Talk:New York State Route 112

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

U.S. Roads: New York C‑class Mid‑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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
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.

Questions

Question:

The south end of NY 112 is at Suffolk CR 80/FORMER NYS 27A. How can we show both together, since one is decommissioned and the other is CR 80. Also, I could only get the Major Intersections box to show decommissioned, not the Infobox. Can someone with more knowledge fix this, and can we find a way to show both CR 80 (current) and 27A (former) in the same entry? Thanks!

--Hkelly1 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC) H. Kelly[reply]

See NY 24 for an example of this, which actually involves the same two routes. --TMF ^{T - C} 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does the "Lake 112" section belong on here? This is a very common problem on most highways. Not only that, this area isn't even particularly notorious among Suffolk County residents as a dangerous place (unlike the NY 110 railroad bridge in Huntington Station, under which there have been deaths due to flooding). I corrected the grammar and spelling in the section, but as I was doing so I found myself questioning its purpose/importance in the article.

--Hkelly1 17:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC) H. Kelly[reply]

This belongs in "Miscellanea". --TMF ^{T - C} 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That section of NY 112 has been notorious for severe flooding, even if the aren't killer floods, like the ones you describe on NY 110. As for the southern terminus, Suffolk CR 80 begins just east of NY 112. Neither East nor West Main Streets in Patchouge are considered Suffolk County Roads, despite the former designations as NY 27A. That's the difference between this and the end of NY 24. DanTD 13:09, 27 July 2006 (EST)

I'll remove the CR 80 links then. --TMF ^{T - C} 17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Intersection Template

This article was changed to bring its intersection template to the NYint format. No other changes were made. It is important to verify, update and/or correct as necessary.Fwgoebel 22:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delaying Medford LIRR bridge

I had a much longer description of how Medford residents were waiting for the railroad bridge to be added before 1940, and I can't even find it in older versions of the article. Who deleted it and when? ----DanTD (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong article. ----DanTD (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt to avert an edit war

DanTD: please stop adding WP:SPS (self-published sources) to the article. They're not allowed, except in certain circumstances, as source material for our articles. Going along with that, who cares, in an article about a highway, how many sets of tracks a railroad bridge carried? That fact would be pertinent in an article on that railroad though. Please find sources to completely support the information you've been adding to the article. The mere existence of a store in that company's directory by itself does not verify anything more than the fact that a store exists. You'll need a source that directly says that building the store had the claimed side effects. Before you, or any other party, reverts again, bring all discussion of the issues to this talk page. Inserting hidden comments in the article in a battle royale is not going to help. Imzadi 1979 → 18:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the edit war; 1)I never added any self-published sources, but I do have some scans of relevant letters that I sent to TMF, which I could probably add here. 2)The number of tracks is related to the design of the bridge, which happens to be notoriously low by post-WW2 standards. 3)I'm not saying the store's existance had any impact on the flooding. I'm saying poor design of the widening of Route 112 in the vicinity of the LIE did, and that construction of the Lowe's franchise made most suggested improvements moot points. Likewise, the scans I sent prove this. As for citing other sources, many of these citations already exist, and cover the issues that TMF and Mitch have been wasting their efforts tagging. For the record, I do applaud your effort to avert an edit war. I hate edit wars, but I'm not going to stand by and let anyone eliminate facts because they've don't know the area. ----DanTD (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did add a SPS. http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/medford/medford.htm is a SPS. I don't think that the number of tracks on a railroad bridge is relevant to the highway underneath it. If the construction of the store made other improvements to the highway moot, you need a source that says that. The fact that the store exists (which is all the store directory can verify) does not, by itself, verify that situation. In theory, if you need to include a citation after every sentence to verify the facts in that sentence, then you include a citation after every sentence. As for these "scans" I don't see them as sources in the article. Use them in the article or stop referring to them here. You need to cite your work, not just say you have a source and make us trust you on your word. Imzadi 1979 → 18:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not self-published(I certainly didn't publish it), and it does include references to NY 112 in the vicinity of Medford Station both before and after construction of the bridge. You said yourself that self-published articles are "not allowed, except in certain circumstances, as source material for our articles," and this certainly qualifies here, not so much over the number of tracks as it does with the low clearence issues. Perhaps I can just remove the sentence about the tracks and simply apply it to the sentence about the construction. I realize that the link only provides the existance of the store, but the fact that it exists and not the embankment for a raised grade is relevant to the flooding. Additionally, you're basing the justification for tagging every sentence on a theory. There's something wrong with that. Do we have to go so far as to legitimize someone who tags "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th President of the United States," and every other sentence after this? ----DanTD (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPS doesn't mean that you personally published it. It means that the creator of the content is the publisher. The content does not pass through an editorial review. The exception is for "experts in the field". Chris Bessert created and published http://www.michiganhighways.org. I'm not Chris Bessert (he's User:CBessert around here) but I can't use his website as a source for the history of Michigan Highways. (In full disclosure, some articles still use it until they're revamped and updated to be re-cited to other sources.) I could go through the process to get Chris vetted as "an expert" given the number of newspapers and libraries that reference him, but until I do so, the exception doesn't apply. He personal publishes the website, making it a SPS.

