Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WT:NJSCR
WT:NJSH
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Archive
Archives
1 – December 19, 2006

2 – now archiving


Contents

[edit] TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates

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)

[edit] Reminder from USRD

In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces:

  1. 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.
  2. If a project does not remain aware of such developments and complains later, then there is most likely nothing USRD can do about it.
  3. 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.
  4. 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)

[edit] Proposals

After expanding 25 articles to Start or B, I have some ideas for how to lower our falling stub count. The first is for a List of minor routes in New Jersey, which contains some of the shortest, little history routes that we have (a.k.a. permastubs). My second idea is reinstating the Decommissioned state highways in New Jersey as List of former state routes in New Jersey, as we have too many articles on proposed/former routes. Both can help in the long run. The third idea is to create an Aricle Improvement Drive for us, so we can collaborate on the longer articles. Most of ideas are following NY's, but all will benefit us a lot. Voice your opinion.Mitch32contribs 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the project, but I'll throw in my opinion (as a fellow New Jersey roadgeek). Merging is certainly a good idea, and I like the idea of List of former state routes in New Jersey. Regarding the "minor routes", would that be minor state routes? If so, that should be specified. Minor is bit subjective, so I'm not sure what would be the best way to define that. Some short routes (probably up in North Jersey) might have a ton of information, and could warrant keeping its article. On the other hand, there could be somewhat long routes with very little information, but perhaps not enough information. Maybe the article could become List of state route in New Jersey, and avoid the potential problem with "minor". It'd be a natural sibling to the former state routes. Of course, since there are over 100 routes, that'd be quite long, so the format would have to be a bit different. Perhaps just list each one, giving only the length, beginning and end points, when it was created, etc., like the following.

That's just a basic template, and obviously the wording/content can be changed, but if a route is so small that the only notable information is the above, then "merging" to that page would be a fine choice. That is only my personal preference to do things, as I like lists and my experience is limited to organizing hurricane articles. Also, I've never had luck with article improvement drives, so I have no comment on that aspect. However, informal collaborations, or creating a list of core articles, are alternatives. Good luck with whichever decision you make. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want ideas on a list of minor routes, check out List of minor routes in Pennsylvania. --Son (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. However, that page isn't clear in what constitutes "minor". ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. --Son (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] County route proposal

Seeing we have a major problem with county routes here, we gotta look at notability and information. We currently have over 30 county route articles (excluding the lists). Most of these are stubs except a special few. County Route 676 (Middlesex County, New Jersey) and County Route 622 (Middlesex County, New Jersey) are by far our best articles for County routes and I'm sure we can make more like that. However, the notability on a few of these articles are not existant and need to be explained. During my stub expansion, I did target a few of the 600 series routes, getting them to higher stats. I like writing CR articles, I so do, but we've gotta put together a better guideline for them. We should also look into focusing more on the important routes in New Jersey.Mitch32contribs 22:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but those two articles don't look that great. --NE2 04:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok...I meant in terms of class rating. But I'll get around to fixing them at some point.Mitch32contribs 12:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


Is anyone gonna comment on the proposals rather than discuss minor things? This thread is dead and it really should be discussed.Mitch32contribs 00:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I never really liked the idea of merging unrelated routes into a larger list; it's essentially taking a number of articles and concatenating them for no good reason. It's not really much of a merge, since you just copy the text and stick it in; usually a merge eliminates some overlap between the two articles (such as a named freeway with the route it carries). Whenever possible, you should cover an extremely minor or former route in the article about a related less minor or existing route. Can you give some examples of routes in New Jersey that would be merged? --NE2 02:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Examples include New Jersey Route 62, New Jersey Route 64, maybe New Jersey Route 68, New Jersey Route 76C, New Jersey Route 93, and New Jersey Route 155 are some examples of mergeable routes.Mitch32contribs 11:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Here are my suggestions, if you want to merge those somewhere:
Route 62 → US 46, since Route 62 was Route S6 and US 46 was Route 6, or maybe CR 646? Is that major enough for an article?
Route 64 → CR 571, since that's what it appears to be marked as: [1]
Route 68 → US 206, for the same reason as Route 62 - but this is a four-lane divided highway, so it doesn't seem necessary.
Route 76C → I-76, obviously
Route 93 → I want to say Route 5, but it doesn't really look related. CR 501 might be the best place, despite not being totally concurrent.
Route 155 → Route 73 - was this a former alignment of Route 73? I note that Route 73 was Route S41 and Route 155 was Route S41N, so even if it wasn't it's still closely related.
--NE2 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Then explain the situation with something like New Jersey Route 18N, which I am not sure can sustain an article.Mitch32contribs 17:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks like that belongs with US 9W. --NE2 18:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, here's the full list: 18N, 62, 64, 68, 76C, 155, 157, 163, 164, 165, 167 maybe, 172, 178, 187, and 324.Mitch32contribs 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Here are my suggestions: 157 → US 9, 163 → US 46 or the bridge it led to, 164 → 81, 165 → 29, 167 → US 9, 172 → 18, 178 → 53, 187 → 87, 324 → US 322. --NE2 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a fair proposal. Also I'm deciding probably to keep 93 and see what can be done with it. Also 172 should probably not have an article or be merged at all. Route 172 no longer connects to 18 until a new onramp and overpass can be built and as far as I've seen, nothing's started yet.Mitch32contribs 21:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
324 doesn't connect to 322, but it's still a former alignment, like 172 and 18. --NE2 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for merging the leftovers to the said articles. 93 is probably gonna stay unless info is unavailable. I'd rather have a consensus before pulling anything else.Mitch32contribs 21:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and think it would help the stub count. Juliancolton (Talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Descreasing the "stub count" is not a good motivation. Our goal is to improve articles, and simply plopping a bunch of stubs on one page just makes one page with a bunch of stubs. --NE2 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1,001 apologies for the late reply. I was essentially absent for a bit while waiting for my new computer to arrive (which it has, God bless it), and didn't notice that discussion had picked up. That being said, I don't think I agree with the direction this discussion is going. The information exists out there for any article on a current route to be expanded I would think to at least B-class. (Start class at the very least.) There might be rare exceptions for unsigned routes, but these would be very rare indeed. 165 is another weird exception that should probably be merged with 29 to avoid just duplicating all the information.
That being said, I do agree that many of the articles on decommissioned routes can be merged into other articles. New Jersey Route 11 and 164 will probably never be expanded beyond what they are/were.
I cleared out my watchlist when I came back from retirement, so I don't know what changes have already been made. On second glance, it looks like most of the routes listed above are either decommissioned or weird unsigned routes, so we're probably saying the same thing for the most part, just with opposite tone. If you have merged (or are threatening to) any signed, current routes, let me know, and I'd like to discuss them on a case-by-case basis. -- NORTH talk 01:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Doing the leg work myself -- out of the routes discussed above, here's what I disagree with.
  • 62, the article seems to qualify for Start class already in my book, even if it is short, and it should be expandable
  • 68', absolutely not, it's a major state highway... just not one that anyone's written about so far :-P
  • 157, it's a signed state highway. At the very least, If it is going to stay in the US 9 article, then it needs a lot more than a single sentence in the history section. Adding a picture is not "Merging in 157".
  • 167, I don't necessarily disagree with the merge, but there was no merge. Right now, there's a redirect, and NJ 167 is never mentioned in the article text. Again, if you're going to merge them, you have to actually merge them.
  • 172, same problem as 167, although this is a current state highway that can probably be kept
  • 187, another expandable article on a current state highway
So those are my thoughts. Yours? -- NORTH talk 01:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree here that what was done was not merging. For an example of merging (here with a former route), see California State Route 141. --NE2 01:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article requests page

