Talk:U.S. Route 1/9

message: Wouldn't it be better to title this article U.S. Route 1-9 (with a hyphen) instead of with a slash, since that's how it's signed?  What was the rationale behind choosing a slash? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I considered this when I made it (and I think I made all the redirects). Signs typically say 1-9 or 1&9 but NJDOT tends to use 1/9 on their website. --SPUI (T - C) 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation re state usage of 1/9. I saw that you had created redirects for just about every possible combination and permutation of US/U.S., Route/Highway and the numbers 1 and 9. You'd be hard pressed to guess a link that won't work, but the 1/9 may be the least likely to be guessed. Alansohn 21:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: It's come to my attention that on the Major intersections list, not one US 9 milepost is listed. Since the individual US 9 article ends its intersection list (and thus its milepost counting) at the joining with US 1 and refers readers to this article's intersection list, I propose we add in the US 9 mileposts along 1/9 on the intersection list table, perhaps using italicized brackets to differentiate US 9's mileposts from those of the dominant US 1 (I propose using brackets because italicized parentheses are already in use for listing I-95's mileposts during the approach to the George Washington Bridge).
MarioLOA (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The state DOT uses US 1 mileposts as official mileposts.<FONT FACE="Helvetica" SIZE="-1" COLOR="corn">Mitch</FONT>32(Transportation Historian) 23:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I disagree. The article should really only have one set of mileposts. I'm not in favor of listing I-95's mileposts here either. If anything, place a note as to what US 9's milepost is at the start of the concurrency. but don't list them. If anyone wants to know what they are, they can do the arithmetic. Imzadi 1979 → 04:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Route 9 mileposts 

message: I read the above discussion as to why this article's title includes the slash, but I feel that the article should be moved to the dash version for two reasons. 
Firstly, because the dash is the most common version used on signs, which is the most prominent display of the concurrent road's name, website or not. The number of drivers who see the signs far out number the visitors to the website. So WP:COMMONNAME leads me to think we should use the dash. 
I know that redirect take care of the issue of searches. But that doesn't cover the second reason. Per WP:SLASH and WP:DASH (from the WP:MOS), slashes are largely depreciated, while dashes (endashes specifically) have the meaning of "and" in combinations of otherwise separate things (such as the concurrency of two highways with separate sections).
So, that's my case. I know that there would be a lot of links needing to be updated, but the Wikipedia-wide policies and guidelines make me think that the current name is wrong. Thoughts? oknazevad (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an exception to SLASH and DASH. The slash notation is the most common method for denoting road concurrencies. You'd end up forcing thousands of highway articles to switch notation to a standard that's not in commonly use in the end by that reasoning, especially when several highway abbreviation formats use a hyphen. (I-75/M-55 is the concurrency of Interstate 75 and M-55 in Central Michigan, for instance.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware of that standard. Leave it to Jersey to do its own thing.oknazevad (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

text: U.S. Route 1-9, U.S. Route 1–9, U.S. Route 1 - 9, and U.S. Route 1 – 9 all redirect to this article. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I already noted that. But I don't think that is a convincing arguement to depart from WP:COMMONNAME.oknazevad (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

text: There's at least one other similarly named article: U.S. Route 17/92 in Florida. – TMF 05:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slash vs dash revisited 

message: The new map shows US 1/9 end at the NY state line.  It actually continues a short distance into NYC, ending at the Broadway exit on I-95, where 9 follows Broadway and 1 continues with 95 into the Bronx. Famartin (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You would be correct.  If the KML was wrong, that means the converted JSON would be wrong as well. –Fredddie™ 00:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Map (presumably the KML its based on too?) is wrong 

message: Why does everyone think that US 1/9 is related to US 119? This should be avoided. CamdenFreeway295 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: that’s not what that tag is forFamartin (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote Error 

message: Forgive my use of this venue for questions.  I'm intrigued by the "1-9" and "1&9" signage / naming convention and feel that it is unique to this roadway.  I'm looking for references / citations on the approval of such signage / naming.  Would this be an AASHTO issue?  FHWA? Or is it not controlled and NJDOT is free to sign at will?  Is there a precedent? If anyone who is more of a hobbyist than I could lend a hand, reference, or nudge in the right direction, I'd be obliged.  Thanks.  --Gapmtn1 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signage