Your source (Lowes has a store here) doesn't support anything about the flooding. To use it otherwise is synthesis. Get a better source that makes the conclusion that the lack of a raise grade means flooding issues. As for your last comment, general common knowledge does not need a citation. What you're writing is not "general common knowledge". Maybe it is in that specific, local area, but it not to the readership of Wikipedia in general. Imzadi 1979 → 19:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And why doesn't that article pass through an editorial review, other than supposedly being an SPS? It contains material related to the history of Route 112 which is in the vicinity of Medford station. Yes, Route 112 is secondary to the article, but it's still covered. Regarding the Lowes' franchise, what I was trying to say with that sentence was that rather than allow NYSDOT to make improvements to the road that prevents flooding, the Town of Brookhaven just let Lowe's build a store along the road. They could've let anybody build anything else along that section of the road and the flooding issue would remain the same. Those scans that I added are designed to prove that. Using the articles mentioned in those scans would be better, but Newsday stopped archiving a lot of their old articles over a couple of years ago. It appears that for a lot of the issues that TMF, Mitch, and you have with this, I have no other choice than to use Google Street View scans. Local and state politics have played a role in the road's history, including the improvements and/or lack thereof. If the issue is over things that only Long Islanders who live or have lived near the road know, then fine. Tag it with that. I vaguely remember Wikipedia having tags related to content that only local-yokels are familiar with. By cite-tagging every sentence though, you're not only casting needless doubt about the article, but you're making a huge mess of it.----DanTD (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, that's a self-published source It's not allowed as a source per Wikipedia community guidelines. Find a map, book or news story published by a reputable source known for fact-checking and accuracy. Those types of sources have internal editorial review processes, and they will pass WP:RS guidelines. Regardless if it contains information related to the history of this highway, this website is not acceptable as a source.

If these "scans" you have are from a reliable source, use them. No one cares if they're available online or not. If they're a reliable source that supports the information you're adding to the article, use them. As for using the Lowe's website's store directory, listen to me very carefully. Re-read what I'm about to say two or three times. That store directory entry only supports the fact that a store exists in that location. It has nothing to do with the Town of Brookhaven and NYSDOT making improvements to the road. You need a source related to the flooding and the causes of those issues. Lowe's is not such a source.

The solution to ^{[citation needed]} is not to argue or blanket remove the tags with  buried in the article. The solution is to provide a source for the information as requested. That's how you fix the situation and clean up the "mess". Imzadi 1979 → 20:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the TrainsAreFun link in order to decide whether it was legitimate or not? Or did you just see that it was from TrainsAreFun and write it off? Two of those scans refer to those reliable news stories. They also show that other people are familiar with the flooding that this section has been known for. You seem to be a little too focused on the fact that there's a Lowe's there, when this paragraph focuses on something that pre-dates the store's construction, which in fact does have something to do with the construction of the road because the construction of the store involved access to and from Route 112. Also, there's no need to tag every damn sentence, when there's already a gigantic tag for the whole article!

