Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/New Jersey/Archive 2

message: You know, we seem to have a low GA Turnout here. I finally got my street to GA-Status, but I think that is the only one. I think we need more output from members.Mitchazenia(8300+edits) 18:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA 

message: I have started a newsletter service for the wikiproject. I will send it to all members.Mitchazenia(8300+edits) 17:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was I supposed to get one? My name's on the list... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As there is an error in it, I have to resend a special second issue.Mitchazenia(8300+edits) 19:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter 

message: A discussion is currently underway at Talk:County routes in New Jersey about changing the county route lists from bulleted lists to table form (see List of county routes in Monmouth County, New Jersey for an example). -- NORTH talk 03:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables for county route lists? 

message: Hello Fellow Wikipedians!I have enjoyed my time editing here on Wikipedia but I feel it is time to move on. I have done edits on some pages here but I feel it is time to start my own website for roads, I will post the link when it goes live. I have removed a chunck of articles from my watchlist and will begin to make a steady transition out. My subsequent edits will be more for matience and/or minor information changes. I have no hard feelings towards this project but I feel its time to move on. I am not leaving Wikipedia, just this project as it would not be appropriate for me to do this in addition to my future website. Thank you all for the wonderful time I had here! If there is anything you all want help with or want my opinion on, just let me know!All the best!Jgcarter 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goodbye 

message: After much effort, all current state routes now have infoboxes!!!  So now, all that's left to do is... everything else.  Just kidding... or am I?  Well, now that we have infoboxes the bulk of the work is done, so it's time for a "final" run-through of all the state route articles.  This will ensure that all the articles are up to the standards set by both this project and its parent WP:USRD.  Once that's done, everything's done except the obvious... expansion.
So here's an expanded version of the to-do list, explaining exactly what needs to be done.
*Ensure that all freeway exit lists are up to exit list guide standards.
:Many of the exit lists in our project predate the exit list guide, with issues like the Municipality column inconsistenly placed, the milepost and exit number columns switched, and the lack of a county column.  (Also, the Municipality column should be renamed "Location".)  These were wonderful for first drafts, but as the U.S. Roads WikiProject moves towards standardization, so should we.
:Mileposts should be taken from the SLD.  Generally, the milepost should be where the road crosses over/under the freeway, although exceptions are made when the ramps are in significantly different places.
*Make sure all infoboxes have the new maint= parameter.
:A new parameter was added to  last month, and should be added to all NJ state route infoboxes that don't already have it.  For most routes, this can be done simply by adding the line |maint=NJDOT to the infobox.  However, check the straight line diagram to ensure that the road is in fact maintained by the DOT for its enitre length.
:This parameter replaces the old system= parameter.  Infoboxes that use that parameter should be changed.
*Make sure all infoboxes use length_ref and length_round instead of length_km. Also ensure the straight line diagram is properly linked as the reference.
:This change to  isn't quite so recent, but there are still several infoboxes that need to be updated.  The length in kilometers in the infobox should not be manually calculated.  Instead put the length from the SLD in length_mi.  Then, instead of using length_km, use the line |length_round=2, and have the infobox calculate the kilometers itself.
:On a related topic, this project has never had a consistent format for the link to the SLD.  From now on, the  template should be used.  See New Jersey Route 168 and Interstate 95 in New Jersey for this in practice.  The following parameters should be used:
:*author=New Jersey Department of Transportation
:*url= the url for the straight line diagram (without brackets)
:*title=Route XXX straight line diagram In the title, use either Route XX, U.S. Route XX, or Interstate XX.
:*accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD Use the date you're adding the template, in YYYY-MM-DD format.
*Add a major intersections table to each article.
:The major intersections table was a relatively recent addition to the project page, and has only made an appearance on a few pages (such as U.S. Route 9 in New Jersey and New Jersey Route 33).  The guidelines for the intersection table are mostly spelled out on the project page, but I'll do so again here.  The purpose of the list is to be a more complete list of junctions with numbered highways than the list in the infobox.  The list should follow the exit list guide; the exit # and notes columns can be left out if they are empty.
:*State routes should have all junctions with other state routes listed.  All junctions with 500-series county routes should also be listed, unless it makes the list exceedingly long.  (Either all 500-series routes, or none, should be listed.)  Junctions with 600-series county routes should not be listed, unless it is an extremely short route.
:*500-series county routes should always have all junctions with state routes and other 500-series county routes listed.  Junctions with 600-series county routes can be listed unless it makes the list exceedingly long.
:*600-series county routes should always have all junctions with all numbered highways listed.
:Some pre-existing lists (such as New Jersey Route 67) have extra intersections listed.  It is not particularly necessary to remove these junctions.
That's all for now.  Thanks for all your hard work recently, and in the future. -- NORTH talk 00:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-do list 

