Talk:County routes in New Jersey

U.S. Roads: County roads / New Jersey Mid‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	U.S. county roads
Locations	New Jersey
	This article does not require a map.
	This article does not require a junction list.
	This article does not require a KML file.

Seal image

Hello all, I have added a seal image to the article. However the colors do look a bit off and I have no idea what typeface NJDOT uses on these signs, so please let me know what I should do to improve this! However I have checked measurements and text positions against a photo of an actual seal taken by User:Route 82. Thanks! lensovet 07:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention for 600-series

The orads listed in the original version of this article are in the format of County Route 632 (New Jersey). This works great for the List of 500-series county routes in New Jersey, but will it work for the 600's? The 500's are all uniquely assigned, but is that the case for the 600's? Is it possible that the same number is used in different counties for different roads? Alansohn 21:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are duplicated. I'd also recommend one article per county, with only main routes getting their own articles. --SPUI (T - C) 23:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've broken the page into seperate county categories.

I'm talking about something like [1]. Now for Indiana's State Roads this is just too big, but for a county (something like list of County Routes in Monmouth County, New Jersey) it should be fine for all but the most major routes. --SPUI (T - C) 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the link your provide has anything to do with this, since this page, from the outset, only has links to highway pages...lensovet 00:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now do see what you're talking about but I really don't see any argument for such a system. If you look at our 500-series page, it's a list of links, and that makes way more sense. Among other things, it allows you to link directly to the streets from other articles. lensovet 04:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Route 82) - I intend to only show the most major or unique secondary county highways, the lists will not be very long for each county. The longest will most likely be from Monmouth and Ocean County since that is where I live, and since Ocean has very little signage for 600 county routes it'll mostly be Monmouth. All other counties will just be whatever pics I have that I found interesting.

Sources

User:SPUI, care to tell us what exactly needs to be cited here?

"In the cases of the more populated counties, those 600 numbers can often carry over and remain unchanged even after crossing crounty boundaries. In some of those counties, the 600-series numbers can break into the 700's and even the 800's."

done lensovet 04:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ocean County is very indifferent about their route system and, unlike all the other counties, have not signed their 600 route system."

"The reason for Ocean County's lax signage system is unclear, but recently changes have been made at the engineering level and some 600 route signage has appeared in newer construction projects."

~~"List of 600 Series (or Internal Secondary) County Routes"~~

done lensovet 04:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--SPUI (T - C) 01:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOOK! I worked for a summer at Ocean County Engineering, and I inquired why the 600 series routes in the county had remained largely unsigned. I wasn't given a clear answer, but it was basicly that they didn't follow the other 20 counties in the state, and didn't really find it necessary to sign their 600 routes anytime soon. The engineer that I worked under used to work in Monmouth County, and he had a big influence on trying to get 600 route signage put in place at newer construction projects. I believe that it is relevant that Ocean County has chosen not to sign their 600 routes, because it effects their network of highways. Without the 600's they only have 500's and state routes which is a small amount. (9,35,37,70,72,88) (526,527,528,530,532,539,549,554) and compared with the county's size and other county's route systems that is a small amount. IF a 600 route has any signage, it is usually just one reference marker or one sign hanging from a traffic light. The only 600 routes to have any substantial signage thus far is CR 624 which had a section reconstructed and signage was put in place all along it. But it was still only the middle of the total road length. So please do not keep deleting my addition of Ocean County's relaxed signage system for it's 600 route system because it is relevant to the subject. Route 82 20:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source. --SPUI (T - C) 05:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Route 82, if you can get in touch with the engineer that you worked with and have him provide you with a written statement of the things you listed above, on some sort of official letterhead (i.e. Ocean County DOT / Engineering, etc.), and then you scan this statement and show it to us, I think we can settle this once and for all. lensovet 20:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The selection of this range was coordinated within the state, gradually replacing older systems of mainly one- and two-digit routes." – well, the reference there just shows a bunch of historical maps. This doesn't in any way confirm the fact that the selection was "coordinated". lensovet 21:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT ARE U TALKING ABOUT?? I'm refering to someone who keeps deleting my statement of Ocean County not signing their 600 route system... like in the way that every other county in the state does... Route 82 03:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say "every other county in the state does"? Hudson County has NO signed 6XX routes. NONE. --SPUI (T - C) 05:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's settle this simply. Add {{Fact}} to every statement that's original research, and move on from there. There's no need to make this into an edit war. lensovet 05:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This will become an edit war if my content keeps getting erased, I am putting it there for a reason. So then, Hudson is another county that doesn't sign them, but Ocean County neglects both the 500 and 600, and I think it's relevant to keep it in the article so stop erasing it... I created this page expressly for Ocean and Monmouth County, the other counties are only here because i have some random pictures from road trips that I wanted to share. I wanted to show the only signage that Ocean County has of it's 600 routes, so please stop erasing my content from the article! I noted in the article that Hudson County also does not sign their routes. Please do not change the Ocean County lineup, I want to keep the routes with signage and those without seperate. Route 82 05:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to combine Ocean County - there's no reason to separate out the ones for which they happened to put up a sign. --SPUI (T - C) 08:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The I'll continue to change it back!!!!! I created the article for this express purpose and that's the way I want it! I want them seperate because more then half of Ocean County's routes have no signage, and the ones that do only have one or two signs at all. Yes, Hudson may not have any at all, but Ocean County has partially signed them, which is worse then not at all. It is relevant to keep those signed and those not apart. And there is only need for ONE citation remark... not four of them!!! Route 82 14:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added new pages, so stop changing it back because your deleting my text! Find something else to nitpick over, I'm sure you can find plenty! Route 82 15:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know those are the only signed routes? Have you been on every part of every one?
Even if you have, the fact that they've gotten around to putting up a single sign is not important enough to place it in an entirely different list. Someone looking for a route will be looking for its number, not whether it's signed and then the number. --SPUI (T - C) 17:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question... YES! While working for the county I had the oppurtunity to drive and explore every road in the entire county. I have taken pictures of all the signage that Ocean County has so far placed. The Italics is fine, but now you have erased what I wrote for 623... stop changing my stuff around... it's really getting annoying! Route 82 19:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming convention when referring to a 600-series road

