text:
Wikipedia talk:User pages

likely to bring the project into disrepute
This should be removed. It's a hopelessly subjective standard, "disrepute" being entirely in the eye of the beholder, and entirely dependent on audience. What is "likely to bring the project in disrepute" amongst some people is likely to bolster the project among others. (And how likely is "likely"?) This language creates more problems than it solves, as it can be wielded by literally any side in any userpage conflict, but offers no meaningful, actionable, or usable guidance. Levivich (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In context, that statement is a summary of what has been found removable in the past by MfD, much like WP:OUTCOMES for AfD. I agree that it itself would be problematic to enforce as policy, but as a summary of consensus, it should probably be refined rather than removed entirely. Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , can you suggest alternate wording? Cullen328 (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything wrong with the existing wording. It falls under the heading of commonsense. It strikes me as similar to the old saying about pornography. "I can't define it, but I know when I see it." Has this ever been abused? Is there anything that would prevent a user from appealing to AN/I if they felt someone was being unreasonable in their interpretation of this? To be honest, I can't even remember it being invoked. But I think it's good thing to have on the books. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The language at WP:UPNOT is fine. It gives examples of unsuitable material ("disrepute") such as racist ideology and disruptive content, whether serious or trolling. As normal, rules focus on concepts rather than attempting to list every bad thing. As Ad Orientem noted, participants in a deletion discussion might recognize disrepute when seeing an example but would not be able to define it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328: I think WP:UPNOT already has better alternate wording, . (To save a click, the full sentence is: )
 * Similarly, WP:UP has a pretty good description of what kind of images should not be on a userpage, and I'd keep it all, except changing "likely to bring the project into disrepute" to "likely to give widespread offense" (and same everywhere else in WP:UP). Levivich (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , I think that there is an important distinction between the concepts of "offense" and "disrepute". The first is a personal reaction, and as we all know, some people are more prone to being offended than others, and even among people who are easily offended, they can be offended by very different things. Disrepute refers not to individual emotional reactions but rather to the reputational damage to Wikipedia as a whole. Twitter/X is a good example, I think. I am not easily offended by something like an individual tweet. I may be surprised, bemused, and unhappy that trolling and doxxing and racism and sexism and veiled (or not so veiled) threats are welcomed there, but I am not offended. I do think that Twitter/X has fallen deeper into disrepute in the Musk era, and I do not want lax monitoring to allow the same thing to happen to Wikipedia. Perhaps "disrepute" is almost an archaic term in 2024, but the new wording should not lose the reputational connotations. Cullen328 (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think doxing, racism, sexism, and threats are things that are likely to give widespread offense (even if not to you), and I can't really think of an example of something that is likely to give widespread offense but not likely to bring the project into disrepute, which why I say "disrepute" is doing no work in the sentence, and why I don't think there needs to be a second category of prohibition in addition to "widespread offense". Levivich (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