Here's a google scan of the area that has those notorious floods(http://img819.imageshack.us/i/viewofny112betweeni495a.jpg/). You can see how the road is laid out. Sorry if Google gave me a view on a sunny day. I'll even get the images of Route 112 from the area where the car dealerships block road improvements later on tonight. ----DanTD (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another notorious view of 112 between Olympic and Southaven Avenues(http://img526.imageshack.us/i/ny112betweenolympicsout.jpg/). There you can see all the car dealerships and stores blocking any new lanes that could be constructed. ----DanTD (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another between Southaven and Tremont Avenues(http://img211.imageshack.us/i/ny112betweensouthaventr.jpg/). There you've got stores that are fairly recent, and much too close to the road. ----DanTD (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did examine the site and I found nothing there to refute the determination that it's a SPS. As for those scans, I was under the impression that the scans were of documents. Those photos won't cut it. In short, you need reliable sources that directly support your claims. The preference is for secondary sources (books, newspapers, magazines, etc. ) but a primary source (DOT/municipal documents, press releases, etc) could also be used. Photos of the area won't work, since you (DanTD) are drawing conclusions. Find a source where someone else draws those conclusions and use it to source the article. Imzadi 1979 → 00:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me expand that slightly. The photos are fine in the sense that they show what's next to the roadway. It's original research for you to say "Too close to the road" or "preventing additional lanes". Our job is not to come up with the information or the theories or opinions. Our job is to collect the information, theories and opinions of others and combine them into a cohesive article. Imzadi 1979 → 00:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the photos in that link show the construction of the road at the time. The scans I posted do refer to newspaper articles, and the info, theories, and opinions of others. Those images may look like original research to you, but looking at them should show that they are too close to the road. Getting somebody to tear them down to widen the road is not as easy as it was in the days of Robert Moses. I don't know how aware you are of this fact, but this is the way things are on Long Island. You don't necessarily have to take my word for it, but plenty of other people will tell you this.

When it comes to citing sources on any articles, I take what I can get. Unfortunatley, what I've shown you is all I can get. This morning I thought I had proof of the proposed extensions south of East Main Street in Patchogue, but I couldn't find it. Now I suspect it may be somewhere I can't get to. I don't know of anything in a book or magazine that proves that what's in the article, in fact, I'd find it hard to believe that either a book or magazine would cover it, And newspaper articles on any road in New York are very hard to come by when you're stuck in Florida. The most I can hope for is to wait for the next trip up north, and hope I can find the material that proves that what's currently in the article is legit. ----DanTD (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, if the newspaper articles contain the information, use them, and then re-read what I said about the photos. You can't use them to cite "too close to the road" because that is your opinion. As for "the way things are on Long Island", I won't take your word. I won't take TMF or Mitch's word either. I will take the word of an author/reporter in published in a reputable source. Produce a source that says the road's to close, and call it a day. Imzadi 1979 → 01:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using "anything that you can get" (paraphrasing) to cite information in articles doesn't cut it on Wikipedia, as 99% of non-press sites fail WP:SPS. The irony of all of this is that this all started when a SPS was added to source a statement that shouldn't even be in the article. Until the 1980s, the CSX mainline had four tracks at the point where it passes over NY 31 in downtown Rochester. It now has three. But how does that affect NY 31 any? It doesn't. The same is true for the statement in question and NY 112. And there are many, many other flimsy statements and sources throughout the article, as Imzadi has correctly described in detail above. The section is also riddled with POV issues (... which has unfortunately created ...; emphasis mine). Given a series of disputes between yourself and myself in the past, I don't anticipate a positive outcome from this discussion, so I've posted this issue to the reliable sources noticeboard. – T M F 19:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that CSX line that passes over NY 31 a low bridge? Do the number of tracks it was designed for have anything to do with the construction of the bridge? If the answer is no, then I can understand your point. ----DanTD (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still has nothing to do with NY 112. Obviously a bridge is going to be built for the number of tracks that were in service at the time. And way to ignore all of the other issues I posted. Not surprised there. – T M F 19:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How am I ignoring any of the issues? Besides the number of tracks it was desinged for, there's also the fact that the bridge has a 12 foot 9 inch clearence. I was ready to take this to RSN, and explain my side, and by the way all the image captures I've made have been kept on the talk page. ----DanTD (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does the bridge being a low bridge have anything to do with anything?

