Talk:Washington State Route 99

message: I'm not quite sure why this isn't at B-class already, but I haven't been involved with the article's editing. Therefore, I'll bump it up to C to be safe. CL — 18:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassessment

message: I'm not sure how all the recent edits missed all this, but the part along Tukwila International Boulevard is not only not maintained by the state, but it is no longer part of the route at all.  
I have made edits reflecting this.  However, the milepost numbers are all wonky now and don't reflect any sort of consistency.  I recommend replacing them with the MP numbers used by WSDOT (first column of the highway log).  Cpk1971 (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Change reflecting 2004 act of legislature

message: I've recently uploaded a new aerial photo of Highway 99, below. Feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 09:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New media

message: It should be noted that WA99 also has a segment in Fort Vancouver, WA approximately one block east of I5.  98.108.149.209 (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fort Vancouver segment 

message: Is the shooting incident really relevant to the history of the highway?
The 'Green River Killer' (Gary Ridgway) would be a much more notable set of murders, and isn't mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.122.29 (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 27, 1998 incident 

message: While your recent edits were overwhelmingly useful, the prose you restored in this diff is all ungrammatical. Am I missing something? Please defend. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, but the edit seems to have excluded my changes to the grammar (which I have just finished making). Your edit removed the hyphen between "four" and "block", which is what I intended to restore. SounderBruce 00:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your rephrasing of the "central waterfront" prose really clarified it! And I totally brain-farted on the adjectival use of "four-block". I still find the use of both "formerly" and "until 2019" redundant. IMHO, I would typically strike "formerly" and call it a day, but let me try killing two birds... (I also would typically comma-splice, but I'll restrain myself.) --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 13 February 2019 

message: If the sentence starts out talking about "was completed in 2017" but there was a larger tunnel boring machine launched in 2015, then the sentence "The tunnel was completed in 2017 using Bertha, the world's largest tunnel boring machine," is misleading.  We need to either qualify that it was the largest tbm when launched in 2013 or the "largest" could simply be removed.  There is no citation here and it doesn't make sense to say "largest" if nearest reference year is 2017.  Please reconsider your reversion.  Jwfowble (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead must match the content in the body, where the appropriate citation can be found. Per the Verifiability and Original research policies, we should not be trying to misrepresent facts from reliable secondary sources by conducting our own research. I've corrected the sentence in the lead, but you should never try to insert your own corrections without the backing of good sources. SounderBruce 03:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was editing the article, the body said "Bertha arrived in Seattle on April 2, 2013, and its 40 pieces were assembled in the launch pit before tunnel boring began on July 30—setting a record for the world's largest tunnel boring machine.", which is correct.  The lead must have been updated with a 2017 completion without regard to the rest of the sentence.  I don't think I erred in removing a false, by 2017, claim.  Jwfowble (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "World's Largest TBM" Feb 13 2019 

message: Initiatives and referenda are different, although initiatives are far more common in WA so confusion is common.  One is for citizens initiating new legislation and the other is specifically for referring legislation already approved by the government to a public vote before it becomes law (kind of like citizen approval).  Pg 3 of this pdf may help explain how the terms aren't interchangeable.  Revision from currently inaccurate "initiative" suggested. Jwfowble (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The NewsBank copies of The Times referred to the vote as an initiative campaign, so I guess that where's my confusion lies. Please don't try to keep things pared down here, since the SR 99 article is supposed to be written with WP:SUMMARY in mind. SounderBruce 07:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure I follow the later part of your comment.  Are you talking about attempting to be brief/summary style in the talk section or discussing that more details are OK in the lower/deep-bored tunnel subsection of a SR99 article? Jwfowble (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep-bored tunnel - Initiative vs Referendum 

message: So, , you've just changed my correct and source-supported statement that highway 99 follows the old Military Road in Whatcom County and replaced it with a mostly irrelevant and not entirely source-supported statement that it parallels Military Road in South King County. The Federal Way Mirror source explicitly says that 99 follows the old Military Road in the Bellingham area (aka Whatcom County), so my edit was stating exactly what the original source says. Saying that it parallels it is not quite on topic. If we wish to address modern Military Road, it seems the place to do it is in an article on the original Military Road, not the mostly different Highway 99 built decades later. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more irrelevant to bring up Whatcom County when this article strictly deals with the Fife–Everett section that is now SR 99. The original intent of that statement is to compare the S. King Military Road to SR 99, which are in the same general corridor (west side of the Green River Valley but set back from Puget Sound). Please properly follow WP:BRD next time. SounderBruce 05:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Road in South King County