Talk:New Jersey Route 18

message: what the heck are you talking about????
look at a map for yourself!!!!
Route 18 for several miles runs east-west...  it is because it was intended to be two highways instead of one whole...
LOOK AT A MAP!!!  THE HIGHWAY RUNS FROM LEFT TO RIGHT FROM MILE 20 TO MILE 14!!!
STOP ADDING THE STUPID CITATION THING... SHEESH Route 82 20:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SPUI has now corrected the placement of the tag, which was apparently not meant to doubt that tidbit so much as two surrounding ones.  Is there a reason you believe those two pieces of information don't need citations? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: But that doesn't mean the S-curve and indirect nature is because that was to be Route 35 - there's a huge naval weapons station in the way of a direct road! --SPUI (T - C) 16:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Researching any page will tell you that the southern portion of Route 18 was intended to be Route 35?  Then it should be easy to get a reliable source and cite it correctly, and there's no reason for you to be quibbling about it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Everything on Wikipedia that isn't obviously true needs to be cited.  Since SPUI is disputing this, ipso facto it is not obviously true.  Please stop trying to ignore Wikipedia:Citing sources.  If you would like to make a wiki where you can express your point of view without having to provide citations, the MediaWiki software is easily downloadable. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Everything can be improved.  Precedent is no reason to keep anything. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|fact}}

message: SPUI, stop editing "minor junctions" out of pages.  If you think they're minor, discuss them first.  US 1 is unequivocably a major junction on NJ 18. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.139.7.179 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 August 2006  (UTC)
:The issue is not SPUI removing them without discussing them first.  The issue is Special:Contributions/24.228.70.72 and User:Nextbarker adding them without discussing them first.  These users have a history of adding non-major junctions on several highway pages (see this edit, and it has become common (although perhaps misguided in a few cases) practice to simply revert these edits.
:While SPUI was incorrect to remove US 1 from the list, it has since been added back, and he was correct to remove the several other junctions from the list. -- NORTH talk 22:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor junctions

message: Does the question still confused you, NORTH?
Nextbarker 03:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NJ 18  

message: Try this, because Route 18 is a freeway south of US 9, would anymore shields be applicable?
Nextbarker 03:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that since there are relatively few junctions listed at the moment, a couple more would be okay.  Probably either NJ 79 or CR 537 and NJ 33. -- NORTH talk 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If I recall correctly, in several directions it is a direct connection between NJ 18 and CR 520.  Regardless though, county routes should not be listed in this infobox.  (Only one of the roads into Freehold -- either 79 or 537 -- is necessary.) -- NORTH talk 17:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, please be careful when adding junctions.  Both the locations you added (for NJ 79 and NJ 33) were incorrect. -- NORTH talk 17:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The interchange between the GSP and NJ 33 is in Tinton Falls just west of the boundary.  The interchange between NJ 33 and NJ 18 is about 2 miles east of the boundary in Neptune. -- NORTH talk 21:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As i live in Highland Park, the town after New Brunswick, and i use 18 often. I really doubt they will. They are widening the road, creating a new  "New Street" Bridge (already completed and opened), getting rid of the Commerce street exit, making a new Burnett Street Exit and making a new overpass for Paulus Street.Mitchazenia(7500+edits) 00:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route 18 freeway 

message: I've put this article on hold for the following reasons:
* There is a specific template for regular at-grade intersections; see WP:USRD for usage instructions.
* Citations need to be added to the route description, as it can be challenged at any time.
* The lead may be a bit short.
* This article is not stable at all.
Please fix all of those concerns, and if they are fixed and looked at by me or another GA reviewer, it could be passed.  Not a guarantee, though. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 19:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: Considering that all of the concerns have been met, plus some improvements, I've passed this article. ([ →]zelzany - new age roads) 20:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result 

message: Passing this article as a Good Article was definitely premature.  It is on its way, but is not currently a GA.  There are numerous factual errors, both in the exit list as mentioned above, and possibly a few minor issues in the prose.  The punctuation in several places (particularly the exit list) is horrendous.  The spacing and usage of the semicolons is inconsistent -- and does not match usage in any other exit lists, or the exit list guide.  Some sentences in the prose need work ("...afterwards, 18 continues as road." does not make sense.  Was that supposed to be "surface street"?), but this is a minor problem.  The major problem is the factual inaccuracies and the lack of maintenance.  If an obvious inaccuracy was pointed out on June 11, there's no excuse for it to be ignored for 11 days before it's "fixed".
If you disagree with my delisting, or fix the issues with the article, please take it to Wikipedia:Good article review so it can be passed by consensus, rather than streamlined by a WP:USRD member. -- NORTH talk 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted Good Article

message: Would Route 18 be considered major at Route 27?
--24.228.70.72 20:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route 18 at Route 27 

message: This is not a review but a suggestion, the last table is messed up and needs to be fixed. T Rex | talk 20:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for notifying that, all fixed. :) Mitch32contribs 21:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is enormous. That's with a 5-second look at the article. There's no way this will pass. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for GA

message: You're missing a Route 36 in the major infobox Route 9 and south box.
--24.228.70.72 03:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).   --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route 18 major freeway box 

message: Where along Route 18 is Middlesex County Route 700?
--24.228.70.72 02:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middlesex County Route 700 

