Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/New York State Route 20SY

New York State Route 20SY

6 articles

New York State Route 5

New York State Route 20N

New York State Route 92

New York State Route 173

New York State Route 321

Essentially the twin to Wikipedia:Featured topics/New York State Route 20N, this is the 2nd of the two topics that are falling under this series. NY 20SY, like 20N was assigned over several different highways, this time, NY 5, NY 92, NY 173, NY 321 and of course, NY 20N. Like 20N, it was decommissioned and the routes it was assigned over remained the same. Now, eventually, this will grow into a Featured Topic, but right now, its sufficient enough for a good topic. (Also you could say NY 174 counts now because its part of old 20SY currently, but for now, it is unrelated.) Mitch32^(UP) 01:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question is it me or the 5, 20N, etc have only a part of them overlapping with the 20SY? Are the highways listed at the bottom truly within the scope of the main article? Nergaal (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes. This follows the same as NY 20N, which were two special cases of highways being assigned over pre-existing state routes. Also, there is overlap with NY 20N, but there are differences - 5, 321 are new. The routes at the bottom are just what it intersected with, that has no relation at all. Again, the only route you could add is New York State Route 174, which makes up part of the alignment in present time. 5, 20N, 92, 173, and 321 are the alignment that 20SY used. Those intersections at the bottom have no influence on this topic.Mitch32^(UP) 16:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Another roads-related topic. ~~ C o m p u t e r G u y 17:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, these twin topics will have "subtopic" links to each other. Weird. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 20:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slight oppose I am unconvinced this is a valid topic. Correct me where I am wrong, but does it seem ok to have a highway 50km long that is the main article of a topic that includes highways several thousand km long? This topic seems to set the precedent for this type of example. Nergaal (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I explicitly stated that there are only 2 of this kind. Why are you opposing when there is already a topic that has passed? There is precedent already and unless you wanna make a stink over it, there is no point in opposing it.Mitch32^(UP) 01:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me it sounds like a Mississippi topic where the subarticles are the states that the river flows through. Intersecting should not be a criteria for a topic. Nergaal (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you has misinterpreted something. Read 20N's nomination and this nomination and you'll understand why. NONE of these are intersections, these are the routes that these two special routes followed. If I had put in the intersections, there would be at least 20 articles in this topic. I don't know what else I've said that's confusing.Mitch32^(UP) 10:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here is an example: route 5 is 800km long, and less than 150km overlap with 20SY. How is 5 a subpart of 20SY??? Nergaal (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue to do this? Read the dang article, because I can tell you are not understanding this.Mitch32^(UP) 20:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - I am left feeling quite uneasy that this topic shares 4/6 articles with another topic, and am unsure whether this constitutes excessive overlap, however I feel that both topics alone are structurally fine, so I shall weak support - rst20xx (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you're point that it overlaps a lot, but that was part of the point with these two highways, its not something I can help.Mitch32^(UP) 02:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I'm not too concerned about the topics overlapping. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Juliancolton Z gin der 2008-11-10T17:22Z (UTC)
Weak support - Seems okay, but I agree with some of the issues about overlap raised by Rst20xx (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - I'm on the fence with this one. The overlap is a bit much, and two topics being subtopics for eachother is a bit odd. That being said, this does meet the other criteria well enough and it has its supporters. I think this should be left open for a couple more days and if there are no other objections in can probably be passed. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to ask that you change your votes, but, I cannot remove NY 92, 20N, and 173 from the topics, because then I would be cherry-picking. I also don't understand for whatever reason, you guys are making a problem out of this, when the prior one passed with no strings attached. Understand this, roads overlap, roads will always (on FT/GT) have at least 2 articles overlap at the least.Mitch32^(UP) 12:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The overlap suggests that that the two topics could be combined into one larger topic about this stretch of road. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. Could these 2 topics be made into 1 topic, and would it make sense to do so? Rreagan007 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch, (I think I know what the answer would be but) care to comment on the feasibility of this? rst20xx (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll deal with it on 1 condition. Some actually help me get at least 2 articles to FA so I can keep its Featured Topic status, because even if it passes, the it will lose its Featured credit. I don't mind if they are merged, I do mind if it gets demoted.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 14:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote - based on Arctic Gnome's comments above, my reading is that this has consensus. I am not sure how these two topics would be made into one as they would have to have more than one lead article, something that has not been done before, and the feasibility of which would need to be discussed on the criteria page in advance - rst20xx (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]