False claims on user page
I am wondering what, if anything, can be done about an editor's user page which makes false claims of having made 100K edits and being a member of the Twenty Year society, despite the fact that the user in question has only been on Wikipedia since 2017 and has only made 3,500 edits. They have indirectly denied having previous accounts... Skyerise (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 * @Skyerise Is that still an issue? Doug Weller  talk 15:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 * well, depends. The content of their user page is obviously and intentionally funny. Yet it also includes various templates and categories from the 20 YS etc. which still make the kind of claims above. And yet I've recently been told there is nothing we can do if an obviously not retired user posts a big retired from Wikipedia banner at the top of his user page. So do we even care about this? If current protocol is to just ignore such things, then I don't want to make waves. Skyerise (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t know protocol but often see retired templates on active users user or talk pages. Annoying but not worth saying anything I usually decide. Doug Weller  talk 18:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Proxying while blocked
This user is challenging someone telling them they should not use their talk page while blocked to ask other editors to edit for them, saying that they cannot find anything preventing them from doing so. I think this needs to be made explicit. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, they're wrong, because WP:PROXYING (linked to by Novem in the first place) states it fairly clearly. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Primefac Thanks. I knew that was somewhere, but I think it needs to be added here as well. Probably under "Ownership and editing of user pages". Doug Weller  talk 14:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Might be useful; further interaction with them has shown even that fairly clear language can be reworded to suit very specific circumstances. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:PROXYING does not [state] it fairly clearly. It doesn't state it at all. It does not say that blocked editors should not use their talk page while blocked to ask other editors to edit for them. It says that editors [...] are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor. It says nothing about what the blocked editor can or cannot do.  Tewdar   18:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Users are not allowed to be directed by blocked users to make edits. Therefore, a blocked user should not be directing editors to make edits. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with this interpretation, and there's plenty of precedent to cite on revoking TPA for posting proxying requests. I still would support explicit mentions here and in the block and ban policies that it is inappropriate to post edit requests in violation of a block/ban. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This does not follow at all. Why not just add 'site-wide blocked users may only use their talk pages to request unblocks', to WP:BLOCK, if that's what you want?  Tewdar   18:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what this discussion is, well, discussing. Primefac (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I went and corrected the typo that "the user" indicated . Clearly, it was a net positive for the encyclopedia. Do you want to ban me for it? Go ahead. XMcan (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can’t believe so much time gets wasted on arguing when something is so simple, and you can just go ahead and make it better. XMcan (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , the discussion on that user's talk page is about their edits. This is about the next time this happens, and making sure our policies match up with what actually happens. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I believe this was a one-time occurrence. I don't have any reason to think this user will spend the rest of her life finding typos and directing us from her talk page solely to correct them. Do we need to fix problems that don't exist just because they may potentially exist? XMcan (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @XMcan I see on your talk page you were very unhappy about the user’s block. I presume that’s part at least of why you are here. But it’s a real issue that does exist, I’ve seen it quite a few times. There’s no reason to believe it won’t happen again. Doug Weller  talk 21:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record I was not referring to the "next time" for this particular user, I was referring to the next time that an admin says "you can't use your talk page except for unblocks" and is questioned on it. Primefac (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Primefac, I understood you and agree. We need wording that will deter disruptive editors from gaming the system. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:PROXYING doesn't state that at all. WP:PROXYING says, my emphasis, That "unless" means that proxying is only prohibited if editors are not able to show the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. If they are able to do so (e.g., "fix obvious typo"), then editors are permitted to edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor. I'm not sure that's what the community wants it to mean, but that's what it says. It has an inherent logical contradiction in its phrasing, which is that it is by definition impossible to have an independent reason to do something at the direction of somebody else. Either it's "at the direction" or it's "independent" but it can't be both at the same time. Teh community should probably vote on whether they do or do not want blocked/banned editors to point out obvious typos, BLPvios, etc., and then update the docs to say so clearly. Levivich (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion about the proxying, but I must protest against turning Doug's query into a binary question between a) blocked users asking others to make edits, versus b) blocked users only being allowed to use their pages to request unblock, as for example Primefac does here. As far as I'm aware, it doesn't say anywhere that a blocked user may only use their page to request unblock, and I wish admins wouldn't keep bollocking or sanctioning people per the notion that we have that rule. I'm also completely against codifying it to be a rule. A block is a shock, and it's only too human to react to to that block with protests and venting. That should be tolerated, being as we are humans, up to a point. If it goes on and on, and/or becomes ugly w r t to the blocking admin or other individuals, I will eventually revoke tpa. That's my system, and I'm sticking to it. Bishonen | tålk 13:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC).
 * I wish admins wouldn't keep bollocking or sanctioning people per the notion that we have that rule - that's why I want to pursue this line of inquiry and potentially clarify things; I was wrong and have have changed my opinion, but there are still a large number of admins who likely have misread the policy (or conflated it with the BAN regulations). Primefac (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 * I think this needs to be handled on a case by case basis… because a LOT depends on what the blocked editor is asking others to do on his/her behalf. For example, I see nothing wrong with a blocked editor writing: “Prior to being blocked, I was about to shift my attention to cleaning up the awful grammar in article Y.  Could someone follow up on that?”  Such a request is not really a PROXY request.  The blocked editor is not “directing” the editing of others, just requesting normal editing.
 * On the other hand, if the blocked editor writes: “Since I have been blocked, and can not continue my righteous crusade, would someone please nominate NewsIdontlike.com for deprecation at RSP. Carry on the good fight!” That would be “directing” others, and a PROXY request. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the need to continue this is demonstrated by the XRV discussion involving me mentioned below. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I agree, though I'd prefer to wait until the XRV is concluded. Maybe someone can ping us all again when it's over? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers Oh we definitely should wait. I'll ping you all when it's closed. Doug Weller  talk 12:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

shall we try to come to a conclusion now? Doug Weller talk 13:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

