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

GA

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)

Newsletter

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)

Was I supposed to get one? My name's on the list... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Shunpiking gone awry

OK, here's the schpiel. It appears that there's an edit war going on in all the NJ toll roads about the legitamacy of "shunpiking" in the articles. Shouldn't we be discussing this before we go back and forth about it? Personally, I see no need for it, other than a quick one or two sentence blurb to acknowledge that it happens, but no need for a play-by-play of how to do it. This would constitute original research and needs to be cited if it should stay. But, that's my opinion. Why not work it out right now here before this turns into an all-day event.... EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree; Alansohn disagrees, and we've been going back and forth on our talk pages. If a route is a popular shunpiking one, and a reliable source like a newspaper article can be found that says so, it makes sense to mention that, but I would not add detailed directions; we never include "how-to guides". --NE2 16:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NE2's most recent comment on Alansohn's talk page which seems like a good compromise on the matter. There's always been some level of controversy with shunpiking on Wikipedia, and I wholeheartedly agree that most of it violates WP:OR and other Wikipedia policies. However, it is undeniable fact that there are toll-free alternatives to these highways, and they are probably worthy of mention outside the context of shunpiking. -- NORTH ^talk 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, all freeway articles, toll or not, should probably mention the older parallel surface roads that they supplanted. --NE2 18:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur; it helps establish the history as to why it was built in the first place. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 18:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I too concur. However, it's important to point out that not all of the toll-free "shunpiking" alternatives are surface roads. (Ex. I-295 to the Turnpike south of 7A, US 1/9 to the Turnpike between 13A and 15E or 14C -- I-287 was also mentioned as an alternative to the Parkway, but IMHO, that's horsehockey.) -- NORTH ^talk 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe I-295 was even built after the Turnpike; in that case it might fit best in a discussion of the Turnpike's relation to the Interstate Highway System, focusing on the history of the Interstate designations and New Jersey's wish to build a new corridor all (?) the way. --NE2 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The turnpike was built in 1951; portions of I-295 were completed as part of US 130 in the 1940s. But yes, as a through route, I-295 definitely came later.

I'm having a bit of trouble following the second part of your comment. I-295 has very little to do with any sort of direct relationship between the Turnpike and the Interstate system, nor does it have to do with the I-95 gap (is that what you meant by a new corridor?) other than the fact that it would have fit a little more nicely in the numbering system had I-95 been completed.

All I'm really looking for is some sort of mention of the parallel routes. In New Jersey Turnpike, this was kept, since there the "shunpiking" section was severely truncated rather than blanked, whereas in the GSP and ACE articles the section was simply blanked. -- NORTH ^talk 00:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I think the idea of a sentence or two acknowledging its existance is appropriate, so I think the blanking is a little much, but it definitely needs to be encyclopedic with cites, not just, "This is how I recommend you screw the NJTA out of money:..." which is how it appeared until this morning.

Living in Pedricktown most of my life, you find ways to avoid the tollways as much as feasible, but just b/c it's my way doesn't make it noteworthy. Honestly, no one cares how I do it; all they care about is that it's done. Let people find out for themselves how to do it. That's the adventure in it, and isn't that what roadgeeking all about? EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 02:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that New Jersey or the federal government decided to build new routes - I-295 and I-95 - paralleling the Turnpike from the Delaware Memorial Bridge to Perth Amboy (or further north? [1] only includes the I-78 section), rather than incorporating the Turnpike into the system, but the parallel route north of Trenton was not built. --NE2 13:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why dont we say "In the Philadelphia area the Turnpike is closely paralleled by I-295 which primarily serves local traffic but is sometimes used to shunpike" Something similar. I do like the idea for it to be included but it needn't be a whole thesis. Thats my 2 cents :) Jgcarter 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tables for county route lists?

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)

Goodbye

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)
PS- You can help me out by using my website for citations!

To-do list

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 {{infobox road}} 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 {{infobox road}} 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 {{cite web}} 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)

Shields

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" (File:New Jersey 184.svg).

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)

My County Routes "Quest"

Ever since I joined Wikipedia a short time ago, I've gained a real intrest in this state's county routes. Recently, I completed the List of county routes in Mercer County, New Jersey. Now, I'm really intrested in completing the list of all county routes in the state. I'm doing this by using both the NJ Straight Line Diagrams and NJ County Maps as references. Any tips for this bold county-routegeeker? Mr. Matté 00:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No particular tips. Thank you for all your contributions, now and in the future.

The one thing I can say is that ideally, at some point, the county route lists will be converted to table form, but right now the only ones that follow this are the 500-series list, Monmouth, and I believe Atlantic. So it's no big deal if you continue to expand them using the old format. The conversions relatively easy when I get around to it. -- NORTH ^talk 07:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've done the table idea on the Hunterdon CR List (using the table from the Monmouth Co. list). Any thoughts about that? (Note: The blank space before the [[County Route 6xx (Hunterdon County, New Jersey|CR 6xx]] is for the shield, I don't have a .svg editor to create them) Mr. Matté 17:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good so far. Excellent job. -- NORTH ^talk 19:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

County routes

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)

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 son^{T - C} 16:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.^Mitch32^contribs 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.

• Route 3 - Formed in 1927, the 10.8 mile (17.4 km) route extends from U.S. Route 46 in Clifton to U.S. Route 1/9 in North Bergen.
• Route 4 - Formed in 1934, the 10.8 mile (17.4 km) route extends from New Jersey Route 20 in Paterson to U.S. Route 9W in Fort Lee.

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)

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.^Mitch32^contribs 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.^Mitch32^contribs 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.^Mitch32^contribs 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.^Mitch32^contribs 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: [2]

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.^Mitch32^contribs 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.^Mitch32^contribs 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.^Mitch32^contribs 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.^Mitch32^contribs 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)

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!^Mitch32^contribs 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.^Mitch32^contribs 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.^Mitch32^contribs 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.^Mitch32^contribs 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.^Mitch32^contribs 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)

Bergen County roads: shields and designations

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)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

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)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for New Jersey road transport

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)

Coordinators' working group

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)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

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)

Merge proposed

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.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

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)

Pulaski Skyway FA review

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)

A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates

I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{WikiProject United States}}. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:28, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

US Collaboration reactivated & Portal:United States starting next

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)

RFC on coordinates in highway articles

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)

Implementation of maps on County Routes

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)

The Maps Task Force is mostly inactive right now, unfortunately. Imzadi 1979 → 03:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Eventually, the county routes will get maps, along with any state routes missing maps. Dough4872 03:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

These are also not urgent considering state routes still lack them. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 03:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring of USRD

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