Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/New Jersey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

New page I started

Its not big yet.Please help.HurricaneCraze32 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

List of New Jersey 600-series secondary county routes

Thanks for your effort. We used to have two different pages for 500 and 600 series county routes, but it was decided to merge them into a single page at County routes in New Jersey. Thus, I'd like to merge the information you've provided here into that page as well. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

New proposal for county routes

I've made a new proposal for what we do with county routes. Since this page hasn't seen all that much action yet, I've put it on Talk:County routes in New Jersey instead. -- NORTH ^talk 04:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Browsing order

Northenglish is including every route - unsuffixed, suffixed, bannered, etc - in the browsing. This leads to issues of ordering - does S1A come before or after US 1 Alternate? Does 9 come before or after US 9W? I propose the following:

• Only add unsuffixed and unbannered routes to the browse box, with rare exceptions. Those exceptions are mainly routes that were not numbered because of their supposed "parent". So for instance Route 5N, which was part of pre-1927 Route 5, unrelated to post-1927 Route 5, would be included.
• Other routes would not have a browse box. I can easily add code to the infobox to not show the browse box if there is the arguments are blank.
• Those routes with no browse box would instead have a link to the parent, either in the infobox or in see also.
• Routes with children would have those children listed in see also.

Any comments? --SPUI (T - C) 01:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

See User:Northenglish/Sandbox2. This is the order I've been working on. -- NORTH ^talk 01:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with putting US 9W after 9. But I also disagree with including all of those in the browsing order, whether or not we can agree on an order. --SPUI (T - C) 01:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem switching US 9W and Route 9. Here's my philosophy. If we're redirecting the old lettered spurs to what they were renumbered to (i.e. Route 25A (New Jersey), which points to Interstate 280 (New Jersey)), then the browsing should point there as well. However, if we were discussing 25A mainly on the article on Route 25 (which is the case with Route 29A and Route 29, hence it's not repeated in the browsing order), then there would be no need.

Basically, since we're treating them as wholly separate routes with linking/redirecting, we should be doing that with browsing as well.

Frankly, though, I think we're giving far too much weight to the historical designations. An alternative would be to only include current routes in the browsing order, and expand the renumbering/history pages to discuss the historical designations.

To summarize, I suppose my opinion is all or none with regards to historical designations, regardless of whether the route is prefixed/suffixed/bannered/etc. -- NORTH ^talk 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. I modified the infobox, and will start implementing my plan. --SPUI (T - C) 01:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

More issues: 76C is a spur of I-76, so why is it after 76? 4N is not a spur of 4, so why is it between 4A and S4? There's no way to arrange them that makes perfect sense. --SPUI (T - C) 02:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

76C comes after 76 since it is a state highway (like 76) that comes alphabetically after 76. Similarly, 4N comes alphabetically between 4A and S4, with exception being made for the placement of the S. For the most part, I was simply following the order already present on the State highways in New Jersey article, which IIRC you made yourself SPUI. -- NORTH ^talk 03:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The order in a simple list is less important than the order of browsing. --SPUI (T - C) 04:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make changes in the face of objection. If my arguments do not make sense to you, feel free to ask me to explain them, although I felt it was quite clear. After seeing your plan in action, I still have the same issues with it. What are your opinions on my alternative to include only current routes in the browsing order? -- NORTH ^talk 03:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I objected to what you were doing, and you continued. The door has been opened.

As for only including current routes, that's even stupider than including suffixed routes.

I've seen your redirects like Route 10N to Decommissioned state highways in New Jersey (as opposed to the obvious target of Route 5) and they make less sense than anything I've done here. If you fail to see that, I don't think we can get through to each other, in which case it stays as it was before you started. --SPUI (T - C) 03:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I continued because I was already past the most controversial point -- there are very few suffixed routes after 25; the point I was at when I read your comment -- and I found it more important to close the browsing loop. I stopped when I realized you were going so far as to revert my changes implement your more controversial plan.

I fail to see why only including current routes is stupider than including suffixed routes. Current routes are inherently more important, and creating a browsing loop with only them is probably more useful than anything else. WP:WASH treats routes like State Route 20 Spur as completely separate from State Route 20 as it has since the beginning without objection, and in many cases, the suffixed routes did not even connect directly to their parent.