 * @Doug Weller, I had this conversation on my watchlist but hadn't yet commented because I didn't think I needed to say what had already been said by numerous others. However is there some specific wording for any changes because I can't see it above? TarnishedPathtalk 13:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would just repeat what I said above. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like for this guideline to say something like
 * I think we should change WP:PROXYING to be more concrete about what's impermissible for the banned/blocked user, but that's a conversation for WT:BAN. If we can't agree to a change their, my proposal here would end at "led to the block or ban". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you think about striking the last sentence and ending with "...if they violate policies (e.g. WP:PROXYING) or otherwise continue acting disruptively."? Levivich (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, although I would like to get something that hints at disruption of the type that led to the block being particularly risky. Maybe that's common sense enough that it can be left out or parked in an essay. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

XRV Notice
The “proxying while blocked” editor mentioned here subsequently had their talk page access revoked by the OP. In case anybody is interested, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding that TPA revocation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XMcan (talk • contribs) 17:57, April 13, 2024 (UTC)
 * Convenience link: Administrative action review/Archive 1 – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Standpoint of the editor proxying

 * Question: It takes two to tango… and two to proxy. Is there any policy or guideline where we approach this issue from the stand point of the editor acting as the proxy (ie something outlining when it is appropriate to edit on someone else’s behalf vs when it is inappropriate to do so)? Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey Blueboar. I think we actually have more policy/guideline for the proxy, since they at least get a line at WP:PROXYING. It's still unclear what is permissible, and I do think we should draw a clearer line. We have a total absence of policy/guideline for the ... I don't actually know what to call them ... proxymaster? That's part of what we're hoping to fix above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed addition to information on removing notices from own talk page
Currently it reads:

Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters.

I think it should say something like:

Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents; this is true whether the removal was manual or automatic. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters. While it is a user's prerogative to remove material from their talk page, removal and ignorance of warnings may be taken into account by administrators when evaluating any sanctions to take.

(adding "While it is a user's prerogative to remove material from their talk page, removal and ignorance of warnings may be taken into account by administrators when evaluating any sanctions to take", for anyone who can't see the bolded portion above on their browser)

Thoughts? —DIYeditor (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? Primefac (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because I see a difference between someone simply archiving or removing stale notices, and a certain kind of belligerent removal-and-ignorance (often with questionable edit summaries) that certain users do who apparently don't like to be told what to do. I think it should say here you are free to remove it, but if you are doing it belligerently or simply ignore the notice, it can be considered as evidence of disruption. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If the base assumption is that removal follows reading and awareness, then it doesn't really matter why (or how) the notices are removed; repeated disruption related to the original notices can still result in sanctions. Primefac (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's unclear. What does "taken into account" mean?  Is that a euphemism for "might give stronger punishments because you didn't leave the badge of shame on your talk page" (in which case, it ought to be more direct), or does it just mean "might notice that you've already been warned repeatedly about this" (in which case, it's redundant)?
 * DIYeditor, it feels like you want to punish people for being defiant. That may not be the most productive approach to humans, regardless of whether they're teenagers sassing their parents or editors saying something snarky about a warning.  If you'd like to read about a site that took a different approach, then I suggest https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/the-lonely-work-of-moderating-hacker-news  The relevant stuff starts about halfway through that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Paywalled. I often encounter users who have some kind of problem with rules and express it by deleting warnings with snarky edit summaries, very often completely valid warnings. I do imagine it is they rather than I who don't get along well in life. Still, never said I would make a good cop, or wikipedia admin, or moderator. At any rate, yes, I think editors who do this "oppositional-defiant" behavior should be punished more harshly than those who try to accommodate the processes here. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Got a problem with my user talk page
I can not get the text on my user talk page to show up except by clicking on 'About this page'. Is there anyone who can help me with this John Kryten (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I think the problem was that you didn’t give the text a header. I added one, and now it seems to work. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you My username is John Kryten though not John Krysten John Kryten (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oops… sorry about that. I have corrected the header I added (feel free to further edit that header if you want it to say something else).  The important thing is that your userpage should now work, and that it shows the text you wanted. Happy editing! Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Happy editing John Kryten (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Should we be saying something about use of the talk page if topic banned from an area?
I think editors might not realise that "all pages" includes their talk page. I've just seen an editor telling someone else that they can say anything they want on their talk page, and as they are topic banned it would be nice to be able to quote this guideline. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:User pages