You're clearly ignoring the issues since you haven't cleaned the article up any. – T M F 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a problem for trucks who drive under it, that's how. The bridge was built by pre-World War II standards and makes it a hazard. Nevertheless it's a notable characteristic of the road, or at least a noticeable one. ----DanTD (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But how does it have anything to do with the "once had two tracks" bit and my and others' viewpoint that said bit has no relevance to the highway? It could have had one track and still had just as low of a clearance. And if this low clearance bit is so significant, why isn't it mentioned anywhere? (And see, you ignored all of the other issues again there, like usual. I don't see you cleaning up references or pruning POV wording from the article, like usual).

See, arguing with you is like arguing with a robot who's stuck on a particular setting. You continue to insist what you write is gold, yet you have three overly-qualified editors - myself, Mitchazenia, and Imzadi - saying otherwise. We likely have some idea of what we're doing: between us, we have a dozen FAs, a handful of A-Class articles, and hundreds and hundreds of GAs. Suffolk County has just two articles over B-Class - and you had a hand in neither of them. And clearly, there isn't an intra-state bias against you if an editor from another state (Imzadi) came here unsolicited and left lengthy, detailed comments that you'd do well to learn from. My good faith in you is quickly running out, and I'm not far removed from taking this farther up WP:DR. – T M F 20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on one second; First, you're right about me not mentioning the clearence. That was my mistake, and I can always add this to the sentence. Second, I was actually willing to let the issue of the number of tracks go, until you brought them up again. I still am, but I'm not going to disregard the fact that it played a role in the design of the bridge, whether I leave it in the article or not. Third, many of the other issues regarding the citing of sources has to do with my ability to obtain them. I've just replaced two that were meant as temporary substitutes. Even if they aren't formatted properly, they've been added, and they're better than what was there before. Fourth, a lot of the stuff that you've claimed is POV is anything but POV. The segment in the vicinity of the Long Island Expressway being widened at the time of the expressway's construction isn't POV, nor is the string of car dealerships that line the road in Medford and North Patchogue, nor is the flooding that takes place in the vicinity of the Long Island Expressway and Horse Block Road. For the record, I did read what Imzadi said about obtaining reliable sources, but as I mentioned earlier, my ability to do so is often limited. And as for whether or not I've got any GA articles to my name, I think you'd better check again. New York State Route 101 is my creation. New York State Route 45 was my creation. New York State Route 59 is my creation. New York State Route 306 is my creation, and I may not have been able to bring these articles up to GA status, but I did create them. ----DanTD (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if you'd pull your head out of the sand, you'd see that I'm not calling the issues POV - I'm calling how those issues are worded in the article POV. If you can't see the POV wording, then I really can't help you.

How the bridge came to be isn't relevant to the road, unless the road was realigned as a result of the structure's construction - and even that's sketchy. At the end of the day, the bridge was built and has a low clearance. Nothing more than that is relevant to NY 112.

Why do you add brackets to every citation? Those newspaper articles aren't links, so it's wrong to use them. Those newspaper citations should also be using {{cite news}}.