I redirected Route 10N (New Jersey) to Decommissioned state highways in New Jersey because at the time the Route 5 article made absolutely zero mention of the 10N designation, whereas my new article had a full paragraph. Even with your brief sentence, I am still tempted to revert it back, as Route 5 was never part of 10N or vice versa, and the decommissioned article still has far more information. (However, I will not revert for fear of warring.) -- NORTH ^talk 03:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

5 ran to Paterson from 1927 to 1929. Part of 5 became 10N in 1929. --SPUI (T - C) 04:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, why was my edit to State highways in New Jersey reverted? What part of that didn't make sense? Why is the distinction between renumbered and decommissioned unimportant? If you felt the redlinks (or redirects to the decommissioned article) were still useful and should be included, you could have put them back in without reverting the entire edit. -- NORTH ^talk 03:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as an important enough distinction to widen the table. --SPUI (T - C) 04:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Route 4

I have been creating infoboxes for some of the NJ routes, and nothing fills me with more trepidation and confusion than deciding on what to put in the "previous-route" and "next-route" parameters. I created an infobox for Route 4 last night, and assigned Route 3 as the previous and Route 5 as the next-route. My logic was as follows: 1) 3 comes before 4, and 5 comes after 4, and both routes actually exist today; and 2) if anyone among us had the more correct version of formatting this information, it would be updated accordingly. SPUI responded on my talk page that the order should have been Route S3 (which redirects to Route 3) as previous and Route 4A (which redirects to Route 79) as next. While I certainly understand that there is a justification to refer in some manner to these long-defunct designations, should they be the primary references from a Route 4, with no mention of Routes 3 and 5? Why can't we find a mechanism as used in the "njsr box" template, in which the before and after would be 3 and 5, but a beforeother of S3 and a beforeafter of 4A could also be specified? In this way, we could accommodate all those with the simplistic understanding that most people have of how our highway numbering system works AND provide additional information for those among us who understand that there have been other highway numbering systems in use in New Jersey in the past? Alansohn 13:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

== Good night and good luck ==

Rather than continuing to fight with SPUI, I have chosen to leave Wikipedia. Have fun debating the browsing order amongst yourselves. -- NORTH ^talk 16:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Browsing order cont'd; proposed change to main page

I'm begrudgingly going to accept SPUI's proposed browsing order, which as I understand it is:

• all routes -- current or historic -- that are just a number
• no prefixed, suffixed, or bannered routes with three exceptions: Route 4N, Route 18N, and U.S. Route 9W
• Interstate, then U.S., then State.
• US 9, then US 9W, then Route 9

Now then, here's the problem with SPUI's plan, as he implemented it. Take a look at the current version of Interstate 280 (former Route 25A). Included in the "See also" section are links to Route 25 and Route 25AD without any explanation of why those links are there. By the time a user reaches the "See also" section, they've forgotten about the two line mention of Route 25A in the article text, and have no idea how these two other routes are related.

Thus, links to spur/parent routes should be put in their own section "Related routes", with it made explicitly clear why those routes are related -- rather than a seemingly random conglomeration of links with no explanation.

On a related note, I also propose we abandon the table on the main State highways in New Jersey page, for a bulleted list organization divided into sections, similar to what can be seen in the state route section of North Carolina Highway System with different sections for current and former routes. The sections I propose for our page are:

• Current routes
• Former mainline routes
• Former spur routes (for S4, etc.)
• Former link routes (for 33-35 Link, etc.)

Without condensing it into a table, this allows us to leave little notes next to the link, for example "Route S4B, now Route 208".