We also need to deal with the issue of how to refer to one of these roads when wikilinking to it from another article. Unlike the 500 series, where CR 555 is enough to uniquely identify the road, we probably need to indicate county in there, unless it is completely obvious from the article what the county is. I suggest that we use the format of[[County Route 689 (Middlesex County New Jersey)|CR 689 (Middlesex Cty.)]] as a model. Alansohn 14:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost agree here, except that the article tite, i.e. County Route 689 (Middlesex County New Jersey) should have a comma after the word County, i.e. County Route 689 (Middlesex County, New Jersey) lensovet 16:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the need for a comma in the article title. However, I also have a different suggestion for the link format. How about this?

[[County Route 689 (Middlesex County, New Jersey)|CR 689]] in [[Middlesex County]]

...which produces...

CR 689 in Middlesex County

-- Northenglish 21:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to keep all secondary (and internal) county highways grouped together in one category, broken into each county. It'll be too much if we make a seperate page for Monmouth & Bergen. Those county routes may not be 600 but they are still the secondary highways of the county, and as such belong on this list. for example, CR 55... if Monmouth had adopted the 600 route system it would most likely be CR 655. Route 82 00:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree, I just object to Monmouth County routes being call 600-series routes. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 03:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Monmouth County routes included?

If this is supposed to be a "List of 600-series county routes in New Jersey, why is County Route 3 in Monmouth County included? -- Northenglish 21:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because The selection of this range was coordinated within the state[citation needed], gradually replacing older systems of mainly one- and two-digit routes[1]. Only two counties – Bergen County[2] and Monmouth County[3] – have not adopted 600-series numbers. However, the "class" of route/highway is the same lensovet 21:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What "class" is this? If this class has an actual name, then that should be used as the article title instead. Since Monmouth County has not adopted 600-series numbers, it does not have 600-series routes to include on this list. -- Northenglish 21:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The class is "secondary county highways". See the HTML comment I just stuck on the top of the article lensovet 23:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is either "secondary county highway" or "600-series route" an offical NJDOT term? Unless 600-series route is an official term that obviously includes Monmouth County routes, I stand by my claim that they should not be on this list. -- Northenglish 23:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move?

Would anyone object to moving this page to List of secondary county routes in New Jersey, as per the comments above? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 03:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol if by rename you mean, copy the contents of this article to that new title and make the current page a redirect to the new page, then sure. lensovet 03:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But then it won't be the next page in sucession after the 500 series... which it should be... Route 82 14:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about just county routes in New Jersey, and link to the 5xx page? And no - we don't mean a copy-paste move. There's a "move" tab next to "history". --SPUI (T - C) 15:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to make it "secondary county routes", unless we were to actually merge the 5xx page into this one. The two pages are separate, and including a link on a "county routes" page would unnecessarily confuse the issue.

