| Revision as of 01:35, 3 August 2006 editSPUI (talk | contribs)75,418 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:43, 3 August 2006 edit undoKacie Jane (talk | contribs)13,639 edits →Browsing order: responseNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| ::I disagree with putting US 9W after 9. But I also disagree with including all of those in the browsing order, whether or not we can agree on an order. --] (] - ]) 01:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | ::I disagree with putting US 9W after 9. But I also disagree with including all of those in the browsing order, whether or not we can agree on an order. --] (] - ]) 01:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::I have no problem switching US 9W and Route 9. Here's my philosophy. If we're redirecting the old lettered spurs to what they were renumbered to (i.e. ], which points to ]), then the browsing should point there as well. However, if we were discussing 25A mainly on the article on Route 25 (which is the case with Route 29A and Route 29, hence it's not repeated in the browsing order), then there would be no need. | |||
| :::Basically, since we're treating them as wholly separate routes with linking/redirecting, we should be doing that with browsing as well. | |||
| :::Frankly, though, I think we're giving far too much weight to the historical designations. An alternative would be to only include '''current''' routes in the browsing order, and expand the renumbering/history pages to discuss the historical designations. | |||
| :::To summarize, I suppose my opinion is all or none with regards to historical designations, regardless of whether the route is prefixed/suffixed/bannered/etc. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:43, 3 August 2006
Shortcut- ]
New page I started
Its not big yet.Please help.HurricaneCraze32 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
List of New Jersey 600-series secondary county routes
- Thanks for your effort. We used to have two different pages for 500 and 600 series county routes, but it was decided to merge them into a single page at County routes in New Jersey. Thus, I'd like to merge the information you've provided here into that page as well. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
New proposal for county routes
I've made a new proposal for what we do with county routes. Since this page hasn't seen all that much action yet, I've put it on Talk:County routes in New Jersey instead. -- NORTH 04:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Browsing order
Northenglish is including every route - unsuffixed, suffixed, bannered, etc - in the browsing. This leads to issues of ordering - does S1A come before or after US 1 Alternate? Does 9 come before or after US 9W? I propose the following:
- Only add unsuffixed and unbannered routes to the browse box, with rare exceptions. Those exceptions are mainly routes that were not numbered because of their supposed "parent". So for instance Route 5N, which was part of pre-1927 Route 5, unrelated to post-1927 Route 5, would be included.
- Other routes would not have a browse box. I can easily add code to the infobox to not show the browse box if there is the arguments are blank.
- Those routes with no browse box would instead have a link to the parent, either in the infobox or in see also.
- Routes with children would have those children listed in see also.
Any comments? --SPUI (T - C) 01:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- See User:Northenglish/Sandbox2. This is the order I've been working on. -- NORTH 01:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with putting US 9W after 9. But I also disagree with including all of those in the browsing order, whether or not we can agree on an order. --SPUI (T - C) 01:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have no problem switching US 9W and Route 9. Here's my philosophy. If we're redirecting the old lettered spurs to what they were renumbered to (i.e. Route 25A (New Jersey), which points to Interstate 280 (New Jersey)), then the browsing should point there as well. However, if we were discussing 25A mainly on the article on Route 25 (which is the case with Route 29A and Route 29, hence it's not repeated in the browsing order), then there would be no need.
- Basically, since we're treating them as wholly separate routes with linking/redirecting, we should be doing that with browsing as well.
- Frankly, though, I think we're giving far too much weight to the historical designations. An alternative would be to only include current routes in the browsing order, and expand the renumbering/history pages to discuss the historical designations.
- To summarize, I suppose my opinion is all or none with regards to historical designations, regardless of whether the route is prefixed/suffixed/bannered/etc. -- NORTH 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)