Any constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated. -- NORTH ^talk 04:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this too much, but would a setup like Georgia (see State Route 40 (Georgia)) work? --NE2 05:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but not likely. Most of the spurs in question are spurs off historical designations (and are themselves historical designations), and their inclusion in the infobox would result in clutter. In fact, this dispute basically grew out of SPUI's desire to remove these spurs from the infobox, so putting them back would be detrimental. -- NORTH ^talk 07:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What about including only current routes without spurs (possibly except for US 9W) in the sequence? To me, that looks like the simplest solution. Historical routes should probably be excluded if they currently exist under a different route number, especially if the article is just a redirect to a different numbered route. --Polaron | Talk 19:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That was one of my proposals above, but was rejected by SPUI. Given that now both you and Alansohn seem to approve it, though, I may be more willing to go with it. -- NORTH ^talk 17:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Count me in. I understand the historical routes and I'm still baffled in trying to use them through the browse tabs in the infoboxes. What about anyone who's never heard of them and can't figure out why Route 4N (a redirect to Route 71) follows after Route 4? What's wrong with using Route 5? Alansohn 18:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that I'm trying to clean it up, and I'm baffled as to what I'm supposed to do in the vicinity of Routes 5 and 10 -- is 10N supposed to be included? why does 5 go from 4 to 6 but the infobox on 53 goes has 5-5N-6 at the bottom? and why is 4N included in the first place since it obviously is a spur of the original 4 just as S4A and S4C are? -- I'm going to go ahead and make it just the current ones. Sorry, SPUI. -- NORTH ^talk 19:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Historic routes are probably ok as long as they have an article on their own and are not just redirects to other articles. --Polaron | Talk 19:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed to an extent (for example Route 25 should be included), but including the substubs on Route 1 and Route 9 just seems like creating more confusion just for the sake of creating more confusion. Agreed? -- NORTH ^talk 19:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

4N was a piece of the old 4 that was not assigned a number in the 1927 renumbering. By coincidence, much of pre-1927 4 was also post-1927 4. All other 4 suffixes are spurs of the post-1927 4. See wikisource:1927 New Jersey state highway renumbering#1927 routes. [The "north" was only applied to 18N before 1927, and its application to the other routes makes no sense.]

Route 5 goes from 4 to 7 because you and Alan changed it; it had gone from 4N to 5N. I accept the elimination of all routes that are redirects to others as a reasonable compromise (basically ones that had a one-to-one mapping in 1953). --SPUI (T - C) 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yay, we've reached an agreement! -- NORTH ^talk 19:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Master List of Infobox-Included Routes

Can I propose that we create a master list as a subarticle of the project, that would include the full sequence of the roads that are included. This way we can refer to an agreed upon list when creating new infoboxes and refer any newbies to the page. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes/Master List? Alansohn 20:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll get right on it. I've just completed linking all the routes together, I should have it up shortly. However, one thing that might make it unnecessary is that all the routes have the succession box at the bottom, so you can just use the same ones from there. -- NORTH ^talk 23:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

....*DONE* -- NORTH ^talk 00:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

County route infobox

I've set up {{Infobox road}} for use with county routes. It's pretty simple -- state=NJ County; type=blank for 500-routes, county name for others. The browsing is setup for the 500-series routes, but not for the other ones yet. Reason being, there aren't nearly enough articles up to warrant it. Once a county is more or less complete, let me know (if I don't notice it on my own), and I'll set up the browsing for that county then.

If you need a shield image for an infobox, let me know that too.

If you want to take a peek at what the county route infobox looks like, the only two I've put it on so far are County Route 3 (Monmouth County, New Jersey) and County Route 676 (Middlesex County, New Jersey). I have an example of a 500-series route with browsing up in my sandbox -- it's CR 501, but with the data randomly chosen from Route 71. -- NORTH ^talk 00:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is the image titled Image:Monmouth County Route 3 NJ.svg? A shield for a Monmouth County in most other states would look exactly the same, since the pentagon is the MUTCD standard. --NE2 10:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply because that was how county route shield were already named when I started making them. You're absolutely right that the NJ is totally superfluous; however, renaming images is more difficult than it is to move article pages, so I named the images to match the other images that were already there.

For the neutered 500-series routes, the convention is County XXX.svg

For other routes, the convention is Whichcounty County Route XXX NJ.svg

-- NORTH ^talk 19:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Similar question, but not entirely answered anywhere on this talk (unless I'm blind...wouldn't be the first time). Since I've been trying my best to pound out these infoboxes, I've stumbled across an issue: is there a special code to do an infobox for a bannered route, like Spur CR 551 or Alt CR 553, or do I have to use |marker_image= and |highway_name= to fill it in that way? EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 16:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to use marker_image= to get the shield (using a plate, <br>, shield image). You shouldn't need to use highway_name=, if you put route=553 Alternate, that will take care of itself.