Route 82, are you objecting to the move? Or perhaps is there just some way we could get around the browse box and still have this page be in sucession after the 500 series? -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that they are actually called secondary county routes. --SPUI (T - C) 22:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. I did a similar search and found no evidence that they are actually called 600-series routes. (There is evidence that 500-series routes is an official term.) -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I propose this be moved to County routes in New Jersey, with a prominent link to 500-series. --SPUI (T - C) 11:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, sounds like a plan to me, although I would prefer a full-on merge. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 07:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 500 routes are secondary state routes... and the 600's are secondary county routes... cuz their internal. Route 82 19:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like original research. --SPUI (T - C) 19:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help completing the merge, SPUI!!! -- Northenglish (talk) -- 05:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed

Another user (HurricaneCraze32) had started a list of "600-series" routes on another page, which I have merged into this one. Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment to take care of the clean-up to make the formatting consistent with the rest of the list. If someone else, perhaps HurricaneCraze32 him/herself, could take care of it, that'd be great; otherwise I'll do it later tonight. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finished the list of Middlesex County.I included 700,701,702 and 807.HurricaneCraze32 22:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Alansohn! -- NORTH ^talk 12:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another proposal

Sad but true fact: Every county route article we have is a stub (with the possible exception of CR 549).

Sad but true fact #2: Deletionists at AfD are already on us calling articles on every single state route article "crufty", although they are never successful. They might see a higher hit rate on county route articles.

Happy and true fact: This article is larger than the 30kb article size guideline.

Sad but true opinion: I don't see much potential for these articles to get beyond stub status.

Proposed solution: Let's merge the articles so that we have one article for each county, plus one for the 500-series routes. At present, this would mean just the 500-series routes and Middlesex County would be split off from this article and those routes that do have their own articles merged together in new articles. Other county routes that have their own articles would be merged into this article until we get more information on the other routes in those counties.

All right, please discuss this. If you hate it, let me know. If I didn't make any sense, let me know. If you love the proposal, let me know. -- NORTH ^talk 04:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting ideas. I don't hate it at all, and it makes perfect sense. However, I'd have to say no to the "merge articles together" idea. This is a definite no for the 500-series; that article would get way too unwieldy. At this point, the same can't be said about the 600-series, but that's simply because there aren't that many of them. Dunno. there's my 2 cents. lensovet 05:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't object to the proposal, but doesn't this put us back to where we were before this article was created, with a 500-series article and one for each county? Besides "cruft" means anything a deletionist is not interested in. Alansohn 11:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep 5XX separate - there's a lot to say about 501 and 527 for instance. 600-series is definitely a possibility, though again I'd split off major ones like County Route 55 (Monmouth County, New Jersey), an eastern bypass of Freehold with several interchanges. --SPUI (T - C) 17:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where we started before was one article for 500-series routes, and another for 600-series (all other) routes, and the only reason they were merged was because we realized any term we came up with for the 600-series routes was actually a neologism. This plan would split up the 600-series routes into 21 pages on each of the counties (although temporarily only Middlesex County, and possibly Ocean, would get its own page; the rest would stay here until we fleshed out the information). Then all the pages would be merged into the new pages.

I'm curious as to why merging the 500-routes would be too unwieldly. With the exception of CR 549, none of them have much more than a sentence and a list of municipalities. Is it possible that they may at some point be expanded beyond sub-status? Of course, but in the meantime, that's not the case. I'm just being healthily pessimistic in our ability to flesh those out to the point where they wouldn't be better suited as section in a larger article. Perhaps we could reach a compromise and merge the articles for now, but leave the option open for re-splitting them after they've been fleshed out and deserving of their own article?

There might be a lot to say about 501 and 527, but right now we have nothing at all.

Hope to hear more from you and others. -- NORTH ^talk 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot more annoying to do it that way - see the history of list of Indiana numbered highways. Any deletionism should be satisfied by the fact that the state coordinates the 500-series numbers, as with California's letter-number routes. --SPUI (T - C) 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But as I see it, most of the annoyance regarding Indiana comes from people splitting articles off when there's still only a single paragraph about the route, no? If we resolved not to split the articles off until there was something substantial, wouldn't that solve some of the annoyance? -- NORTH ^talk 20:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - the annoyance was with the articles all being together - there are still a number of links like State Road 2. --SPUI (T - C) 03:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm still not clear on what the issue is with the Indiana list (at this point it would probably be best for them to split off the remaining routes), it's obvious there's consensus to keep the 500-series routes separate. But am I correct in saying there's no objection to merging the 600/other routes into one article for each county (with the possibility for a few exceptions)? -- NORTH ^talk 22:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object. --SPUI (T - C) 22:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, esp since there aren't that many articles to deal with. heh...i guess i can't say anything in objection...lame. —lensovet–talk – 01:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hey, so after all that lovely conversation, I've decided to pretend that I had never made that proposal. Middlesex CR 676 is no longer a stub, although it needs some cleanup; Monmouth CR 3 is looking pretty good. I have seen the light, and I don't think merging would actually get us anywhere. -- NORTH ^talk 00:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly-i got a picture of CR 676 on camera, except at 15, i cant figure out how to upload a picture onto my computer.HurricaneCraze32-01:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Route 615 in South Amboy