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)

That's pretty bureaucratic if you have to go to a page before creating an article. --NE2 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
What's wrong with using this talk page? --NE2 21:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
For that, an article requests page is a bit superflous. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
What's wrong with the importance ratings? --NE2 21:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, bad idea. Otherwise, what's your decision on the County Road proposals? As that seems to have not been mentioned.Mitch32contribs 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)

[edit] Bergen County roads: shields and designations

Shield for Bergen CR 62 I made.
Shield for Bergen CR 62 I made.

I've noticed that on the very few occasions when a lower-level Bergen County county road is given an image on here, it's presented in the standard pentagon. With only two exceptions in my experience (CR 124 in Little Ferry and overhead signs for "CR 2" in Montvale), Bergen County's roads do not use the blue pentagons, but rather white squares like the one at right. I think we should use those throughout, as they are the official signs used. Style note: The font used on the signs doesn't appear to be consistent, so I don't know which we would want to use on the images. The image at right uses Arial for "BERGEN" and "COUNTY" and Microsoft Sans Sarif for the number.

Also, I'd like to start a few pages similar to those used for the Rockland County NY county road system, where there are main pages for roads 1-40, 41-75, and 76+ along with specific pages for important roads. I think any such set of pages for the Bergen system has to address "CR" 2-21, which appear on maps and are frequently signed along with (or instead of) the official routes, but which are not recognized by NJDOT. For instance, one article covering all of those "overlay" routes which would say:

Bergen County Road 2 is the unofficial, but signed designation of a series of county roads throughout northern Bergen County. From west to east, it includes Darlington Road (CR 98), Lake Street (CR S-81 and CR 94), and Grand Avenue (CR 96).

Bergen County Road 3 is the unofficial, but signed designation of CR S-89 in western Bergen County.

With links to the pages that have the route log for the NJDOT-recognized route. In certain cases, the article for the official route would note the unofficial one. For instance:

Bergen County Road 80 (signed as County Road 6 throughout most of its route) stretches from CR 84 in Midland Park to...

I haven't seen much on these points, so I figured I'd put it up for discussion before I put too much effort into making the shields and pages. What do you guys think? Jonpin (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll admit I'd thought about correcting that oversight regarding the shields. I should be able to make a new set of shields when I return to my home computer in a couple of days. (I'm technically on wikibreak now, can't you tell. :-P)
Regarding the overlay routes, I think that would be an okay way to deal with it. I think the NJDOT-recognized designations should always have prominence in articles though, mainly because we have reliable sources confirming them. This not quite-so-reliable source seems to indicate that the overlay routes are former designations that are only signed due to error or laziness – that is, that they just haven't bothered to take down the old signs yet.
Also, regarding the Rockland-style list articles, I think ideally eventually all 21 counties would switch to such an article system. I discussed such a change with Mitch on IRC after he made the post in the previous section above, and I think that was the conclusion we came to. The only reason it hasn't been implemented yet is because it requires a lot of work, and I'm currently busy at the Washington project, and he's busy in New York and Vermont. But yeah, if you want to create some good list articles for Bergen County, that would be awesome. :-) -- Kéiryn talk 20:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You should have shields good to go for all the mainline routes now. The C and S routes will take me a bit longer to make shields for, as I have to do some experimentation to figure out what to do with the hyphen. -- Kéiryn talk 02:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty, everything should be done now. If I missed any, or if they designate any new routes, feel free to request additional shields here, on my talk page or at WP:USRD/S/R. -- Kéiryn talk 03:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)