When it comes to writing Good Articles, it doesn't matter who created it - the editor that can "claim" the GA is the one who brought it up to GA status. – T M F 20:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The road wasn't realigned for the bridge, but it was lowered, although not lowered far enough. Is that relevant enough for you? Normally, I'd just answer that question right off the bat and say yes, because I know they area well enough to answer it, but apparently according to Wikipedia guidelines that counts as WP:OR. I know that the bridge is 12'9", two tracks wide, is right up against the intersection of Long Island Avenue, and that the tracks were raised along an embankment for the bridge which is set at a specific grade. If the {{cite news}} would actually work for me 24/7, and if I had every other detail required for using it, I'd probably use it more often. ----DanTD (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've already commented on this dozens of times, I'll just give the short answer: no. A slightly longer answer: the only relevant points are that the road was slightly lowered for the bridge and that the bridge has a low clearance. Both need reliable sources indicating as much. The number of tracks on the bridge, at the time it was built or now, has no relevance whatsoever to NY 112. Did the bridge rise six inches when the second track was removed? – T M F 23:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that answers that. Everything else about it remained the same. And I did say I was willing to let that go. ----DanTD (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me address something else here; When I add comments to citations, it's not because I think they're wrong for being there. I'm simply trying to address an issue related to the citations. ----DanTD (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the talk page is for. – T M F 20:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DanTD, the images you're trying to use to use as sources [1], [2] are not good references. Someone with 30 minutes on computer could whip those up and take a picture of them. I've removed those as sources. I've also moved the reference for a Lowes location closer to where it's used, and removed a comment with OR reasoning. HTML comments should not be used to put OR in an article. Please read the pages on Reliable sources and WP:V verifiability. Ravensfire (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ravensfire, the two links you posted are one in the same. Unless I'm mistaken, I think you meant to post this as #2. ----DanTD (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the same image was used as two different references which I had removed, but thanks! From the looks of that link, similar concerns exist. For something like that, links to a newspaper article talking about it, or to an NYDOT website that might list something like that are possible options. I cleaned up the mess I left after my edits - corrected the formatting, removed the failed verification tag and removed your comment for that tag. Since I moved the Lowes ref mid-sentence, it's pretty clear that the ref only applies to the Lowes store. Still need a ref(s) explaining the that the plans were scrapped and why. Ravensfire (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have the references, but don't know how to use the templates, ask for help here or one of the various talk pages that can help with that. Sometimes editors will tell you that a ref doesn't pass muster when that's the case, but if it looks good, we'll help out. Ravensfire (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you fix that redlink category "Articles with unsourced statements from January2011?" It needs a space between the "January" and "2011," and I can't find it in order to separate it myself. On another topic, I just found a source that I thought was lost, but I'm going to use it for something else here. As for the Lowe's and how it thwarted the flood prevention proposals, the construction of the store on ther side of the road required clearing some land, that could've been used for drainage, and the need to raise the road was neglected. I'm sorry if I can't find a source on this, but that is what it's about. ----DanTD (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The category is from a mis-typed parameter I added. When you add some maintenance tags, such as citation needed, you can include a date parameter. I put "January2011", not "January 2011". The bot came along and fixed it for me. It's a hidden category, meaning it normally doesn't display on the page. It exists in the background where people can go there to see which articles have a cite needed tag from 2011. And I understand about the proposals, but without a good cite, the tag has to remain. If the store construction cancelled previous plans, there might be something in either the local government or local media about the construction impacting road plans. Just a thought. Ravensfire (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news. I can't add the source according to TMF's stingent standards. So If I do add it, I'm going to have to do it the way I usually do. ----DanTD (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what? My standards are those set by NYSR, USRD, and the Manual of Style. None of those standards are "mine". If you're referring to why this edit resulted in a broken reference, you're missing an equals sign between "newspaper" and the paper name. – T M F 23:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was referring to. Thanks, and I saw my mistake with that one. ----DanTD (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

OK, the next major issue with the railroad bridge: that "TrainsAreFun" SPS doesn't mention a clearance for the bridge anywhere on the page. I searched for "12" and "twelve", and there's nothing there. Additionally, NYSDOT gives a clearance of 13'8" for that bridge. See [3], and click on the map to launch the tool. – T M F 23:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One image within this article does show the clearence right here, and the signs at the bridge still indicate this clearence. The rest of the article's relevance to Route 112 is general information about the crossing both before, during, and after construction of the bridge. ----DanTD (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh...I guess. The picture really isn't that clear, and no one can say for certain that it says the given measurement. (Someone's word isn't good enough, as discussed in the section above.) I guess it can stay as a reference, but it'll have to be replaced eventually if this article is to move up the assessment scale. The rest of your comment really has nothing to do with whether or not the link should be used as a reference for the sentence. It's a justification for having it as a non-reference external link if it wasn't used as a reference, but it's irrelevant for the reference situation that I began this section with. – T M F 01:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do plan to drive back up to the island in the Spring of 2011, and my plans include digging through files at a house owned by a friend of the family just east of this bridge. So there's a possibility I may try to take a picture of that sign, and hopefully I can find some sticker indicating the year it was installed. I'll tell you this, those low clearence signs have been around there for as long as I can remember. ----DanTD (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - Here you go. The sign was replaced, but the height is the same 12'9" as it has been since 1940. ----DanTD (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]