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

message: Its not big yet.Please help.HurricaneCraze32 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New page I started 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New proposal for county routes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Route 4 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Master List of Infobox-Included Routes 

message: # There should definitely be different standards by route type. I can elaborate more on this if necessary.
# Not in my opinion.
# 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.
# A limit of 10 seems reasonable to me.
# 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)
thread_title: Response from [[User:TwinsMetsFan|TwinsMetsFan]]

message: # 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.
# No.
# 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.
# Yes, limit of 10.
# 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)
thread_title: Response from [[User:Northenglish|Northenglish]]

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments from [[User:Polaron|Polaron]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Response/request for clarification

message: There is a lot of controversy about which junctions should be included. 
# I believe that all major junctions should be included. 
# I don't think so.
# 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).
# I don't really know. I'm believe about 12 to 10 should be sufficient.
# 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)
thread_title: Response from ML

message: 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)
thread_title: Reply

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with County Route 501 (New Jersey). --NE2 22:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was missing something. I'll use CR 501 as a model. Alansohn 00:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  County Route infoboxes 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Exit lists 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Project directory