text:
User talk:Michaeln

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Michaeln


text:
User talk:Ngourlie

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

title: User talk:Ngourlie


text:
Operation Shining Express

Operation Shining Express was the June 2003 deployment of an American Joint Task Force task, consisting of the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge (LHD-3), the 3rd Battalion 2nd Marines (3/2), and a detachment of HH-60G helicopters and Pararescuemen from the 56th Rescue Squadron to evacuate U.S. embassy personnel and American citizens during the Second Liberian Civil War. The deployment was announced on June 12, 2003 and lasted until July 2003.

It followed the successful 1990 rescue effort in Liberia, Operation Sharp Edge.

Notable Participants

 * Robert J. O'Neill (U.S. Navy SEAL)

title: Operation Shining Express


text:
Erlangen-Höchstadt

Erlangen-Höchstadt is a Landkreis (district) in Bavaria, Germany. It is bounded by (from the south and clockwise) the districts of Fürth, Neustadt (Aisch)-Bad Windsheim, Bamberg, Forchheim and Nürnberger Land, and by the cities of Nuremberg and Erlangen. The city of Erlangen is not part of the district, but nonetheless its administrative seat.

History
The earliest extant documents are drawings from 1413 which show water wheels along the Regnitz. The first (1449–1450) and second (1552–1555) Margrave wars, Brandenburg versus Nuremberg, devastated the countryside.

In 1715 a lock was placed in the Regnitz river at Hemhofen. The highpoint of waterwheel usage was in the early 19th century when more than 190 were in use between Fuerth and Forchheim.

The district was established in 1972 by merging the former districts of Erlangen and Höchstadt.

Geography
The main river is the Regnitz, which runs through the city of Erlangen. Lands west of the river are covered with several hundred tiny lakes on both sides of the Aisch. The Aisch is an affluent of the Regnitz, running from southwest to east. East of the river the country is rising to the hills of the northern Frankish Alb.

Coat of arms
The coat of arms displays:
 * the lion of the clerical state of Bamberg, which ruled the district's western half until 1802
 * the red and white border of the right half is taken from the arms of Brandenburg-Kulmbach (see Bayreuth)
 * the blue and gold colours of the right half are identical to the heraldic colours of Nuremberg
 * the image in the right half symbolises a watermill on the river Regnitz

title: Erlangen-Höchstadt


text:
New Jersey Route 147

Route 147 is a 4.20 mi state highway located in Cape May County in New Jersey, United States. It is a short connector between U.S. Route 9 in Middle Township and North Wildwood at New York Avenue. West of U.S. Route 9, the road continues to Route 47 as County Route 618 (Indian Trail Road); this route along with Route 147 provides an alternate route to The Wildwoods from Route 47. East of New York Avenue, the route continues south through The Wildwoods as County Route 621 (New Jersey Avenue). The route passes through mostly marshland along its journey, intersecting the Garden State Parkway at a partial interchange and County Route 619 (Ocean Drive).

The portion of the route east of the intersection with the latter forms a part of Ocean Drive. When the 500-series county routes were established in New Jersey in the 1950s, what is now Route 147 became a part of County Route 585, a route running from Lower Township north to Absecon. On November 1, 1971, Route 147 was designated along County Route 585 between U.S. Route 9 and the North Wildwood border. The route was extended to its current location in North Wildwood by the 1990s.

Route description
Route 147 begins at an intersection with U.S. Route 9 in the Burleigh section of Middle Township, heading to the east along North Wildwood Boulevard, a two-lane undivided road. The road continues to the west of U.S. Route 9 as County Route 618 (Indian Trail Road) to Route 47. The road passes residences and businesses to the north and woodland to the south before coming to a partial cloverleaf interchange with the Garden State Parkway that has access to and from the northbound direction of the parkway.

Past the Garden State Parkway, Route 147 becomes a four-lane divided highway that briefly passes more homes and commercial establishments before entering a delta-type series of marshy rivers and inlets. It turns to the southeast and comes to an intersection with County Route 665 before crossing the Grassy Sound on a bridge. After the bridge, the route comes to an intersection with the southern terminus of County Route 619 (Ocean Drive).