message: Important heads up about the shields.  Per a discussion on WT:USRD, there's a project going on right now to combine the "image sets" for the many states that use circular shields.  The result will be one set with ellipses (), and one with "elongated circles" ().
At some point in the near future, the naming convention for NJ's shields will change.  My personal preference would be to use the ellipses (for reason's Vishwin stated on WT:USRD), but it doesn't really matter since NJ's signage is so inconsistent on the matter. -- NORTH talk 23:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shields 

message: There is an ongoing discussion on the notability of county highways at WT:USRD#County highways.  Anyone with an opinion is encouraged to contribute there, and/or participate in the USRD IRC meeting Friday night. -- NORTH talk 05:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  County routes 

message: All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master sonT - C 16:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates 

message: In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces:
# Each project needs to remain aware of developments at WT:USRD and subpages to ensure that each project is aware of decisions / discussions that affect that project. It is impossible to notify every single project about every single discussion that may affect it. Therefore, it is the state highway wikiproject's responsiblity to monitor discussions.
# If a project does not remain aware of such developments and complains later, then there is most likely nothing USRD can do about it.
# USRD, in most to nearly all cases, will not interfere with a properly functioning state highway wikiproject. All projects currently existing are "properly functioning" for the purposes mentioned here. All task forces currently existing are not "properly functioning" (that is why they are task forces). Departments of USRD (for example, MTF, shields, assessment, INNA) may have specific requirements for the state highway wikiprojects, but complaints regarding those need to be taken up with those departments.
# However, this is a reminder that USRD standards need to be followed by the state highway wikiprojects, regardless of the age of the wikiproject.
Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 05:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder from USRD 

message: Seeing this might go to good use, at WikiProject Tropical cyclones, they use(d) to use an Article requests page to help discuss articles for whether they should be created or not. It'll help, with the growing number of county routes and the shrinking number of state routes, to decide what gets an article or not. This will be a non-bureaucratic process, just simple consenus on article creation. Voice your opinon!Mitch32contribs 20:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty bureaucratic if you have to go to a page before creating an article. --NE2 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you don't have to. Its just if you have an idea but you're not sure. It helps when you get tips from others or references and stuff.Mitch32contribs 21:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with using this talk page? --NE2 21:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: For that, an article requests page is a bit superflous. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Page would be flooded especially if someone is estatic about making articles. However, I could see this being used if its several articles at once.Mitch32contribs 21:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Has this page been "flooded" in the past? It seems like you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. --NE2 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just putting together for the future. Also I have another idea from WPTC called Vital articles. See here for details.Mitch32contribs 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with the importance ratings? --NE2 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't know - they probably make sense in a table listing all in the county, with links to articles for the ones with more than a few sentences of information. --NE2 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: By the way, you can go to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/New Jersey road transport articles by quality and sort by the importance column to see how the high- (or other-) importance articles are doing. --NE2 22:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article requests page

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection before December 2008, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 16:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for New Jersey road transport 

message: Hi!  I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate.  This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group.  If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators' working group 

message: Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects?  If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3.  Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects? 

message: I have proposed a merge of County Route 626 (Cape May County, New Jersey) to New Jersey Route 162 for biroute covering. See Talk:County Route 626 (Cape May County, New Jersey)#Merge proposal for discussion.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT>32(Want help? See here!) 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposed 

message: This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

message: Pulaski Skyway has been listed for FA review due to its content and format being outdated.  Please see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pulaski Skyway/archive1 for more information. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pulaski Skyway FA review 

message: I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into . If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates 

message: Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.
The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Collaboration reactivated & [[Portal:United States]] starting next 

message: There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC on coordinates in highway articles 

message: I think it is important to include maps into the county highway infoboxes, since they are left empty. Tinton5 (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Maps Task Force is mostly inactive right now, unfortunately. Imzadi 1979 →  03:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Eventually, the county routes will get maps, along with any state routes missing maps. Dough4872 03:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

text: These are also not urgent considering state routes still lack them. <FONT FACE="Poor Richard" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><FONT FACE="Georgia" SIZE="-1" COLOR="black">32(Never support those who think in the box)</FONT> 03:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementation of maps on County Routes 

message: There is a proposal to demote all state highway WikiProjects to task forces; see WT:USRD. --Rschen7754 05:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed restructuring of USRD