Talk:New York State Route 32/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Correct southern terminus location

NYSDOT describes this road as beginning in Harriman [1]. The interchange in question is very close to the Harriman village line; it's long been informally described as the Harriman interchange. And more to the point, it's not even in the Town of Monroe but rather the Town and Village of Woodbury.

Therefore, I've changed the article appropriately. (I think some of the confusion lies from the nearby location of three of the Monroe-Woodbury schools). Daniel Case 16:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting this question - since the terminus is in the Town of Woodbury and Woodbury is now an incorporated village, would it make more sense to say "in Woodbury" rather than "near Harriman"? --Polaron | Talk 21:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox reduction

When I saw the cleanup tag placed on this article, I noted that NY 32 is unique in that for its relatively short distance, it intersects quite a few US and Interstate highways, and a few of them, more than once (including concurrencies with US 9W and US 4). Because of the number of such intersections, I opted to try placing multiple municipalities on the same line as the first intersection with that route. Note that this puts three locations on both 9W and 4, and with that, wraps the text (I forced the line break to place "and" on the same line as the last town). Because I have not yet noted this in any other NYSR article, I decided to be bold here and experiment with this (and see how it's received by the other editors in this project). If nothing else, I managed to get the line count down to exactly ten and with that still include every US and Interstate highway intersected. Feedback is invited. Fwgoebel 04:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

After reading my own entry, I thought (correctly) that NY 22 should have a similar situation, and having checked that, confirmed. I noted that article to use the word "then" between the multiple municipalities, so I changed this article's to match that. And, I discovered I had missed one along the way, so we're now down to nine lines of listed highways. Fwgoebel 05:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Good place for a picture

While driving up to the Catskills last weekend to go snowshoeing I kept my eyes open for a good spot for an image, and found one even better, here near Katsbaan.

It's not immediately obvious from the topo, but ... well, you can see where the road goes down to cross the (other) Beaverkill and then back up again into the small notch between the two hills. What you can't see in the topo is the Escarpment and Kaaterskill High Peak looming ahead. It's great ... it looks like the road is climbing up into the mountains. I can't imagine a better possible image to illustrate that section of the article.

I am hoping to get up there and take it in the summertime, when it should be all green, with a blue sky behind it. But if someone else wants to take a crack at it if I can't, you have your location. In summertime, you should have the sun at a good angle most of the day, preferably in the morning and midday (the former would give you a better image, as the sun would be shining across the mountains and give you more relief, and a bluer sky behind the mountains to boot). Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be going up to Albany tomorrow. The weather forecast is great. I will take this on the way. Daniel Case (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Got it! Hope I can get it in soon. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    "The road passes many interesting features such as the Catskill Mountains." Need more than one interesting feature for this sentence to work. Also, avoid use of the relative directions "turns right". What is Ulster BOCES? "road becomes a commercial strip" should be reworded. Some {{convert}} templates needed.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The Josiah Hasbrouck assertion needs to be referenced.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    "Immediately following it on the right is Woodbury Common Premium Outlets, a popular shopping destination that has created major traffic jams on busy weekends." Not NPOV unless there's a source that's not Google Maps. "Almost invisible" is a bad adjective for a town.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

