Talk:New York State Route 28

i-587

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was remerge I-587 into NY 28. The arguments given below for splitting I-587 out have no real logic associated with them, and the logic that is presented doesn't make much sense. Since no one has opposed my merge proposal, I'm going to close this out and perform it. – TMF 18:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the whole route cosing with NY-28? It is a existing normal route, why merge it with this article? Shouldwe put I-587 infobox section back to this article? Otherwise I dont think the merge will make sense?--Freewayguy ^{Discuss Infolog} 23:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the realignments section of the article; I did add an I-587 shield to illustrate. All of I-587 is concurrent with NY 28. The whole history of I-587 is here and isn't enough to support a separate article that would essentially duplicate just that section. There is no I-587 shield on the parent route, for one thing. I did modify the I-587 redirect to this particular section. The browse feature for 587 as well as the I-87 3di series is present and is, IMO, sufficient.
Some useful information in the form of photographs is available here at gribblenation.net and here at Empire State Roads.
As an aside, I can say that I've bicycled the entire length of said interstate highway in both directions, over 25 years ago.Fwgoebel (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I did see the blue guide signs, and I saw the I-587 signs exist, I bet now they still do. I know I-190/SR 190; I-290/SR 290 is two distinctive routes, and they have no way, I would even think about merging it, simply like I-238/SR 238 in California. Those routes should definitely not be merge.--Freewayguy ^{Discussions Show all changes} 23:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't I-587 have its own page? It is an interstate highway even though it is very short and poorly signed. Even Interstate 695 (District of Columbia) has its own page. There number of interstate geeks compared to state route geeks is like a million to one. Someone in California might be interested in reading about I-587 but obviously not NY 28. I know I am interested in reading about a mundane highway like Interstate 359 opposed to Florida State Road A1A just because its an interstate. I think I-587 should be separated from NY 28. It still exists and is not up to us to discriminate which interstates are notable and which aren't. They are all part of the Interstate Highway System. Long, Small, Urban, Rural, doesn't matter. --FatChicksNeedLoveToo (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I see nothing above that gives any valid reasons for keeping I-587 at its own article, I have tagged it to be merged back into this one. The histories and routing of I-587 and NY 28 are wholly redundant. – TMF 04:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If no one objects to the merge, I will perform it within a few days. – TMF 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unmerge the section pertaining to I-587

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lets re-open this for discussion. The Interstate should be its own page since they are far more notable than state routes. Any other site that deals with interstates has a page for every route (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-587_ny.html). Anyway here on WikiMadness, if you want to learn more about I-587, it is confusing to figure out where it is spoken about when confined to a few lines within the NY 28 article. There is no infobox and not much detail about the route. Wiki encourages you to be bold and take things on yourself, but then an admin who claims territory to some section just thinks they can go an revert your edits when it is clearly constructive without any malice to destroy the sight. Lets get some folk in here and discuss this thing opposed to being childish and trying to get our own way. Roll Tide. --Airtuna08 (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Interstate-Guide is a fan site, not a reliable source. I-587 is a 1 mile interstate that is wholly concurrent with NY 28, which is 300 miles. Also, before you complain about WP:OWN, go complain about WP:BRD, which is a completely valid reason to revert you. You started the discussion, stop complaining. I-587 has no construction history to go with it, it is completely unsustainable as its own article. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 21:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source either. Try using it in a paper and your professor will laugh his ass off. It's a place where you should be able to type in a topic and see an article about it. Anyway, name me other interstates that do not have their own page? I know some have their respective state route included in the article (Interstate 4 for example), but the Interstate is the focal point of the article and not visa versa. Tell me how NY 28 is more notable than I-587? An interstate or a state route? Even several unsigned interstates (Interstate 595 (Maryland) has its own. It isn't lumped into US 50.) have their own artcle. It certainly has room to be a sustainable article. In any event, if people want to learn about the I-587 routing a simple page is much easier to read (with the infobox, etc.) than it being buried in a small section in a very large NY 28 article. --Airtuna08 (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily true in every circumstance - Interstate 305 for example. --Rschen7754 22:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't buy that. U.S. Route 8 passes through three states, which normally would mean that it would have state-detail articles. However, when about 250 of the 280 miles are in one state, and another only has 2 miles, that means the best way to cover the material isn't always the "normal rules". Interstate 296 was merged into U.S. Route 131 for a time, but since it's not wholly concurrent, it was demerged. In this case though, I-587 is just a part of NY 28 and does not need its own article.