I think County Route 615 North in Middlesex County ends at Pine Avenue, Stevens Avenue is more north.

Nextbarker 04:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

Another proposal II

Since the page is now over 70 kb long, prompting a lovely little message that says "It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size", I'm going to reopen the proposal above to... well... split this article into smaller, more specific articles. That would be one for the 500-series routes, and one for each of the twenty-one counties. I'll add the split to the bottom of my to-do list. Definitely feel free to share any thoughts you have with me in the meantime. -- NORTH ^talk 23:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the split of the 500's from the rest, but I feel the rest should be grouped as "600's", only because having a separate page per county could get confusing and adding appropriate links to other pages would get messy for roads that connect to a dozen 600's, like CR 527, which would need a link to all the counties it goes through. But the split in general would be a great thing. Or, if worse comes to worst, split them alpha and put A-H on one page and M-W on the other (that semi-evenly splits the counties...damn all those M's)...that's my 2¢. Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how links on other pages becomes an issue. Like your CR 527 example, what links would be messed up – why would it need a link to each of the separate county pages. If you're talking about linking to 527 from the list; I think we would only link to it from the 500 page, with a see also note on the county pages. Or, we could link to it on the county pages, too, but I don't see how it's a problem. Maybe you could make your issues a little more clear.

But no, we cannot group the rest as 600's. Monmouth and Bergen are not 600-series routes, and the term "600-series" was determined to be a neologism. That's the main (if not only) reason the two lists were merged together in the first place. Also, most of the "longness" of this article comes from listing the "non 500" routes, so I think splitting those but keeping them lumped together wouldn't solve the problem – we'd just have one short article and one slightly-shorter-but-still-really-long article. -- NORTH ^talk 00:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, after thinking about it, we'd need to split them into seperate counties anyway, even if we did group them in a "600's" page, so let's just cut out the middle man and go straight for the "per-county" lists. Now I agree they make more sense, too. Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 15:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my article ideas:

Instead of using "600-series", i used "secondary county routes" to make it sound more encylcopedic. All 21 counties, all done.Mitch azenia(9200+edits) 17:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "secondary county routes" is still a neologism. (It doesn't matter if it sounds encyclopedic, it has to actually be encyclopedic. Also, I think it would be better to include "New Jersey" in the title. My ideas would be 500-series county routes in New Jersey and County routes in XX County, New Jersey.

I'll work on the split once I finish cleaning up the I-78 article. -- NORTH ^talk 22:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shields and tables

I fail to see how the presence of shields or formatting the data in table form make this article any more useful. I would strongly suggest saving the time spent on this task and leave it as is, unless there is some clear explanation of the benefit of the work involved. As I see it, the text is very readable as is. Alansohn 23:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I see adding the info helps someone wanting to know what city/borough/township/etc. a particular route goes to and how long it is without having to click on the link. It's meant to be more of a quick information table than just aesthetics. Now, the shields, while seemingly useless, also help with someone who's not familiar with the county signage of a state (say, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia, who don't use pentagons) to get their bearings and know what they need to look for in findnig a route. If I just said "Route 9" in Monmouth County, for example, there's two: US and CR. Same goes for 18, 33, 35, and 36. To a Virginian, this: (

