![]() | New York State Route 28 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | New York State Route 28 is the main article in the New York State Route 28 series, a featured topic. It is also part of the State highways in Warren County, New York series, a good topic. It is also part of the State highways in Hamilton County, New York series, a featured topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 19, 2012. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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. – T M F 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)
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. – T M F 04:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If no one objects to the merge, I will perform it within a few days. – T M F 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | New York State Route 28 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | New York State Route 28 is the main article in the New York State Route 28 series, a featured topic. It is also part of the State highways in Warren County, New York series, a good topic. It is also part of the State highways in Hamilton County, New York series, a featured topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 19, 2012. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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. – T M F 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)
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. – T M F 04:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
If no one objects to the merge, I will perform it within a few days. – T M F 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)