Talk:New York State Route 347

message: 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 21:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of Intersection Template 

message: Footnote 10 12 states the following about CR 26:
<CR 26 marker>New Suffolk Road, Main Street
LOCATION: Cutchogue to New Suffolk
STATUS: Two-lane road (unsigned)
NOTES: This route is maintained by the Town of Southold. In the early 1980's, CR 26 was the proposed designation for the NY 25A bypass in Rocky Point.
This can't be used to support the following sentences:
*"Another extension was planned by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works in the early 1980s."
*"The highway, known as the North Brookhaven Expressway[citation needed] and proposed as CR 26,"
In addition, footnote 10 12 is from a self-published source and should not be used to cite any information in a Wikipedia article. Footnotes 1, 3, 4, and 9 should also be removed and replaced by other sources for the same reason. Imzadi 1979 →  23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit has removed the footnote from the sentences it does not verify and moved it to the one it does. Now it is it footnote 12. Imzadi 1979 →  23:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you fix this source;" NETR Online (1954). NY 112-Nesconset-Port Jefferson Highway Traffic Circle [map]?" When I added it, I thought it focused on the NY 112-Future NY 347 traffic circle that was originally at that intersection, but instead it focuses on something else. Using online maps as citiations would be better if they focusesd on what you wanted them to. ----DanTD (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Some online mapping sources generate URLs that can be used to point the reader to the specific location on the map. If not, I can't help you. That doesn't address the issues I raised above. You've had three editors agree that the footnote you added to the article does not verify the information in the sentence where you placed it. The blockquote above is the full text of that source related to CR 26, and it doesn't verify those two sentences where you used it, which is why ,  and I agreed. They placed or replaced the tags. I removed the footnote completely to rectify the situation. Imzadi 1979 →  00:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  What Mitchazenia claimed was that it wasn't in the citation given, and I added a direct quote to prove otherwise. If the issue was over the reliability, he should've said so. Regarding the issue of the Rocky Point NY 25A Bypass being a segment of this proposed road, I'd remove or rewrite that, because the NY 347/Suffolk CR 26 right-of-way was actually supposed to be south of this bypass. ----DanTD (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the blockquote above. The footnote that's named "cr26" which is the footnote for: Anderson, Steve. "Suffolk County Roads 26–50". NYCRoads. Retrieved March 18, 2010. I've quoted that above in the blockquote.  The direct quote you used for an edit summary, "In the early 1980's, CR 26 was the proposed designation for the NY 25A bypass in Rocky Point" only partially supports the sentence "A very faint vestige lives on, however, in the Rocky Point Bypass section of NY 25A" in the article. That does not address the other two places that the footnote previously appeared. In short, if any footnote appears in multiple locations, it needs to support  the information from those locations. This footnote did not. When Mitchazenia, Fredddie and I looked at the webpage to verify the information, and couldn't find support for it in the source, the  tag was appropriate. Imzadi 1979 →  01:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

text: P.S. Now, if you meant to repeat a different footnote that cites a different one of the Steve Anderson/NYCRoads citations, that's a different story, but rather than remove a valid tag in a knee-jerk reaction, look to see if you got the wrong citation there, or even double check that the citation you're using actually verifies the sentence you say it does. In any case, all of the Steve Anderson/NYCRoads citations should be removed and replaced in the article, period, but that's a second issue. Even if you're using sources in contravention of policy, they still need to verify the information present in the article. Imzadi 1979 →  01:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag that Mitchazenia added was in fact , which I thought was completley different from . I had no idea that "Not in citation given" was merged into "Failed verification," and I thought he tagged it that way because he believed the source didn't mention that fact. ----DanTD (talk) 03:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please stop arguing around the issue here? The point is that a footnote was used in three places, and the text of the source from that footnote plainly does not verify two of those uses. Imzadi 1979 →  04:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed verification in a source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on New York State Route 347. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100421073203/http://www.nycroads.com/roads/suffolk_076-100/ to http://www.nycroads.com/roads/suffolk_076-100/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100423182257/http://www.nycroads.com/roads/suffolk_026-050/ to http://www.nycroads.com/roads/suffolk_026-050/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)