User talk:Bodo920

List of Unused Highways continuity
I saw in the WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes that the naming convention states "New Jersey Route X" should be used instead of what I was using for NJ state highways but that only pertains to articles specifically about NJ highways or interstates within NJ. The unused highways article is obviously not just about New Jersey so it shouldn't be included. If there is some other mandate/law/rule that states "New Jersey Route X" should always be used to refer to NJ state highways, please show it to me because I am unaware of it. I have been working hard on the article, making it accurate and cited and written the same way for every state. Thanks!Bodo920 18:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is a tremendous undertaking and the scope is very wide. The changes I made were to conform to standard usage for the New Jersey highway names and to the Wikipedia article titles. As a result of a massive nationwide effort at consistency in naming state highways, the agreement was to use a number of different formats depening on state. New Jersey's roadways were all renamed from "Route xx (New Jersey)" to "New Jersey Route xx". While every "New Jersey State Route xx" article is set to redirect to "New Jersey Route xx", the actual titles are all in the form of "New Jersey Route xx" and there is absolutely no one who will refere to any one of them as "New Jersey State Route xx". In subesequent references to a roadway, "Route xx" (if a New Jersey-only article) or "NJ xx" will be used, which breaks up some of the stiltedness of using "Mew Jersey Route xx" for all references to the same highway. I hope this explains my changed. Alansohn 18:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Which article are you referring to as a tremendous undertaking? The Unused Highway one?  I was just confused which you were referring to, but I think I got it right.  Nonetheless, I'd still like to find this "standard usage" reform you're referring to.  I completely understand what you did and why you did it because I am doing the same thing, in a sense.  But if this is truly a "massive nationwide effort," I would have thought I'd come across it or heard about it.  Can you provide a source for your claim?  Like I said, I saw the announcement about naming the highways within a New Jersey-based article.  I'd like to see what it says about broad articles.  The Unused Highway page is actually way too long and if you've seen the discussion, there's been talk about dividing it up into state-specific redirects.  Then changing things to NJ xx and such would definitely be appropriate and warranted based on what I've read.Bodo920 21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring to the unused highways one, and I agree that at this point it would be wise to split it into separate articles by state, e.g. "List of unused highways in New Jersey", with the original as a directory. Manual of Style (U.S. state highways) has the end result of highway naming standards by state, which was formulated about a year ago as the result of a very extensive (and contentious) debate. This "standard" actually means that there are 50 separate standards (some are the same), one for each state. I hope this helps. Alansohn 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Court Street
Yes - it's Court Street: --NE2 16:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That photo is northbound; also note. --NE2 16:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that it's not Google Maps that's wrong? --NE2 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about what Google shows as "Ct Ave", which is the crossroad. (It's pretty common for an exit to be signed not for the road right at the exit but for another road you can reach by exiting there.) --NE2 19:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Poplar Street Bridge
Yes, a ref for I-44 on the bridge would be helpful, because I think the discussion has come up before, and none of us has come up with anything supporting the idea. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 14:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Best to go with whatever the FHWA says on that one - they're sort of the "official" source, in spite of the fact they get their numbers from the states. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 16:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Interstate Guide
There are (were?) a few reasons... but it might be different now. The pages cited might not be properly sourced themselves. (Important if you're going to use it as a tertiary source). If we have easy (easier) access to the sources themselves, we also should just write off the original source, not the Interstate Guide. It may be worth re-opening the discussion at WP:USRD though. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 01:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I-55 concurrency
It seems the you were/are correct on the I-44/I-55 concurrency. I apologize for my incorrect addition. But, I did not realize that you had made the contribution. I was trying to be WP:BOLD. For reference check out WP:OWN. Much WP:LOVE--Adam in MO Talk 01:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do what you think is best.--Adam in MO Talk 02:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of unused highways in South Korea for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of unused highways in South Korea is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of unused highways in South Korea until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ajf773 (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)