Talk:U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good articleU.S. Route 1 in New Jersey has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 6, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
April 5, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Question

County Route 514 wouldn't be considered major at Route 1 in Edison would it?

Nextbarker 03:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

I like the US Route 1 in NJ page and the US 9 page, very good Nextbarker 05:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

Route 130 and 171

I added a NJ 171 shield next to the US 130 shield in the major junction box, is that ok? —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs) 21:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply
]

No, it's a minor stub highway that doesn't offer much other than a back way into New Brunswick. It's not a major junction. (On top of that, it makes it so the junction doesn't fit on a single line.)
I kept the Garden State Parkway junction, but remember since this is an article on US 1 in New Jersey, linking to
Woodbridge is redundant. Also, since this is an article on US 1, not the Parkway, the note you added to the intersection list was wrong, since US 1 northbound and southbound both have entrances and exits for the Parkway. If you want to add a correct note, that's fine, but it's not absolutely necessary -- an intersection list isn't the same as an exit list. -- NORTH talk 23:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Route 1 at GSP

yy, but Route 1 both ways has only one Parkway northbound entrance no southbound parkway ramp, that's what I meant.

Nextbarker 03:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

And the GSP has only one direct exit for US Route 1 GSP South Exit 130. There's no northbound exit 130.

Right but "Southbound exit, northbound entrance" is what it says on the GSP list. It means "Exit on GSP southbound, entrance on GSP northbound." A note on the US 1 list needs to be written from the perspective of US 1. Your new edit is still written from the perspective of the Parkway; I'll edit it again myself to be a little clearer what I mean. -- NORTH talk 05:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get the picture, Route 1 only has a northbound entrance both ways, but a southbound ramp to US 1. But if people want to get to Route 1 from the GSP North, do they take exit 127? They could take 287 to US 1 or Route 9 to 1, which is way out of the way.

Nextbarker 05:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

Yes, to US 1 North, Exit 127 to US 9 North. To US 1 South, Exit 127 to NJ 440 (I-287) West to US 1. -- NORTH talk 06:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right then, I'll just read myself, I won't ask any more questions, I'll look at the info myself, I won't add anymore shields.

Nextbarker 06:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

Would NJ 29 be considered major on US 1 in Trenton, it's the last exit before the Trenton-Morrisville Bridge?

U.S. 1 at Route 29

Would NJ 29 be considered major on US 1 in Trenton, it's the last exit before the Trenton-Morrisville Bridge?

Nextbarker 20:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

I removed US 206 since there's not actually a junction there and kept NJ 29 in its place. Frankly I think NJ 33 is a better choice since it's a more major route and it connects to US 206, but NJ 29 is okay instead since it's a freeway-to-freeway interchange. -- NORTH talk 23:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Trenton Freeway

I have suggested that the article

Trenton Freeway be merged into this article. That article is short and the information can be provided in the route description for this article. Dough4872 (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The article is merged now. Dough4872 (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am reopening the discussion as my merge was reverted. Dough4872 (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to Merge: I concur with the merger. The Trenton Freeway is part of US 1 in NJ and since it doesn't have enough info nor notability for an article of its own, it should be merged into the most local geographic feature in which it entirely fits, per my personal "Non-Notable Geographic Feature Merge Policy" (which barely makes sense to anyone other than me lol). --Triadian (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've gone ahead and reverted the un-redirect. The editor that undid Dough's edit has a history of reverting similar redirects and has been overturned in the past: [1] and [2]. (Anyone remember User:SPUI? I do! I miss him actually... lol) User:Famartin can explain the need for undoing the redirect here and we can discuss it if need-be. --Triadian (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is
transcluded from Talk:U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: --Fredddie™ 11:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here
for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    1a. The lead has way too many links, making it difficult to read. It's not necessary to include the county every time a city is mentioned unless there is a need for disambiguation. US 1 only passes through one Trenton, so it's not necessary to mention Mercer County. Pre-1927 Route # works for an article title, but it's a bit wordy for prose. Please remove The from heading 1.3 and the bold text from the exit list. Dates in the references are inconsistent.
    The route description is wordy and hard to follow.

    Example:
    Upon crossing the

    Route 29
    at a partial diamond interchange just north of the river...