A few things. Good read overall. Good luck! —Rob (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything has been fixed as far as I can see. :) - Mitch32contribs 00:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks good enough to me. I'm still not sure if that Ulster thing is a building or not (that's a safe assumption, but it should be explicit). Also, even a hidden hamlet needs to be explained. Is it physically shielded from the road? Off the road? Does another road lead into it? The new link to the biographical entry is somewhat borked... maybe a ref to the historical society's webpage instead? (if it exists?) —Rob (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Since I wrote most of that section, I can explain. I didn't expect that this would be nominated for GA at this point ... the route section should be made much more detailed from Albany to the northern end.
  • "Ulster BOCES" is a school.
  • I can certainly source the traffic jams if it hasn't been already ... Lord knows there are enough articles about them in the Times-Herald Record.
  • I'll have to review to see which hamlet I meant was almost invisible. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • OK. There is really almost nothing more to Maple Hill than the sign telling you it's there. Properly deleted as the hamlet really isn't notable. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Of all the articles Wikipedia has, I did not expect to see my own NY 32 (live less than a mile away from it near the Catskills) as today's feature article. I love the road, but why is a state route a featured article? Shouldn't something a tad more important take the cake? Strange, haha. --FatChicksNeedLoveToo (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We'll just call it an argument for better articles on broader scopes. If it's notable and very good, why not put the article on the front page? —Rob (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It's called a featured article, not a featured subject. We had shoe polish on the front page once upon a time, after all. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with FatChicks. With all due respect, Mr. Case, this is really a pretty silly topic for an article to be in Wikipedia in the first instance, let alone as a featured article. I don't doubt the accuracy of what's in there, or that it's well-written and comprehensive, but frankly, who cares? Did Washington march along this route in the Revolutionary War? Was it part of the Underground Railroad? Did bootleggers smuggle 50% of all outlawed alcohol into New York City during Prohibition along this road? If not, then this road is just another road, one of many, many thousands in this country, all equally unimportant.
By allowing this article to exist in Wikipedia, you are in effect saying that there can and should be articles about every single state route and road, highway and byway, parkway and thruway in the entire country. That is ridiculous. It's a friggin' road. If it were an important road for some reason, either historically or culturally, like Route 66, then by all means, fine, that would be a reason for an article about it. Otherwise, no. And especially not an article that describes every twist and turn, as this one does. It's as if there should be an article about every single person in the world, even though most of us aren't important enough to rate one. How do I let the powers that be know that I believe this article should be deleted? --Jgroub (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)User:Jgroub
Already happen man, and even if you bring it up on WP:AFD, no one's gonna have it deleted. Very few to none Featured Articles are deleted. Go ahead and try, but I know well its not being deleted. Its notable enough, and a turn-by-turn article is a good thing.Mitch32(UP) 16:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Listen, I'm sure you're right that it won't be deleted - after all, why would they have picked it to be a featured article in the first place? But to me, to FatChicks, and I'm sure to a whole lot of others, I think that this whole subject of public roads is simply not a notable enough topic for an article, or for that matter, a whole series of articles for each of the public roads in this country, especially articles that are of such great length as this one. A short article, say briefly describing the length and general route of a 170-mile road like this, in one or two paragraphs, okay, dumb, but I can see the point, based on Daniel Case's description below. But an article of this length? With respect, I think it's plain silly. --Jgroub (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)User:jgroub
Look at WP:USRD/P - this shows articles that have been AFDs and most to all have been kept. NY 32 is a 170-mile road that supplies much of Eastern NY. No one will agree to an AFD.Mitch32(UP) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Public roads are notable in that public money, sometimes lots of it, is spent constructing and maintaining them. They help define and shape the communities and regions they connect, lend their designations to businesses, and so forth. They outlast the people who build them.

It has long since been a settled issue here that all U.S. federal and state highways of a given length are notable enough to deserve their own articles, although with some shorter ones, they've been bundled into larger articles or lists. County roads, on the other hand, have to achieve some independent notability, as do streets that aren't part of the highway system. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, respectfully, I disagree with what you're saying here. "Define and shape the communities they connect?" Any road will do that; that's not notable. "Lend their designations to businesses?" What, like Route 32 Cleaners? Route 32 Locksmith? That's not enough to be notable in my book, unless it's the Route 32 Ampitheatre, or the Route 32 Airport. If what's notable about a public road is that public money is spent on it, and in this case of a 170-mile long road, a lot of it, as you put it, then list how much money is being spent and why. And Daniel, may I suggest writing articles on more notable topics? You're listed as the primary writer here, and the writing is good. It's the insignificance of the topic I vehemently disagree with. --Jgroub (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)User:jgroub
There are no insignificant topics, only insignificant writers IMO. I've written articles, long recognized ones, on other things besides roads: Anna Wintour, The Devil Wears Prada, Jacobson v. United States. Oh, and U.S. Route 9 in New York. I've mostly rewritten an article about a fictional company that exists only on a popular sitcom to Good Article status. Other people have written featured articles on roads (Interstate 355, Kansas Turnpike), and not just American ones either (M62 motorway). Listing the money spent would be trivial, even though that is as a whole one of the things that make a road notable. Public buildings are notable for the same reason (among others) but we don't list the sums of money spent on them unless they're significant rehabilitations and publicly reported.