The issue is with the browsing, since bannered routes should be "left out of the loop". Instead of the normal previous_route, etc., use spur_of and the like. There aren't any instructions on this on the project page, but it should be easy enough to mimic U.S. Route 1 Business (Trenton, New Jersey).

If you need any more help, let me know, or just leave those ones for me to do once I split the county route article. -- NORTH ^talk 18:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox_road template standards

Over the past several weeks, we have made tremendous progress in cleaning up the articles for the State highways in New Jersey, especially with the expansion and addition of infoboxes to most of these articles. However, there seems to be a great deal of confusion as to what should be going in these infoboxes. I am creating this thread and inviting those users who have been active participants in editing these pages to come up with a mutually agreeable answer to the following questions, so that all of us can work separately (or together) on these article against a single set of standards:

1. Which junctions should be listed in the infobox? Should there be different standards for Interstate/U.S. Routes, State Routes and County Routes, or all the same?
2. Should certain junctions be excluded because of the nature of the interchange (e.g., only SB or NB)
3. Do certain junction merit inclusion because they meet certain criteria (e.g., traffic circle or numbered exit).
4. Should there be a predetermined limit on the number of junctions included or the leave it unlimited, as long as the junctions meet all other criteria?
5. If there is a limit on the number of junctions, how should the ones that make the cut be determined?

I will take on the task of moderating this discussion, but I will add my 2 cents on these topics. We can add more questions if needed, but please, be civil. Alansohn 23:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Response from TwinsMetsFan

1. There should definitely be different standards by route type. I can elaborate more on this if necessary.
2. Not in my opinion.
3. Yes, though I'm not sure a traffic circle is one of the criteria. I do believe a limited-access expressway (which usually encompasses all roads with numbered exits) is, however.
4. A limit of 10 seems reasonable to me.
5. By priority in this order: 2di Interstates, 3di Interstates, 2di U.S. Roads, 3di U.S. Roads, any state roads that meet the criteria. --TMF ^{T - C} 23:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Response from Northenglish

1. The most major junctions should be listed in the infobox -- not all major junctions. I would prefer this to be taken on a route by route basis rather than specific standards based on categories; unfortunately, the discussion of the past week has shown me that this is not particularly feasible.
2. No.
3. No, the construction of a junction is not what makes it major. However, I agree with TwinsMetsFan that limited-access highways should automatically be included.
4. Yes, limit of 10.
5. Priority should be determined on where the routes go and traffic patterns on those specific routes, not categories. This is why (as of now) CR 537 is listed on I-195's major junctions, but not on Route 33's list. -- NORTH ^talk 01:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Polaron

• 2dis, in my opinion, should probably be automatically included in any junction list. I would include the Turnpike and the GSP as well.
• Limited access highways of any type should be the next in line. Non-limited access routes (whether U.S. or state) are the last priority.
• County routes should only be included if it is a high volume route (see next point).
• I sort of agree with North's point about the utilization of the route in determining whether it is major or not. Traffic volume might be an objective way of doing this but I'm open to other options.
• Put only one junction (the most major) per municipality.
• A limit of 10 junctions sounds reasonable but I would actually prefer more like 8.
• Then there is still the problem of multistate routes which should have stricter criteria -- maybe just limited access highways?

Response/request for clarification

Wouldn't limiting the number of junctions to 10 automatically serve to stricten (totally not a word) the criteria on multi-state routes? -- NORTH ^talk 02:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes you're right. I was just thinking about how to choose those 10 junctions for the very long routes like US Route 1, US 30, US 40, or even the moderately long routes like US 9 and US 22. These might be already fine as is so maybe we don't need to worry about them. --Polaron | Talk 20:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments from SPUI

We certainly shouldn't have a complicated rule about how to choose junctions. Just choose a few major cities and give a junction for each. --SPUI (T - C) 02:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't trying to reinvent the wheel. This is merely an effort to put some standards in writing to eliminate all of the confusion about what is or isn't a major junction, particularly on U.S. Route 1, U.S. Route 9 and Interstate 287.

