![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Its not big yet.Please help. HurricaneCraze32 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
List of New Jersey 600-series secondary 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)
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:
Any comments? -- SPUI ( T - C) 01:30, 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)
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)
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 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)
I'm begrudgingly going to accept SPUI's proposed browsing order, which as I understand it is:
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:
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)
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)
....*DONE* -- NORTH talk 00:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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? Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 16:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
There is a lot of controversy about which junctions should be included.
Mlaurenti 23 August 2006 08:46 (Eastern Time)
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)
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?
I hope this helps out a bit.
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)
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)
What about infobox road is not satisfactory? I may be able to help modify it. -- NE2 20:59, 12 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)
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
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)
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 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Its not big yet.Please help. HurricaneCraze32 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
List of New Jersey 600-series secondary 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)
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:
Any comments? -- SPUI ( T - C) 01:30, 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)
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)
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 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)
I'm begrudgingly going to accept SPUI's proposed browsing order, which as I understand it is:
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:
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)
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)
....*DONE* -- NORTH talk 00:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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? Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 16:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
There is a lot of controversy about which junctions should be included.
Mlaurenti 23 August 2006 08:46 (Eastern Time)
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)
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?
I hope this helps out a bit.
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)
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)
What about infobox road is not satisfactory? I may be able to help modify it. -- NE2 20:59, 12 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)
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
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)
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 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)