As the saying goes, Wikipedia isn't paper. We can have nice long articles on notable topics if people do enough research to prove they're notable. We have history of sex in India. We have sound of fingernails scraping chalkboard. We have Japanese toilets (an early FA). Daniel Case (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, didn't see you had posted up here. I agree that most of the other topics you list there are non-trivial, but non-triviality isn't - or if it is, should not be - the hallmark for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Significance, and as you point out, notability, or noteworthiness, is.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore it is not supposed to be a compendium of all human knowledge. It is a reference, or a reference point for further investigation. Non-notable roadways simply don't cut it for inclusion into an encyclopedia. And Daniel, you were the one who raised the issue that public money is being spent on these roads, not me. If you now take the position that the amount of money being spent is trivial, then why did you bring this point up in the first place as a reason why articles on public roadways are notable?
I thought you'd say something like that. I should have put it better ... "notability attaches as part of a publicly-supported transporation infrastructure". To me that means you don't have cite chapter and verse ... I mean, for a somewhat major improvement, like the bridge rehab, if a newspaper article happens to mention how much it costs, we'll put it in. But putting in the article that "this one-mile section out in the middle of nowhere was repaved at a cost of X" is the sort of thing that counts as trivia within the context of the article itself, over and above whether the subject has been deemed notable.
And yes, while Wikipedia isn't paper, I frequently see headers on articles querying whether the article should be subdivided due to its length. Given the subject matter I agree completely with your statement that "We can have nice long articles on notable topics if people do enough research to prove they're notable." But what you haven't answered is what is notable about this state road as opposed to the thousands of others in this country. Point me to the place in the article where you've proven that NY 32 is notable from all the other roads. --Jgroub (talk)
See above. It is part of a U.S. state's transporation infrastructure and to me, notable in and of that. --Daniel Case (talk)
And that's precisely where we disagree. Your analogy is right on the money; this situation is exactly analogous to your discussion on high schools versus middle schools, below. While I might agree that a nation's transportation infrastructure is notable in and of itself (roads like I-80, I-95, US 1, etc.), I would draw the line right there as to notability. To my mind, a state road is inherently un-notable, unless there is something particularly notable about it, like, as I've mentioned, it was Washington's route to Saratoga, etc. As you pointed out, that drawing of the line at state roads instead of county roads in terms of notability is completely arbitrary. Why are county roads all of a sudden inherently non-notable?

Having said that, I guess drawing the line at federal roads is also arbitrary, but based on the criteria of it being about "a nation's transportation infrastructure," as opposed to a state's, to my mind, that makes it much less so. So it all comes down to a sense of arbitrariness in relation to notability. Now that you've explained it though - which I do appreciate - I see your point. I guess I'm done here; from my perspective we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for taking the time to explain your side of it, and for an interesting discussion. --Jgroub (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Jgroub (talk)

I would use two analogies here. We have an ongoing fight about at what level public schools in the U.S. are inherently notable. Most people in the schools project believe they all are, down to the smallest primary school. People outside that project disagree. But there has been a general consensus and understanding between them that all local high schools are inherently notable as the highest level of school supported by a local public body (the school district). Middle and elementary schools usually have to prove some sort of independent notability (which, as some people have noticed, often biases us to writing about schools that have some sort of negative media coverage attached to them, but that's another story). To me it's the same as the principle at work as with roads: state highways are notable, county ones are not.

Then there are state legislatures. We seem to have come to the conclusion that everyone who serves, or has ever served, on such a body is notable. And then allowed the rest of the developed world that same principle. So we have articles about people who are notable for short tenures on those bodies. So if state legislators are individually notable, I don't see why state highways couldn't be.