I know what you're trying to do, but the instruction creep isn't worth it. --SPUI (T - C) 03:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

(Hypothetical alert) Also, let's say Route 56 travels through Trenton (which it doesn't; bear with me here). If there are no junctions in the city with the route other than County Route 620 (again, bear with me), then under your proposal, CR 620 would be a "major junction". --TMF ^{T - C} 02:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, you could choose not to include Trenton - it's probably not a major city anyway if it only has that junction in or near it. --SPUI (T - C) 03:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Response from ML

There is a lot of controversy about which junctions should be included.

1. I believe that all major junctions should be included.
2. I don't think so.
3. A traffic circle should NOT be listed as a major junction. But, I agree with TwinsMetsFans & Northenglish that freeways should be listed (depending upon the traffic volume that the freeway "dumps" onto another highway).
4. I don't really know. I'm believe about 12 to 10 should be sufficient.
5. This is the tough one. All major junctions should be included; however, if there are a lot of major ones, then I agree with Northenglish, that the most major ones should be included.

Mlaurenti 23 August 2006 08:46 (Eastern Time)

Reply

By saying that all major junctions should be included, that opens the door to problems. A road that's a major junction for Route 22 may not be a major junction for, say, U.S. Route 9. --TMF ^{T - C} 15:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Response from TheImpossibleManX

I hope I am not too late to respond. Here are my answers for these questions.

For standards the question would be what defines a major junction?

1. One idea I have, by commiting priority for Major Junctions would go in this order with 1 being the highest priority; 1 -Interstate, 2 - U.S., 3 NJTP, GSP, ACE, and PIP, 4 - State, 5 - County. By doing this we would be organized and we would have a more focused list. Another idea I have stems from a problem I came across when I spotted up some Infoboxes, and that is one highway crossing the same highway in two different cities. I feel that regardless of city if one highway crosses the same highway twice, save for Terminous as in the case of Route 71, multiple junctions should only be once in the Infobox.
2. No.
3. For Traffic Circles no. For Numbered Freeways yes. In a sense Access Freeways have no traffic lights, organized, and they do have a set standard rules. Traffic Circles, slowly but surely are being eliminated statewide, converting into direct intersection. For other types of accesses would depend on what they are, basic city streets, Multi-laned highways with traffic lights, etc.
4. I'd say leave it unlimited. If limitations are needed I'd say 10, and all other junctions not in that box should be in its own box, in a seperate section, following the basic rules of Junction order in the Infobox. This way we all get to have an organized Infobox and still get to list "all" junctions of the highway in one article.
5. If a limit is made, My suggestion above for the Priority order would help make sure the right "Major" Junctions are in place.

I hope this helps out a bit.

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2

Your state is invited to participate in discussions for its highway naming convention. Please feel free to participate in this discussion. If you already have a convention that follows the State Name Type xx designation, it is possible to request an exemption as well. Thanks! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

County Route infoboxes

I'm on the home stretch creating stub-plus articles for 500 series county roads. There are still about ten outstanding articles, but my next step in the cycle will be to add infoboxes. A trivial issue that I've encountered is a few missing shields for spur and alternate routes. The real problem is that the road infobox just doesn't seem to fit the CRs. Does anyone have a suggestion as to how we can make use of the existing template to handle County Routes in New Jersey or have a suggestion for an alternate method? Alansohn 19:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps something like what is being used at WP:NYCR would work for the infobox, as the infobox is based on Infobox road but has custom parameters much more suitable for county-level routes. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What about infobox road is not satisfactory? I may be able to help modify it. --NE2 20:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Issues are pulling in the county shield and previous-route / next route parms to reference the appropriate articles, given that County Route xxx (New Jersey) is our agreed-upon standard (let the arguments begin) for these roads. Alansohn 22:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with County Route 501 (New Jersey). --NE2 22:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I was missing something. I'll use CR 501 as a model. Alansohn 00:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little late for the discussion. As I announced three sections above, I thought I had already tweaked Infobox_road for county routes about a month ago. Has the issue been resolved? Or did I do something incorrectly? For 500-series routes, state=NJ County and type=[blank]. -- NORTH ^talk 08:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Municipality Rowspan for Exit Lists

Good day everyone. I was making an Exit List for Route 139 when I discovered rowspan. It goes |rowspan=X|town. I used this for towns with multiple exits. By doing this it makes reading exit lists much easier then scrolling through the list looking at 5 seperate boxes of one town. I also did this for Route 495, a much better example of rowspan. I recommend this method to be added to the Wikiproject rules for Exit Lists. This should only be used for the Municipality Column only. TheImpossibleManX Sep. 22, 2006

Abbreviations in infobox

Okay, I've got another question for everyone. As you've probably noticed, the convention we've been using in the infoboxes is to put "I-XX" for interstates and "US XX" for U.S. routes, but we use "Route XX" for state routes. Would anyone object to changing this to "NJ XX" for consistency's sake?

