This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

U.S. Roads: U.S. Highways / Connecticut 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Topics  U.S. Highways   Locations  Connecticut   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.   Connecticut Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hi Polaron, I've reverted your edit here because no CT state route can really be considered minor. Maybe 124 isn't 8 or 15, but they're still notable. Best,Markvs88 (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those two routes are not classified by ConnDOT as primary state routes. We need some kind of criterion about what to include otherwise we can be putting dozens of these in the infobox. The junction list in the article is more than enough for the minor routes. --Polaron | Talk 04:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that because the routes have their own wikipages that they're notability is a given. Markvs88 (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is mainly a summary though and we need to be selective about which ones to include in the infobox. All the other junctions are included in the junction list section so only the most important ones should be listed in the infobox. --Polaron | Talk 15:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to notice this conversation on my watchlist, and thought I'd butt in with my thoughts. As Polaron notes, Help:Infobox indicates that infoboxes are supposed to be short summaries of key information from the associated articles; they aren't intended to be comprehensive. The article has an extensive list of intersecting numbered routes; it's obvious that not all of them could fit in an infobox without making the infobox useless as a summary. Therefore, it's necessary to be selective. The selection criteria ought to be something more meaningful than whether or not there's a Wikipedia article, which is (at best) only a measure of Wikipedia volunteer interest in the topic -- and anyway, almost of the intersections have articles. Looking at the article and infobox from the perspective of a reader, I think that the current list of 5 intersections (including three in Fairfield County and one each in New Haven and New London Counties) is ample for a "big picture" view of the road. (However, I don't have a lot of use for intersection lists in infoboxes -- particularly in cases like this one, where I-95 interchanges are probably more significant for most people than the intersections that are listed.) Keep the infobox simple... --Orlady (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can go with that, especially considering that if we extended the same courtesy to every CT route in all four counties it'd make for a huge infobox. BTW, does Connecticut Route 137 make sense to be included when Connecticut Route 9 and Connecticut Route 2 are not? Markvs88 (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way it's currently set up is that junctions in the "important" urban centers the road passes through are listed. Stamford is undoubtedly an important urban center while Old Saybrook and Stonington are not necessarily so. We can definitely tweak the inclusion criteria somewhat to include junctions with expressways as well but we would still need to decide which junctions to include and which ones to exclude as we can't have all of them. Regarding Orlady's comment about including I-95 junctions, it is true they may be significant but there are so many intersections of I-95 and Route 1 that we would have a similar problem of which ones to include. Junctions with parallel roads are generally not helpful in getting a big picture of where the route goes. --Polaron | Talk 16:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware that it wouldn't make sense to list every junction with I-95. (My comment was mostly about road project infoboxes in general, not a complaint against this one.) However, I'm not convinced that intersections in urban centers are the best ones to highlight. The focus should be on intersections with major routes, which may or may intersect in urban centers -- and some intersections in urban centers are actually pretty forgettable due to the intensity of development. Routes 7 and 8 definitely deserve to be in the infobox. In the New Haven area, the intersection with Route 34 possibly is more important locally than the intersection with Route 10, but those two intersections occur in essentially the same place, so maybe they could be mentioned together in the infobox. I agree with Markvs88 that the Route 9 intersection is an important one to highlight, while Route 137 is not. In New London County, the most salient information might be that Route 1 is concurrent with I-95 where it crosses the Thames River, and that it intersects with I-95 a short distance from where I-395 splits off. --Orlady (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Polaron regarding I-95 (if only because the whole reason they built the highway in the first place was to take traffic off of US 1), but OTOH there are roads that list 95 (multiple times) such as Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway) & Interstate 695 (Maryland). Personally, I'd like to see an "Alternate Route For" or some such thing. I agree with Orlady that 34 is a much more important route to include than 10. I also think we should move this to the Talk:U.S. Route 1 in Connecticut page. Markvs88 (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Add Connecticut Route 9?
• Substitute Connecticut Route 34 for Connecticut Route 10?
• Remove Connecticut Route 137?

• For. All three. Markvs88 (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Me, too. --Orlady (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes. I'd still like to see Connecticut Route 2 added in though. Markvs88 (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]