At this point, the Ocean Drive moniker merges onto Route 147 and the road crosses over the Beach Creek into the Jersey Shore town of North Wildwood. Here, the route turns south and becomes Spruce Avenue, which heads between marshland to the west and homes to the east. At the intersection with West Angelsea Drive, Route 147 becomes a four-lane undivided road that continues past more developments, turning to the southeast. Route 147 heads through a mix of residential and commercial establishments before ending at the intersection with New York Avenue. From here, County Route 621 continues south along the roadway as New Jersey Avenue. Route 147, along with County Route 618, provide an alternate route to The Wildwoods from Route 47.

History
What is now Route 147 was an unimproved road back in 1927. When the 500-series county routes were established in the 1950s, this road became a part of County Route 585, a route that ran from Route 109 (then a part of U.S. Route 9) in Lower Township north to U.S. Route 30 and Route 157 in Absecon. The route was also designated as part of County Route 18, which continued west past U.S. Route 9 to Route 47. On November 1, 1971, Route 147 was designated to replace the portion of County Route 18/County Route 585 between U.S. Route 9 in Burleigh and the North Wildwood border. In 1994, the current fixed-span steel girder bridge over the Grassy Sound was built. As a result of the bridge replacement, Route 147 was realigned off its former drawbridge, and the former alignment became Cape May County Route 665. The southern terminus of County Route 585 was eventually truncated its current location at Route 52 in Somers Point. By the 1990s, Route 147 was extended to its current terminus at New York Avenue in North Wildwood.

In 2020, NJTA proposed a $10 million project to reconstruct the partial interchange between Route 147 and the Garden State Parkway into a full interchange.

title: New Jersey Route 147


text:
New Jersey Route 152

Route 152 is a 3.16 mi state highway in Atlantic County, New Jersey, United States. Route 152 begins at an intersection with County Route 620 (CR 620) and Bay Avenue in the city of Somers Point. The route heads along two causeways, ending at the foot of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway in Egg Harbor Township, where the state turns maintenance back to Atlantic County as County Route 629 to Longport.

Route 152 originates as an alignment of Atlantic County Route 20, which ran along the entire alignment of Route 152 from Somers Point to Longport. The state took over Route 20 in 1969, designating the route as 152 in relation to the Route 52 designation further south. In 1988, the former bridge over the Broad Thoroughfare was demolished and replaced by the Dolores G. Cooper Bridge.

Route description

Route 152 begins at an intersection with Atlantic County Route 620 (West Maryland Avenue) and Bay Avenue in the city of Somers Point. The route heads eastward, passing to the north of a local marina as East Maryland Avenue, crossing over Bass Harbor Creek soon after. Just after crossing the creek, Route 152 leaves Somers Point, entering the community of Egg Harbor Township. On the other side of the creek, Route 152 becomes known as Longport–Somers Point Boulevard and heads along a causeway through Egg Harbor Township. The route passes to the north of a marina, curving soon after at an intersection with Anchorage Drive, which is a connector road to waterside residential homes. Route 152 continues eastward, crossing over several streams and passing to the north of a large estate. The route remains a two-lane causeway for a distance, intersecting with its former alignment to the south, which parallels the current route. Route 152 then rises in elevation as it heads onto the newer causeway (known as the Dolores G. Cooper Bridge), passing a lone fishing pier. After crossing over the Cooper Bridge, the highway parallels its former alignment for a short distance, intersecting with the Ocean Drive/Ocean City-Longport Boulevard. Route 152 heads along the Broad Thoroughfare as a three-lane waterside arterial boulevard. The route leaves the shoreline, running along the sandy surroundings. The route reaches Seaview Harbor, served by an intersection with Sunset Boulevard and Seaview Boulevard. Route 152 turns eastward, reaching the foot of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Bridge. There, the state designation ends, and it continues as Atlantic County Route 629 (Ventnor Avenue) into Longport.

The entire span of the Longport Bridge is accessible to pedestrians, runners, and bicycles, with dedicated lanes on each side. The bridge has been a featured route in running, walking, and cycling events including the Bike MS: City to Shore Ride.