NJ XX is a common abbreviation used throughout official documentation (easily verifiable with a quick look at the SLDs, particularly the table of contents) as well as on some text only signs (for example the Exit 8 sign here).

And of course, this would only be for infoboxes and other places we use abbreviations (e.g. some exit lists). The article text should remain "Route XX".

Thoughts? -- NORTH ^talk 22:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No objections here. Looks like a valid abbreviation based on the evidence above. --TMF ^{T - C} 23:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I say yes especially since we abbreviate County Routes as CR. This also would make space in the Infoboxes and maybe shrink the box size down since writing the word Route pushes an extra line. -- TheImpossibelManX

I-495

FYI: User:Mrsanitazier has created an Interstate 495 (New Jersey) article that has basically the same content as the Route 495 (NJ) article. --Polaron | Talk 23:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I redirected it to New Jersey Route 495. --NE2 23:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Volunteer for Abbreviations in Infoboxes

I was wondering if everyone had agreed on using the NJ XX abbreviations instead of Route XX in the Infoboxes. If it is agreed, I would like to volunteer in changing the Infoboxes. --TheImpossibleManX

Sure, go for it. Only do the infoboxes and exit lists that use abbreviations, though. (The exit list on Garden State Parkway, for example, does not use abbreviations.) I noticed on one of your edits (although I forget which one), you made an exit list inconsistent -- U.S. Route 1 on one line and NJ 17 on the next for example.

Exit lists should be either all abbreviations or all full name. -- NORTH ^talk 16:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It was New Jersey Route 139 which I fixed. Another thing to note, since I have been changing the word Route to NJ in the Infoboxes, the WikiProject rules on the Project Page may need to be changed to avoid conflict with the changes. --TheImpossibleManX

Good catch. That's done. -- NORTH ^talk 14:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Exit lists

I noticed that this project uses an exit list standard very similar to WP:IH/ELG. Should we use the exit list guide standards for this project as well? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As I see it the only difference is the inclusion of the county column, and while I think it may be a bit much, I'm not adverse to including it for consistency's sake. -- NORTH ^talk 22:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Heads up on new article

An article U.S. Routes 1 and 9 in New Jersey has been created, and has replaced U.S. Route 1/9. U.S. Route 1/9 redirects to the new article, so these links do not need to be changed. However some links to the US 1 and US 9 main pages should probably be edited to point to the new state-specific page. -- NORTH ^talk 01:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is this not split into three articles? US 1 and US 9 are both very major roads in New Jersey, and there is enough information for separate US 1, US 9, and US 1/9 articles. Anyway, please change any links as if it were split (so link to the redirect at U.S. Route 1 (New Jersey), not U.S. Routes 1 and 9 in New Jersey), so it is easy to split in the future. --NE2 08:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is worse than that - there already exists a U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey. --NE2 08:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is more than enough material to justify three separate articles. Let's argue about the naming convention U.S. Route x in New Jersey vs. U.S. Route x (New Jersey) (where's SPUI when you need him?) but lumping them all together in one mega-article is hard to justify. For long stretches, U.S. 1 and U.S. 9 are very separate roadways and that should be reflected in the articles. The New Jersey articles for U.S. 1 and U.S. 9 should reflect the concurrency and reference a separate article for U.S. 1/9 (or should it be U.S. 1-9 or U.S. 1&9?). Alansohn 15:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably better separated since 1 and 9 are distinct routes. At the very least there should be separate US 1 and US 9 articles. The concurrency can be incorporated in US 1 (since NJDOT "ranks" US 1 higher than US 9) or even a separate article. For the article name, most other articles in other states are at "U.S. Route X in Statename". Or you could apply the state highway naming style and put the state name in front i.e. "New Jersey U.S. Route 1" (hehe just kidding). --Polaron | Talk 17:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, clearly this was an error. It's not "worse than that" though; in my defense, the U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey article was created about six hours before I moved my article out of userspace, and it was done simply by splitting off the U.S. Route 1#New Jersey section word for word. I'll be happy to split my article into at least two articles, U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey and U.S. Route 9 in New Jersey.