) could be a county route, as all their "secondary state routes" (aka "county routes") are circle signs as well. So, trust me; there is a method to our madness. Eagles Fan In Tampa (formerly Jimbo) 00:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the text on List of 500-series county routes in New Jersey, for me at least, isn't entirely readable. It's a big block of chunky text that can take a while for someone to make heads or tails from. With the shields there, and the entries spaced out a bit in a table, you can find at a quick glance the link your looking for; whereas with the current system, I can envision someone with slightly worse eyesight than myself looking at the list, taking a moment to find the 30s, and then squinting to find the link to CR 537. -- NORTH ^talk 00:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the logic at all. The lengths can be added in minutes to the existing text and only the two end municipalities will be listed, which doesn't help anyone unless they want the rather obscure information to the question, "Hey, I wonder what town or city Route 537 starts and ends in?". A single sample sign, made nice and large would demonstrate what signs look like far more effectively, and presumably we could get the point across that the numbers change for each route without showing each one. If spacing were really the issue for the visually impaired inserting blank lines would solve the problem. Furthermore, this article is only for county routes. If there were confusion between US routes and double-digit CRs, the problem is not in this article or even at the Monmouth County article; the problem there is in articles that reference the routes, which won't have the benefit of shields to guide them to the distinction. But, then again, like it or not, this is yet another change to be rammed down our throats. I'll move out of the way of this 18-wheeler. I don't know who this "our" is who is working on this issue, but one day, maybe this can be treated as a group project and have attempts made at reaching consensus beyond the limited number of folks who seem to be deciding issues for the rest of us. Alansohn 00:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This idea you have of having to talk out changes before they are made flies directly in the face of Wikipedia:Be bold, one of Wikipedia's five pillars. (You might also want to check out the flowchart on Wikipedia:Consensus, which clearly says you're intended to edit before you discuss.) It was slightly sneaky of Eaglesfan and I to discuss it on our user talk pages, rather than the relatively inactive project talk page, but it was discussed. And when he went with a four column format, rather than my preferred two, I looked at it, saw that it looked better than I'd planned, and I rolled with it. (Not to mention that one list was changed as part of this so-called ramming...)

I think I've explained why the table is easier to read -- I doubt inserting blank lines would solve the problem that much (the Middlesex list has them). I fail to see your logic (because you haven't presented it) as to why the table is any harder to read than the bulleted list. Under Wikipedia:When to use tables, it says, "Tables are perfect for organizing any information that is best presented in a row-and-column format." Lists of information, where we can divide the columns up into lengths and termini, falls perfectly into this category.

The world isn't out to get you. Trust me. -- NORTH ^talk 01:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "Wikipedia:Be bold" means "do whatever you damn well please", I guess you're following it to the letter. On the other hand, one of the five pillars states "find consensus", which doesn't seem to be followed. I have explained the issues as I see them, but I can clearly see that no effort will be made to reach any form of consensus. I don't feel that I am being picked on; it's that everyone else who might have any meaningful input on the matter is also being excluded. There is a group that has been created called Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes, which you might be familiar with, that seems to have been intended to facilitate group efforts. Maybe, you could try once to reach consensus with the group as a whole, and see if it works. Maybe those Wikipedia folks have an idea there on this consensus issue. Alansohn 01:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold means "When in doubt, fix it." It means that if you have an idea on how to improve an article, go ahead and do it. That's all this was.

It does say to find consensus on the 5 pillars, right after it says to stay cool, something you didn't do when you accused us of ramming this down your throat right after you started this discussion. If you want to start a consensus-building discussion, then let's go ahead and do it. (You'll note that there's still one list that has been converted to table form.) Let's discuss why a table is better, or why a bulleted list is better... -- NORTH ^talk 02:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do when signage doesn't match the SLD?

Signage is almost entirely divorced from the contents of the SLD's, at least in the New Brunswick area. Granted that NJ 18, NJ 27 and US 1 are clean, a whole lot of the rest of it is just crazy:

NJ Route 171: unsigned throughout New Brunswick—except for one overhead street sign at its terminus (George & Albany Sts.)
CR 527: unsigned from the beginning of the duplex with Route 18 in East Brunswick all the way to the intersection of French St. and Easton Ave. What's more ...
CR 672: SLD shows it running along George St. from Albany St. (NJ 27) up to Landing Lane. But ... to the extent that George St. is marked with anything from Albany St. down to Commercial Ave., it's with CR 672 shields. And it's not marked with either NJ 171 shields or CR 527 shields, which would both be right according to the SLD.
Similarly: Livingston Ave. is signed as CR 691 past Suydam St. (where it's supposed to end) all the way down to George St., even though that is supposed to be NJ 171.

In short, it's all a mess. Now, I figure this is probably because there is a mishmash of who is responsible for maintenance of what throughout New Brunswick. But I don't quite know how one should handle this. I'm inclined to state in the appropriate articles when routes are unsigned (so that someone following along doesn't get confused). But what do you do when the signage and the "official" inventory don't match? StevenJ81 (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

@Famartin: what significant independent coverage are you seeing which establish notability? None are currently used on the page, would you care to name three? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]