Talk:County Route 16 (Suffolk County, New York)

U.S. Roads: County roads / New York Low‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. county roads
Locations	New York
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Stub?

This article does not meet the criteria for being a stub as per WP:Stub. An expand tag may be more appropriate. Can someone explain why they added the stub tag back? --- Skapur 04:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because I felt there was too much detail missing on each road that was part of Suffolk CR 16. In addition I selected the miscellaneous facts for each individual road. Terry Road was to have it's own, Portion Road was to have it's own, Horse Block Road was to have it's own, etcetera. By the way, I still say that Horseblock Road article should either be combined into this one, or deleted. DanTD 13:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I do not think stub is the best tag when detail is missing that would require non-trivial work to add. An expand tag is much more appropriate. And I agree that Horseblock Road should be merged and redirected to this article. --- Skapur 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Determining whether or not an article is a stub is purely a judgment call that varies based on the person who looks at the article, regardless of what any policy/guideline reads. People should not have to justify why they added a stub tag - it is only when there is a bitter revert war over the addition of said tag that a discussion is required.

As for the expand theory, this is a valid point, but no one wanting to expand road articles will want (or even think, in most cases) to look in generic expansion categories, whether it be for the article as a whole or a "section stub". A by-project expand template is a possibility; I'll see what I can do.

I also support the merge proposal. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I disagree with the reassessment of this article for the lack of a complete list of junctions. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so if it doesn't qualify as a stub, it doesn't. I'll go along with the removal of the tag if necessary. In the meantime, I'm going to try to work on pages for Suffolk County Roads 46, 51, and I'm considering a separate one for Suffolk County Road 94, that doesn't redirect to New York State Route 24, since an extension for that road was proposed between Exit 71 on the Long Island Expressway and New York State Route 25A at Sound Avenue. DanTD 03:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A by-project expand template/category would be an excellent idea. --- Skapur 04:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on County Route 16 (Suffolk County, New York). 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 19:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]