History
In 1916, the causeway connecting Somers Point and Longport opened. The current alignment of Route 152 originates as a state takeover of Atlantic County Route 20, which was first brought to the floor of the New Jersey State Legislature in 1968. The state approved the measure, and effective January 19, 1969, the New Jersey Department of Transportation took over maintenance of County Route 20. The alignment was designated as Route 152, numbered after nearby New Jersey Route 52 to the south in Somers Point and Ocean City.

Route 152 originally went along a lower wooden bridge across the Broad Thoroughfare. At least six people drowned from traffic accidents along the bridge from 1976 to 1986. Atlantic County Assemblywoman Dolores G. Cooper helped secure state funding for a new bridge, which opened September 1988 at a cost of $21 million. The new 2860 ft bridge was completed to the north of the former route. The former alignment to the south, designated as Old Road, is currently being demolished with the former fishing pier as of 2017. The route has remained intact virtually since 1988. In 1994, the new bridge was named the Dolores G. Cooper Bridge.

The original alignment of Route 152 was designated by 1953 from Route 29 (which at the time went east via Memorial Drive and Lafayette Street to US 206) in Trenton to US 1 in Trenton. This became part of rerouted Route 29 by 1969, while the old route of Route 29 was given to the city.

title: New Jersey Route 152


text:
New Jersey Route 154

Route 154 is a 1.70 mi long state highway in Cherry Hill Township, Camden County, New Jersey. The route begins at an intersection with County Route 561 (CR 561) in Cherry Hill, heading northward to the site of the former Ellisburg Circle, where Route 154 reaches its northern terminus at Route 41 (Kings Highway) and Route 70. The route ends concurrent with Route 41 for the short distance from the junction between the two routes. Brace Road is the local name for Route 154 for its entire length.

Route 154 is an original portion of Route 41, defined in the 1927 renumbering. The route remained intact for several decades, until the construction of a bypass around Haddonfield. By the time of the 1953 renumbering on January 1, 1953, Route 41 was realigned onto a county-maintained roadway, signed as Temporary Route 41, while the former alignment went unnumbered. During the 1960s, the old alignment was designated as Route 154, but was unsigned until 1992. From 1984 to 1992, the New Jersey Department of Transportation removed the Ellisburg Circle, built in 1938 at Route 154's northern terminus.

Route description
Route 154 begins at an intersection with CR 561 (Haddonfield-Berlin Road) in the township of Cherry Hill. The site of the former Cherry Hill Arena, now occupied by a shopping center, lies on the route's east side at its beginning. The highway progresses northward as Brace Road, passing through some large commercial districts and to the east of Tyndall Village. The route continues, passing several small commercial businesses until approaching an intersection with CR 671 (Kresson Road) in the northeast portion of Tyndall Village. Route 154 continues northward, passing to the east of several more commercial buildings, while the surroundings become woodland to the northwest and east for a short distance. The route continues northward, passing Kingsway Circle Park before becoming moderately developed with homes and businesses.

After the intersection with Munn Lane West, Route 154 becomes surrounded by large, deep patches of trees until the intersection with Kenwood Drive, where residential homes return. At the intersection, Route 154 gains its own service road for the local residences, which terminate a block away. A short distance later, Route 41 comes in from the west and becomes concurrent with Route 154 for a short distance. Passing some large businesses in Ellisburg, a part of Cherry Hill, Route 41 and Route 154 intersect with Route 70, where Route 154's designation terminates.

History
The alignment of Route 154 was originally a stretch of Route 41 through Cherry Hill and Ellisburg assigned in the 1927 renumbering of state highways. The route went from its current alignment along former Route 25 to current Route 154 instead of via the Kings Highway. The route remained intact until plans for a bypass around Haddonfield arose in 1929. By the second state highway renumbering in 1953, the bypass around Haddonfield had only been partially built, so instead, the New Jersey State Highway Department realigned Route 41 onto the Kings Highway, leaving the former route unnumbered. The route remained unnumbered until the 1960s, when it was given the designation of Route 154.

In 1938, the State Highway Department tore down the Ellisburg General Store, a market located at the intersection of then-Route 41 and Route 40 (now Route 70) to construct a new traffic circle at the junction. This circle, known as the Ellisburg Circle, was removed in 1992, while plans arose in the late 1980s to remove the congested circle, hosting the junctions of Route 154, 41, and 70. The impetus to remove the structure and replace it with a four-way intersection was produced in 1987, with a cost of $8 million (1987 USD) to rebuild.

title: New Jersey Route 154