As a side note, you may not like something, but to make this a case of "admins" vs. "everyone else" is disingenuous. TMF and Mitchazenia are not performing administrator actions by reverting your edits. Admins are just regular editors that have some additional tools and responsibility. When it comes to editorial disputes such as this, they can't wield "power" and "claim territory". You want additional comments, well here's mine: "it was fine as it was and should be left merged." Imzadi 1979 → 22:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In these kinds of situations, the question at hand can be reduced to "Will the reader have a better understanding with separate pages or one entry?". Sometimes, including more information about "x" would cause it to overstay its welcome in parent article "n", and splitting it up makes sense. However, here, information about I-587 is almost certainly better off situated within the context of NY 28. I-587 as a daughter article might simply confuse casual readers by overwhelming them with too many links. Additionally... you would need so much background info about the NY 28 corridor that the sub-article would overlap substantially with its parent. Juliancolton (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Rschen, I said some unsigned routes have pages. Name me a signed interstate that doesn't have a page? Name one. Julian, if the reader wants to find out about I-587, which is an Interstate highway, how is it more complicated to read a smaller article on just that opposed to fishing for something on the NY 28 page. It isn't clear at all. Imzadi, anyone who has been around the block on Wikipedia knows admins think they own the site. It's a cult. --Airtuna08 (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I can name one: Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California). There, the articles are combined since they are essentially the same road. --Rschen7754 02:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Again if you read my first comment, I mentioned that some Interstates are combined with their corresponding state routes, but the interstate is the focal point. In this article the interstate is merely a footnote. --Airtuna08 (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Interstates are just state highways with a special marker, a number from a national grid and a set of minimum standards. When dealing with concurrencies, we do tend to follow DOT and other RSs that prioritize the Interstate number over another number by listing it first, but that status does not imply a difference in importance on its own. The I-587 designation is a footnote because we're talking about 1.21 miles out of 281 miles. That's 1.21 miles of wholly concurrent roadway along a 281-mile highway. What more do you want to say, without copying half of this article in terms of history? Imzadi 1979 → 03:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Interstates are federally funded roadways that stand out on any map you read. For the most part, state routes just blend in. Use your common sense. I-587 is not the only interstate that is wholly concurrent with state or US route, but each of those have their own page. --Airtuna08 (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The tweaks Imzadi has made is a good step in the right direction should I-587 ultimately not get its own article. However, I'd go a step further and call the section Interstate 587 opposed to Realignments to give it the justice it deserves. --Airtuna08 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New York Sufficiency Database

See /sufficiency database

Adirondack pictures?

This is a nice article and congratulations on its appearance on the Main Page. It occurred to me that although the article has a couple of nice pictures of scenery visible from NY-28 in the Catskills, there are no comparably scenic pictures from the Adirondacks. For instance, the view at Blue Mountain Lake is particularly beautiful and if anyone has a picture it would be nice to include it. Opus33 (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

As the guy behind the camera for those Catskill pictures, I couldn't agree more. However, it's a long way from where I live, and with gas prices being what they are I generally don't take trips just to take pictures (these were on my way to a hiking trip). Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hudson River link

The in-page link to the Hudson River redirects to an outside page about Jews and the WTC. Nicely checked for a Featured Article page. It's in the section of Hamilton and Warren Counties. HonkyTonkHarlot (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:VPT#Quartic function has spam inserted directing all clicks to a racist 9/11 conspiracy site. It's problem with a number of articles and templates that are being attacked with this malicious code that overlays a transparent image over the entire page that links to the problematic page. Imzadi 1979 → 05:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo

The photo File:NY-28N-Roosevelt edited.jpg is out of focus. I wondered if there is a Wikipedean who lives or works near the sign who could replace the photo with a better one.Iss246 (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo location

Some of the photos in this article are in a different section than where they are showing/ described. Someone should fix this as I got yelled at by another wiki user for trying to do . 420Traveler (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@420Traveler: can you give some examples of photos that should be moved? Imzadi 1979 → 18:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: The NY 28 at NY 5s picture is actually in Herkimer County but is in the Otsego and Delaware County section and the NY 28 at NY 30 picture is actually in Hamilton County but is in the Herkimer and Oneida County section. 420Traveler (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@420Traveler: ok, so we just shift the full code for the photo from one location to another. We leave the ALT text and other coding intact in the process, and we don't put it in the middle of a paragraph. The goal is not to reduce the quality of the article (by not deleting the ALT text), and it's not to disrupt the existing text. Imzadi 1979 → 13:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Suffixed Routes

Should the suffixed routes section be moved down to under major intersections? Because it's better to put related routes at the end to avoid interrupting the flow of content on the main highway. 420Traveler (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Herkimer, NY Relocation

As you can see here, Herkimer USGS. It shows that NY 28 had a different alignment through Herkimer, before the new alignment of NY 5 was built. Since this is a FA, I feel like this should be added into the history. 420Traveler (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind,  Done -420Traveler (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)