Talk:New York State Route 104B/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] New assessment class for short roads?

After reading through the article, I find that there isn't enough to upgrade it from "Start-class." That having been said, this is such a short road, and there aren't any landmarks of significance. This, to me, is a scenario where it could be part of a different class assessment, perhaps a "C-class"? I just don't think it's "B-class" worthy, but then again, that's not an editor's fault, that's simply because the road is so short. --myselfalso 12:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but I have to disagree with you. Some people would question why we are devoting any time to any of these roads except the most important, but the answer is that every piece of information contributes to the completeness of the whole. Yes, it takes less time to document a short road than it does to document a long road (although I spent a lot of time on 104B, since I felt I also needed to write an article on the hamlet of Texas to avoid a redlink), but I would maintain that as long as the major elements of the article are in place — info box, complete route description, documentation of major intersections and communities — the article deserves to be rated more than "start" class. A "C-class" sounds like it is somehow beneath "B-class". If a new classification is warranted (and I don't think it is), I would prefer some thing like "B-class (short)". ubiquity 12:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

The recent additions to the article now warrant an upgrading of the article to B-class. Remember, just because the article is short does not mean that it doesn't meet B-class standards. After all, I don't know how much more can be added to an article about a "spur" route in rural CNY other than a map, which will be coming soon. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. I guess it seems unusual to have a complete article that's so short. --myselfalso 20:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and your assessments, both of you. ubiquity 20:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)