets the criteria, but do you really want to see a featured topic with such a messy definition go through, and one which feels so incomplete, as it doesn't have the non-national routes? (well that's my opinion anyway)
 * If I were you, I'd get I-87 and US 9W up to scratch ASAP, and then get NY 32B, US 9, I-87, US 4 and US 9W into this topic. THEN it'd be truly complete, and incredibly impressive work to boot - rst20xx (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed Prospect, but if 87, 9W, 4, and 9 go in later, I will request Prospect come back. Anyway, if its started with the 9 articles that are left, it'll start as a precedent for the others that I am working on and will work on in the future, which can be seen on this sandbox. That'll give you an idea on what I am working on. My request is that it be promoted with future ones following just the SRs - if it would make any bonus, I can make 9W, 4 and 32B go into a former route topic - to better suit them. Is that possible. Mitch 32(UP) 23:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think including historic routes now would set any precedence - just call this topic "current and former state highways" and future topics "current". In fact I think you should also call this topic "state touring routes" not "state highways" - that'd be clearer.
 * And similarly, including national routes wouldn't set any precedence either IMO.
 * Still not very happy about the 912Q mess... rst20xx (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Renamed per discussion and I will include the others in a supplementary nomination when the time comes. Mitch 32(UP) 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we add "Current" to the name to note that the former one isn't included at the moment? (Question: Why is that?) rst20xx (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if we use this header, can't we readd NY 32B now? It has passed GA and now defines inclusion. Besides, its 1 route, as I said, 9K and 9M are not notable and lack info for an article. Mitch 32(UP) 01:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reset Yes, we can, but you haven't added it to the topic! In my last message, I was asking if you forgot to add 32B to the topic, which I think you missed; I take it you did forget then? As for me, I forgot about 9K and 9M's existence; if you want to add former routes, I think both need to be dealt with in-topic. So let's look at that then. Now, 9K is merged into 9N which is in-topic, so that's OK!, but I think you should technically add U.S. Route 9 in New York to the topic. Seems a bit strange, that, but US9 is what 9M is merged into, so you should add US9 not for the stuff about US9, but simply so 9M is covered in-topic, which I think is a perfectly justifiable move.

In other words Mitch32, I'm proposing you add something like

New York State Route 9K - New York State Route 9M -  New York State Route 32B

to the current nomination, which sets a precedent for having an article twice in a topic, but I think this is fine if it isn't counted twice in the minimum number of articles/minimum number of FAs/percentage of FAs... is that OK by you, Arctic Gnome? - rst20xx (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * More thoughts :/ An example of where what I just suggested we do with 9N/9K could have been done with an existing FT is one of the hurricane season topics, where every hurricane/tropical storm has its own mention in the listing and they all link back to the main article. And this would have clearly been ridiculous. So maybe we should just include U.S. Route 9 in New York and be done with it? rst20xx (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I needed sleep :P - Anyway, I've added NY 9K/9M along with the new article additions of 32B and 9 back - if that seems to be fair, please tell me. Mitch 32(UP) 10:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the point I was trying to make is that US9 was only being added for the bit on it about 9M, ie for the redirect from 9M, ie not in its own right. And the alternative was that we include US9 but not 9K and 9M. Including both wasn't one of the two options I was trying to present, sorry :/ So I've removed 9 itself again for now - is that OK? rst20xx (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, my error. Anyway, is there anything else? Mitch 32(UP) 19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, this is absolutely fine for me now :) Thanks, and sorry this was such a messy process. Though I expect Arctic Gnome will have an opinion on the inclusion of 9M/9K as redirecting to other articles, which has never been done in a FT before, and may want to swap those two out and instead include US9 itself... but if this is what he'd rather do, this'd be fine by me, and I think also you Mitch? At any rate, I expect Arctic Gnome will give his opinion if/when he closes to promote - rst20xx (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments - I appreciate your work at clarifying the scope of this topic, but I don't think that including rediredts or article sections is the way to go. The lead article should explain any subjects that don't need their own article.  Check out the topic about the Featured topics/1998 Pacific hurricane season; in its lead article it has a paragraph on each storm that year and main tags for the three storms big enough to have their own articles.  Your topic could be set up with a similar structure, but you could get away with just copying some information about redesignated routes to the lead article.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ...So in this case, that'd mean merging 9K and 9M into the main topic, right? That's sensible. Mitch? - rst20xx (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I think they have a sentence or two - I'd have to look up some details on 9M, not much exists behind it. Mitch 32(UP) 22:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ...Well oppose until this is done then - rst20xx (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Mitch 32(UP) 21:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This topic has changed enough that we're going to nead a new vote. When you're happy with your new setup, you should add a clear indicator in this discussion saying that the new vote starts from there.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfectly fine to restart the vote here. Go ahead and reset it. Mitch 32(UP) 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay then... weak support - I'd prefer to see national routes included as well but feel this topic meets the criteria - rst20xx (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I think it is fine. As a discloser, I have not followed this the whole time and did not see all of the combinations put forward, but as currently stated I think it is fine. Zginder 2008-07-12T14:16Z (UTC)
 * Close as no consensus - While this does look like it was moving to a support, I think that this topic has changed scope too much for the casual voter to be able to keep track and for it to be clear who supported which version. I recomend a fresh nomination with the consensus version.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)