You also seem to imply that we should have limited coverage to the notable aspects of the subject. Sometimes, for some articles, particularly biographies, we make that decision. But I think we decided against that as a community because we'd be left with a lot of stubby articles, and if someone is notable enough to have an article, then they're notable enough to have a comprehensive one discussing (assuming sources are available) what they did in their whole life besides just sitting in the state legislature for a few quiet months after someone died and they got appointed to fill the seat. So I would rather comprehensively describe a state road which plays a part in the daily lives of not only myself but thousands of citizens of two entire regions and the state's capital city. (And not all road articles are this long: New York State Route 416, which is near where I live as well, is about four miles long and has an appropriately short article that I doubt will ever get much longer because the road itself (which is actually fairly important to the county's road network) will never get any longer, either). Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Significance is a subjective issue. How would you define a significant topic? Would obscure topics on advanced mathematics that non-mathematicians for the most part don't care about merit inclusion? Wikipedia also has articles on very small settlements that are unlikely to get past the stub status but the community as a whole has determined them to be notable enough for inclusion. In the same way, the Wikipedia community has deemed that many of these state highways are notable enough for inclusion. --Polaron | Talk 19:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Daniel, nice article on Dunder Mifflin. How great is The Office? I love that show too! But I won't get into the appropriateness for the inclusion of an article on it in Wikipedia. --Jgroub (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Jgroub (talk)
Polaron, I would define significance simply as whether someone would ever look this up as a reference. I just don't see that happening with Route 32, outside of the people who wrote it, represented in these comments here. Route 32 might be worthy of being looked up if it had some historical, or cultural, or other significance, as I discussed above in my references. But after reading the article, there ain't no such significance to this road. I could see someone - not me, and apparently, not you either - possibly looking up those topics on advanced mathematics as a reference. But who would look up something about a road that's just another road? Yes, there are plenty of tiny communities listed in Wikipedia as stubs, but that's my compromise here - to have this article be a stub, one or two paragraphs long. This road, which is just another road, does not warrant such a full-length description as it has received here. That's all I'm saying. --Jgroub (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh? You're arguing that this should be turned into a stub? How do you know people don't look up major through roads like this? If someone were to show you that this gets more search hits within Wikipedia than some obscure advanced mathematics topic, would you be convinced that it's a good topic? Or are you going to ignore any evidence that doesn't agree with your point? --Polaron | Talk 21:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about a popularity contest to determine what is and isn't in an encyclopedia. "In the same way, the Wikipedia community has deemed that many of these state highways are notable enough for inclusion." That is obviously true by its selection as a featured article, and I've made pretty clear how much I disagree with that. And I fully realize that I'm just spitting into the wind here, but if this article is worthy of its extreme length, then I submit that Wikipedia is trying too hard to be all things to all people. Let me put it this way. 10 years ago, before Wikipedia existed, would you have reached for your trusty old World Book encyclopedia, or even your Encylopedia Brittanica to look up Route 32? No, you would not have; there's no way. What is the significance of this road, other than that it is 176 miles long? Nothing, and I mean nothing important is associated with this road, or you guys certainly would have mentioned it.
On the other hand, would you have reached for an encyclopedia 10 years ago to look up - your example - a mathematical formula? Even if the formula you were looking for wasn't in there, you could reasonably argue that it should have been. And that, my friend, is significance. There's no way you would expect to see articles about roads like Route 32 in an encyclopedia, and especially not at this length. I mean, geez, a turn-by-turn annotation of this road? How is that even remotely significant or notable? Who would be looking up this article for that information? This entry should be limited to the first three paragraphs, and that's it.
About three or four years ago, when I first heard about and started using Wikipedia, I decided to put in an entry that I thought was worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia - an article on Diana Nyad. Don't ask me why I chose her, not that I'm a fan or anything, but I thought she was significant enough, having swum around Manhattan Island, to be included. So I did a little internet research on her, typed it up, and posted it. It was deleted the very next day. At that time, she wasn't deemed important enough by someone. Now there is a three-paragraph article on her.
My comments here aren't directed specifically at articles on minor state roadways; this is just what got me going. My comments are directed at what the nature of an encyclopedia is. The most important comment I can make here is that an encyclopedia should not be a complete catalogue of every single thing in a specific field, but only of those things that are important in a specific field. So US 1, sure. US 66, absolutely. I-95, why not? But NY 32? Come on. Please. I mean if we're going to do this, then the next step is for every person to have their own entries in Wikipedia as well. --Jgroub (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, so now we see where this is coming from. We have a personal grudge here. And is this what you created (as an IP) about Miss Nyad? Because that's what was created and deleted three years ago.

[deleted as not really relevant; just proved a point] Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I didn't post any of that Orlando Bloom tripe. I have no idea what that is. And no, it's not a personal grudge for having a post deleted. My point is that someone as "important" as Diana Nyad rates three paragraphs, while NY 32 goes on and on and on and on.
That was the only thing that I found in the deletion log for that article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, forget about the messenger; let's stay on the message, which you have been studiously not addressing. The question here is what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. If you think it should include a catalogue of every single state road in the country, then they should rename this website Wikilogue. But as long as it's still named Wikipedia, I'll still take the position that it should not be a cataloguing of every single thing in the world, but only of the notable things in the world. Respond to that. --Jgroub (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should go start a discussion at the talk page of WP:NOTE as what you're saying would lead to a drastic change in policy. --Polaron | Talk 14:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Polaron, thanks. I knew there had to be a more appropriate place to vent than this, but I had no idea where that might be. Thank you for telling me where I should be. --Jgroub (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Jgroub

New information on route in Albany County

I went ahead and corrected minor issues with the route description in Albany County north of the city of Albany per WP:BOLD after I got no response from asking for help on if I needed to reference anything. I did go ahead and reference Google maps after checking to make sure it was right on there, since Google maps are already referenced in other parts of the article. I must state however as I am unsure if Google is correct about 2nd Ave becoming 9th Street, I do not like Google's maps as they often have mistakes (this is often the case with these large internet maps made by national corporations), I would prefer to check a locally made map (most likely Jimapco) and double check as they are more accurate on local odditities, street name changes, etc. I hope to contribute more on the section and put in more information on NY 32 in the Capital District as I believe the article skews heavily towards more downstate detail and is just cursory in its coverage of the CD.Camelbinky (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on New York State Route 32. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York State Route 32. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York State Route 32. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_State_Route_32/Archive_1&oldid=1148851874"