My main problem was what to do about the concurrency. I hated the old article as it was originally written. The information that was there seemed to give too much weight to the road as a single highway (for ex. "US 1/9 exits" rather than "US 1 and 9 exit") rather than the combination of two highways as it is. I would much prefer to discuss the concurrency separately on the two new articles. -- NORTH ^talk 18:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It essentially is a single highway. Having the same information on two articles doesn't make any sense. --NE2 20:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't, it's not even "a highway", it's parts of two separate ones. It doesn't have to be the same information on two articles. I've already started working on it, and I took Polaron's idea of putting the bulk of the information on the US 1 article, with just a brief summary of the concurrency on the US 9 article. -- NORTH ^talk 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the overlap is always called "1 and 9", never just 1 or 9. To the public, it is a separate highway, more so than US 1 in New Jersey and US 1 in Pennsylvania. --NE2 21:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this comment up here. As Polaron said, it is occasionally referred to as simply Route 1 (although I think he's wrong on the frequency). But even if it is always called "1 and 9", I don't see why that makes it a separate highway. If anything it reiterates that fact that it is two highways, 1 and 9. -- NORTH ^talk 22:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've finished converting it into two separate articles.

I "fixed" only the double redirects that had incoming links -- U.S. Route 1/9 temporarily points towards U.S. Route 9 in New Jersey. If we want to re-create a third article, that's fine (although I'm personally against it), but we should make that decision ASAP so we can repair the redirects. If we decide not to, we should make that decision ASAP as well so we can fix all the incoming links and send the redirects to RFD since there will no longer be a viable target. -- NORTH ^talk 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. My preference is also not to do a separate article on the concurrency portion sp I think the way they are now is ok. --Polaron | Talk 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So should we start fixing all the links to U.S. Route 1/9 so we can RFD it? -- NORTH ^talk 21:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would we do that? 1/9 is a roadway from Woodbridge to Manhattan, known to the public as "1 and 9". --NE2 21:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the overlapped section is primarily called "Route 1". I could be mistaken though since I lived in Middlesex County for only 3 months and do not really know local custom regarding this. It might be ok to leave them as redirects to the US 1 in NJ article if a significant number of people do in fact call it "Route 1 and 9". --Polaron | Talk 21:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly, it's 1 and 9. And while it is a single roadway, it is not a single highway. In fact, while we have pretty little hyphenated shield images , in truth I think separate shields is slightly more common in actual usage.

As for Polaron's point, I think it's pretty common to refer to it either way. Even if it were more common to refer to it as simply "Route 1" though, I wouldn't want to target the redirects that way. A link in the New Jersey Turnpike article for example should be able to take the user to information on both highways. -- NORTH ^talk 21:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Asking again, So should we start fixing all the links to U.S. Route 1/9 so we can RFD it? Alternately, do we need to split a new article back off? -- NORTH ^talk 19:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Since no one responded, I fixed the links on New Jersey Turnpike (happened to be the first article I saw on What links here). If I see fierce objection here, I'll stop. If not, I'll RFD them once I'm done orphaning them. -- NORTH ^talk 17:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have objected, and yet again we seem to be deciding this issue rather arbitrarily and autocratically. While US 1/9 is a concurrency of US 1 and US 9, virtually every New Jersey resident thinks of the 1/9 concurrency as being different for US 1 and US 9. The fact that almost all references to the concurrency refers to it in the singular as "Route 1&9" (not "Routes 1&9") lends further credence. While some of the text may be in the US 1 article, that the exist list exists in both only creates the need to double maintain duplicate information and the risk that they will be out of sync. As I suggested at the beginning of this conversation we should have three separate articles -- US 1, US 9 and US 1/9 (the exact names are left for further discussion) -- with the articles for US 1 and US 9 referencing the continuation to US 1/9 and vice versa. Merging this all into the two US 1 and US 9 article makes this far less intuitive to all but the most nitpicky road geek. Alansohn 22:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I lived in New Jersey for most of my life (17 out of 21 years), and I'm baffled as to comments that say most people think of it as a separate highway. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that 1 and 9 are two separate highways that happen to merge together for thirty miles in northern New Jersey. Saying that virtually every resident in New Jersey thinks of the northern section of US 1 as separate highway from the southern section is patently false. It's certainly all one highway in the eyes of NJDOT. For me (and yes, I'm a roadgeek, but I'd like to think I'm not nitpicky, and I'm certainly not the most nitpicky one here), treating US 1 and 9 as US 1 and US 9 is far more intuitive than essentially having two state-detail pages for each highway (which is verboten by the wikiprojects).