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 18, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: 
:2. Factually accurate?: 
:3. Broad in coverage?: 
:4. Neutral point of view?: 
:5. Article stability? 
:6. Images?: 
This is a very thorough article and, after discussion with the nominator on IRC; I'm passing this as a good article, however my decision has not be biased throughout this, despite my discussions with the nominator on its improvement.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.</div>— Qst 20:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: Route 18 North at Route 547 is self-explanatory, but where does the GSP come in? I looked at a map and there are no GSP entrances from that side  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.70.72 (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NJ Route 18 North at County Route 547 South 

message: This article has failed the USRD GA audit and will be sent to WP:GAR if the issues are not resolved within one week. Please see WT:USRD for more details, and please ask me if you have any questions as to why this article failed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm puzzled. I went to the link, and I just don't see what authority this person has to move the article, especially with such short notice. My main problem with this heavy-handed course of action is that no information is given about specifically what is wrong with this article. It says "if the issues are not resolved within one week"... well, what issues? I just don't get it. What is so horrible about this article that it has to be sent to the cyber-equivalent of Siberia?Njsustain (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody is allowed to send articles to WP:GAR. The problem with this article (as stated on that page) is that there is a monotony of "At x.xx miles, NJ 18 does this. At y.yy miles, NJ 18 does that." etc. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: . I have removed the mileages from the route description. Dough4872 (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: USRD GA audit

message: The recent total rewrite does not, in my opinion, improve the article. It is poorly written, not of neutral point of view, and is from one person's perspective. I believe it should be reverted. Njsustain (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The quality can be improved and it is not from one person's persective. Reverting it will bring more errors in the article. Yours were no better anyway such as (Moar work).<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT>32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 18:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Mine" were not the only previous edits to the article. The article has evolved for years from many editors. A change of this magnitude was not appropriate with no discussion taking place. I'm not going to get in a tit for tat with "says you!" comments. The article will simply be reverted. Njsustain (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you do, I will cite WP:POINT violation. The article was missing important information, and the article was falling apart from the writing in 2007. The article needs it, the encyclopedia is supposed be of better work. Fix the prose, don't remove everything.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT>32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 18:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but you replaced everything with your perspective. Exactly how can you claim the rebuild relieved congestion? Do you drive there in the afternoon? What is this "partial interchange" at paulus blvd. you speak of? Your threatening tone is clear that you have no interest in improving this article, only in forcing your clearly skewed perspective on WP readers. Thanks for "improving" the article many, many contributors have worked on without even so much as a relevant discussion about the material, only implying that everyone else is a bad writer. Toodleloo, road warrior.Njsustain (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop bitching at me. I live in Highland Park. I know what Route 18 is like. But I don't use my point of view for sourcing. I rewrote the entire article the first time, and people have made minor changes over time. Read the history for all I care. I wrote everything I just rewrote in 2007. I have lots of care for the article like I do every other road in the state.<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT>32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 19:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor rewrite 

message: Why is Route 33/66 both mentioned in the info box, don't they both parallel at that point with each other between there split to Route 35?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.61.185 (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route 33/66 listed both in the major box? 

message: Notwithstanding the route inventory, we are either close to or past the time to update this article. I bring the following evidence (which may partly be WP:OR, though sometimes we update highway articles based on observation):
*The construction along Hoes Lane and Centennial Avenue is now complete, with the exception of the resurfacing of a small bridge on the section of Centennial between Hoes and Possumtown Road. 
*The Route 18 shield has not been added to the exit signs for Exit 8 along I-287. However, the rest of the signage is complete and in place.
*See reference 22: NJDOT has described Hoes Lane as "Route 18" at least once.
*Google Maps now marks Hoes Lane as NJ 18.
I'd appreciate some thoughts from others. Note: I may begin to edit this article inside , so that it is ready to go when we decide to pull the trigger. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are End NJ 18 signs that coincideс with the route terminating at I-287 Exit 8 on Centennial Avenue and Possumtown Road. Also the signage on I-287 at Exit 8 indicates that you exit to NJ 18. I think its about time this article was update to reflect the extension to I-287. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I'll get at it over the course of the week. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to change the article to show Route 18 ending at I-287 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New Jersey Route 18. 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/20110628183145/http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1953_New_Jersey_state_highway_renumbering to http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1953_New_Jersey_state_highway_renumbering
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) 03:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)