    The rest of the article can be simplified similarly.
    1b. (US 1), in the first sentence, is not bold.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to
    reliable sources): c (OR
    ):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Please read over summary style and do some pruning.
  4. It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy    .
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have
    suitable captions
    )    :
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    With the condition of the prose, I cannot support passing this article. The changes that are necessary to make this a Good Article are going to take some time. I recommend printing off this article and having someone proofread it manually. This article has promise, but it needs some work.
I have made some changes by formatting the reference dates and removing some of the excess information. ---Dough4872 02:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US 1 junction infobox

Starting this section as a debate. Should US 1 have junctions on US 1-9 in the infobox? Note that this would also be a debate over the article

US Route 9 in New Jersey. My opinion is that the infobox should not stop at the US 1-9 concurrency. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey and U.S. Route 9 in New Jersey articles are intended to focus on the routes within the state south of the concurrency while U.S. Route 1/9 is supposed to cover the concurrency. This is done to prevent the inclusion of redundant and overburdening information in the two articles. The concurrency is long and notable enough to have a separate article to cover it (Most of the signs along the concurrency have the routes in one shield). Also note that the junction list for the concurrency is only included in the US 1/9 article as opposed to the individual US 1 and US 9 articles. Dough4872 22:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PointsofNoReturn. Just because there is another article that covers the northernmost 31 miles of US 1 (which is really not that far when you think about it) doesn't mean we are obliged to ignore those 31 miles here. We should probably eliminate the US 1/9 article per
US 15/501, which is over 100 miles long, but that's another discussion entirely. –Fredddie™ 23:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I can see about possibly including the junctions along the concurrency in the infobox of the US 1 and US 9 articles, but I am opposed to getting rid of the US 1/9 article and splitting the content into two articles, which would create redundancy among them. Dough4872 23:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am also opposed to deleting the US 1-9 article because it is a good article and would create redundant information. However, the junctions should include US 1 junctions on US 1-9 and the route description should have the US 1-9 concurrency in it, which it does. In my opinion, only the infobox and junction list should change. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am okay with the concurrency junctions in the infobox but oppose the junction list for the concurrency being in the US 1 and US 9 articles as that would create redundancy with the junction list for the concurrency being in three articles. Having the note in the junction list of the US 1 and US 9 articles directing readers to the US 1/9 article for the junctions along the concurrency works fine. Dough4872 00:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the junctions in the infobox have to be in the junction list too. Basically, it's list them in both or none at all. I would do both because US 1 does not end at the concurrency. Not including junctions for US 1 in the junction list makes it seem like there is a gap in US 1 in Northern New Jersey, which there isn't. Also, this would affect the US 9 article, and I would make the same changes there.PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am still on the fence on having the same junction list covered in three places. May I have another opinion on this? Dough4872 01:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article status is not reason enough to keep an article. If you look hard enough, you'll find a lot of Good Articles that are not good articles. –Fredddie™ 06:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with those who believe the junctions for 1/9 should be included on the 1 article. I wouldn't mind the deletion of the 1/9 article entirely, though I don't care if it remains either. But, US 1 in NJ is a singular article, of which 1/9 is a SUBSECTION, not an independent entity or component thereof. Famartin (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the I-95 in NJ article contains the NJ turnpike section's exits. While not entirely the same as the 1/9 situation, its still relevant since they are, technically, redundant. Famartin (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of, although the NJ Turnpike is a separate road for half of its length from I-95. Also, it's not really the same because one article is about an Interstate while the other article is about a turnpike that by default is made up of multiple highways and thus would have redundancy in the article by default. A more relevant example would be the Indiana Toll Road, which is made up of both I-80 and I-90. The Interstate 90 in Indiana article redirects to the Indiana Toll Road article while the Interstate 80 in Indiana article is simply a stub that states its component highways in the state. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have never been a fan of the 1/9 article. --Rschen7754 22:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, consensus seems to be pointing toward having the infobox and the major intersections of the US 1 and US 9 articles to include the junctions along the US 1/9 concurrency. I can live with this as long as we keep the US 1/9 article as merging the information would create redundancy and would overburden the US 1 and US 9 articles. While 35 miles is relatively short for a concurrency in relation to other ones across the country, US 1/9 passes through 35 miles of heavily populated areas and a dense road network. Therefore, there is a lot to discuss in those 35 miles and the best course of action would be to keep the US 1/9 article. Dough4872 00:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I went ahead and made the changes to the US 9 in New Jersey article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone do the junctions for the US 9 article? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will take care of the US 9 junctions. Dough4872 00:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Dough4872 00:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quakerbridge Mall

(Sorry in advance if this isn't relevant enough to be a discussion topic, or if I could've just changed it without conferring with anyone, but I wanted to ask here to see what other people think.)

Hi, I am posting this because I believe that in the list of major intersections, there is a intersection which I believe is not noteworthy enough to be listed. The intersection is listed as the Quaker Bridge Mall intersection, the last exit in Lawrence Township. Traffic on this exit has minimal traffic. SirElmoDoggy (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@
MOS:RJL says that we list all interchanges in a road junction list table, so if that intersection is an interchange, it needs to be listed, regardless of how much traffic it does or doesn't receive. I hope this helps answer your question. Imzadi 1979 → 01:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference SLD was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Google was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._Route_1_in_New_Jersey&oldid=1205805804"