It's true you expressed a desire at the beginning of this conversation to have three articles, as did NE2, but you didn't object after I asked the question. NE2 did after the first time I asked, then conversation died -- I assume it must have been (at least to an extent) that his concerns were addressed. I asked again, and conversation was still silent, and remained silent for four days, even after I edited several articles that I know for a fact are on your watchlist.

I'm not trying to shoot down your objection, or say that you're too late. If you want to write an article on US 1/9, you certainly can, I certainly won't be a WP:DICK and revert you, especially if it's better written than the original. The fact is that I had to do something to fix the redirects that currently point to U.S. Route 9 in New Jersey, and I didn't want to create a new article because well, I didn't want to. -- NORTH ^talk 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The old version looks reasonable, and it doesn't give the impression that it's anything but an overlap of two routes. I believe that this overlap is long and notable enough that the article should be separated back out. --NE2 01:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have issues with that version, as I've said above. (I think it very much does give that impression.) I've posted a message on Polaron's talk page. If he comes around to your side (since we are the only four users who participated in this discussion, and it's presently 2-2), I'll be willing to make the split, on the condition that we use the version I rewrote ([1] - the "north of Woodbridge" section of the article that started this whole thing). -- NORTH ^talk 01:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your version splits US 1 and US 9 entirely. The text specifically about the overlap looks similar in each version. The intersection table is probably better in your version. --NE2 01:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I meant solely the text about the overlap (the section entitled "U.S. Routes 1 and 9 north of Woodbridge"), not the entire article. Given TMF's comments below, I'll go ahead performing the split with that text, and re-repair the links I "fixed". -- NORTH ^talk 02:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Some comments from an "outsider": I'm not going to argue whether or not US 1 and US 9 are considered to be a single road, as the arguments for and against this position are extremely compelling. Instead, I'll argue about the notability of the concurrency. According to the diff that NE2 linked to, the concurrency is 31 miles long. Normally, I'd say that a 31 mile concurrency of two roads that continue separately past the concurrency does not deserve its own article. In this case, however, it appears that the US 1 and US 9 concurrency is one of the more major highway segments in New Jersey, as evidenced by not only the massive amount of "common" junctions/exits along the concurrency but also from the strong feelings expressed above about this issue. For that reason, I would support the re-creation of a US 1/9 article, just as I would support an article about the 67 mile US 20/NY 5 duplex in New York. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Split done, working on redirects. -- NORTH ^talk 03:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Redirects done. -- NORTH ^talk 04:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the edits done to the North Bergen, New Jersey article, which now states that "Route 495, Route 3, U.S. Route 1, and U.S. Route 9 are major highways within the township's borders" vs. the previous version which stated that "Route 495, Route 3 and U.S. Route 1/9 are major highways..." Many individuals reading this article may now incorrectly assume that US 1 and US 9 are two separate roadways. Before had the separate US 1/9 article, the concurrency would sometimes be referred to using U.S. Route 1/9", which at least tried to get the point across that the road is an overlap. I strongly suggest that we try to develop consensus to use the U.S. Route 1/9 to refer to the concurrency, rather than using the combination of references to US 1 and US 9. Alansohn 04:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back most of my edits that messed up the US 1/9 links. Some of the municipality articles I did not revert back because IMHO there was no clean way to do so. (Also, it's possible I may have missed some.) Note that many of the articles also list the New Jersey Turnpike and Interstate 95 (or Interstate 78) independently. I'm in full favor of linking to U.S. Route 1/9 in junction or intersection lists, but when listing the highways that serve a municipality, I think there still is a place for linking to US 1 and 9 separately, since they are two separate highways. -- NORTH ^talk 05:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)