Talk:New Jersey Route 440

New Jersey Route 440 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
Date	Process	Result
November 12, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

U.S. Roads: State highways / New Jersey Mid‑importance

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. state highways

Locations

New Jersey

This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.

This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Article recognition:

	This article was the selected article of the New Jersey task force in March 2013.

New Jersey: Hudson County Mid‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hudson County Task Force.

Comments

Wait a minute, Bayonne's in NJ so that should be NJ 440, not NY 440 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs) 22:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

NJ 440 turns into NY 440 at those two locations. Perth Amboy and Bayonne are used as the cities because this is the article for the New Jersey state route, the same way New York State Route 440 uses Richmond Valley and Port Richmond for the same two junctions. -- NORTH ^talk 22:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why isn't 514 there, that's pretty big with the NJTP entrace there both ways —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs) 02:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

CR 514 is not listed because it's a minor route. It's part of the NJTP junction, which already is listed.

Please remember to sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) -- NORTH ^talk 02:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanx for clearing this up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nextbarker (talk • contribs)

Why do I enter the Interstate 287 site on the NJ 440 page does it go into Interstate 87?

Good catch. It's fixed now. --Polaron | Talk 04:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Well this was hard to do, i can't decide between start or stub, but i'll suggest stub for now. Feel free to change it.Mitch azenia(7500+edits) 23:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean Route 440 as an intentional discontinuity --24.228.70.72 (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)nextbarker[reply]

Route 440/NJ Turnpike junction #2

Doesn't the NJ Turnpike/Route 440 intersect in Bayonne? not Jersey City? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.61.185 (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on New Jersey Route 440. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger 15 May 2021

NO CONSENSUS

No consensus for merge. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 07:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved from Talk:State Route 440 (New Jersey-New York)

– ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like NJ-NY Route 440 should be one article rather than two separate articles. The NJ portion shows a discontinuous section that may be better merged with NY 440 article. Proposing that New Jersey Route 440 and New York State Route 440 be one continuous article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:b00d:c414:ada0:f00a:4dee:c4d1 (talk) 2021-05-14T12:42:27 (UTC)

Oppose - The New Jersey Route 440 and New York State Route 440 articles each have enough content to sustain their own articles, despite the fact that NY 440 bridges the two sections of NJ 440. Dough4872 10:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—honestly I'm starting to be of the opinion that we shouldn't merge articles like this, except where both are extremely short. Neither is extremely short, so I oppose the merger. Imzadi 1979 → 15:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are state-numbered routes in different states, so they are different routes. The fact that they are given the same number doesn't change that. The articles themselves already indicate the continuation of each route across the state line. ✌️ The owner of all 🗸 05:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Both articles are fine on their own and they do not really need to be combined. Mattx8y (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. USRD precedent has merged articles like this when only one of the two states' routes is extremely short (like less than a mile). That is not the case here. -- LJ ↗ 18:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failed verification

@Dough4872: where in the sources are you finding verification for all that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The maps and the SLD verify the information in the route description. Read the source. Dough4872 14:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources says nothing about land use, where are finding "wooded surroundings" "passes near homes" " through more residential neighborhoods" " residential sections of the city" "passing through industrial areas" "passes between neighborhoods" "hairpin turn" "passing residences to the east" "heads into business sectors farther to the east" "heads past industrial establishments before running through commercial areas again" etc Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the map. Just because it’s not in clear text doesn’t mean the source doesn’t verify the information. Reading a map is different than reading text. Dough4872 15:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not land use maps, that information is literally not there to read. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]