Talk:New Jersey Route 33

NJ 66

Why wouldn't NJ 66 be ok at this page, they split, or would they paralell one another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs)

NJ 66 isn't listed for two reasons. First, as you mentioned, they parallel each other, so it doesn't really go anywhere significant that Route 33 doesn't at least go near. Also, it's in virtually the same place as the junction with the parkway, so listing it here is somewhat redundant.

I've added Route 18 back to the junction list (I'm curious as to why it was removed in the first place). Route 35 is not included because -- although it is major -- it's superfluous to list three separate junctions in Neptune Township. -- NORTH ^talk 15:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Route 18 isn't that big, the next big exit after that is Route 138. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs) 15:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you looking in only one direction? Just because it ends two miles to the south doesn't change that it's a freeway to New Brunswick. -- NORTH ^talk 15:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Would Business Route 33 be ok on the info box? I would think that's pretty majro, since regular 33 can;t get to the Freehold Raceway or the Mall —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs) 15:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, because it can access them via US 9, which is already listed, and it's only necessary to list the most major of the Freehold junctions. -- NORTH ^talk 16:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If I were to add a NJ 79 shields, that wouldn't work out since that's in Freehold, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. -- NORTH ^talk 23:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess the mentioning would also apply to the US Route 1 shield on the 287 info because it ends 1 mile from Route 1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.228.70.72 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. That's what it says on Talk:Interstate 287. -- NORTH ^talk 21:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Would NJ 34 and NJ 33 intersect in Farmingdale or Howell, NJ

24.228.70.72 04:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Nextbarker

Their northern junction in Howell. Farmingdale is a small borough several miles southwest of the intersection of NJ 33 and 34.

Their southern junction is just over the Wall Twp line, but I would prefer to list only Howell, as I feel it's a better description of where it is. -- NORTH ^talk 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

Nice job on this article, for a good article Nomination, i suggest adding a history section.Mitchazenia(7500+edits) 01:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

There are some problems with this article:

• History section needs to be expanded and have more sources.
  • Also, please get rid of the bullet that exists in that section.
• Route description needs sources.
• Please separate the junction lists with the exit list, as the new junction template looks just like the exit list.
• Make sure the article stays stable.

That's all for GA. (→zelzany - new age roads) 22:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Also make sure the exit list is compliant to WP:USRD/ELG. There's the blue "Begin/End Concurrency" in the notes column that needs to be fixed. - JA10 ^{Discuss • Edits} 15:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Failed

I've failed this mainly because the junction/exit lists are all screwed up; the only freeway section is the Freehold Bypass. You need to use correct section headers and tables, as readers (even I) get confused when it says it is a freeway when it's not. Also, "future improvements" is POV, which isn't allowed. (→zelzany - new age roads) 20:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Passed

With the improvements made since the previous GA nomination, it looks like all the concerns raised before have been addressed. Congratulations! Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 01:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. The main remaining problem with the article at the moment is in the first part of the "Future developments" section, where it is unclear how much of the information that is covered by the first ref, or if this information is actually unreferenced. Lampman (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

So we've got a ~6 mile business loop, which as per WP:USRD/NT typically does not deserve its own article. Sure, the Route description is two paragraphs, but if you read closely, it's full of unnecessary details that road articles aren't supposed to have. WP:NOT an atlas or indiscriminate collection of information. The history should flow nicely into the history section of this article. Thus, the business spur article should be merged here. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a spur for one, not even a loop. It was designated that when 33 was pulled off of the alignment. 33 Business is the only state business route in the entire state, and Route 33 isn't exactly in good condition itself either. Even if you merge it, I'll sandbox it for the book project, so its getting representation.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 13:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am on the fence about this proposal. NJ 33 Bus can logically fit with NJ 33. Recently, I have been starting to include bannered routes with their parent routes in improving articles. See Maryland Route 5 for a good example of how business routes can be incorporated into the main article. However, NJ 33 Bus could also have its own article; for example we have M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan), a shorter 4.87 mile business loop that is an A-class article. ---Dough4872 14:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

M-28 Business has a good deal of history that is independent from M-28; NJ 33 Business really doesn't have any that's independent from NJ 33. – TMF 17:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any good reason for this not to be merged? --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The only objections I have is what Mitch mentioned about the book and the possibilities for a decent article to exist for a bannered route. If this route had not been bannered like many former alignments of NJ routes, which are usually given different numbers, then there would probably be no contention over merging it to NJ 33. However, I would be okay with the NJ 33 Bus information being decently merged into the NJ 33 article as that seems to be the way we are going as a project in handling bannered routes. ---Dough4872 19:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We're here to write an encyclopedia for the general public, not to write you a book. This isn't a decent article, and I don't think it's going to get any better. Therefore, the merge should occur. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and merge the article then. ---Dough4872 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Merged. You'll probably have to do some cleanup and condensing; that's not my job. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Jersey Route 33. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927231253/http://www.jimmyandsharonwilliams.com/njroads/1920s/route05.htm to http://www.jimmyandsharonwilliams.com/njroads/1920s/route05.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)