Talk:California State Route 47/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Maintenance
Does the ACTA maintain any of Alameda Street, or is all locally maintained? It doesn't seem to have been taken over by Caltrans, despite signage and pages 6 and 10 of [1]. --NE2 23:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
History notes
Note "Proposed freeway". --NE2 17:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
SR 47
Only a small portion of Alameda Street is signed as SR 47. I don't think a redirect is appropriate. 71.109.121.132 (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- It could be split off, if you have something to write about the city street portion. --NE2 06:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
GA review
I'm passing the article now, but please note that each term needs to be linked only the first time it appears in an article. Thus, LA (for example) doesn't need to be linked over and over again. Please fix this as soon as you can for the article overall. If this isn't changed, I may delist the article. However, it's pretty minor and the article is quite good otherwise.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- Again, I'm okay with passing the article right now, but the red links to street/boulevard names need to be removed. It cannot be reasonably expected that streets in LA will get articles of their own, so red linking is an unnecessary distraction.
- Some city streets are notable - WP:USST. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I'm okay with passing the article right now, but the red links to street/boulevard names need to be removed. It cannot be reasonably expected that streets in LA will get articles of their own, so red linking is an unnecessary distraction.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- You've met the GA criteria for images without a doubt, but more images would be nice. I'm sure it's not too difficult to find a few to spice up things.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
I just took a quick look and although it appears that LA is linked over and over, those are actually linking to different articles, for example: Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Downtown Los Angeles, Los Angeles Harbor, ect... --Holderca1 talk 22:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- If they're different dabs each and every time that's fine. But there are other duplicate links, even redlinks. Long Beach Boulevard is linked several times, for instance. It's extremely distracting for the reader and completely unnecessary. VanTucky 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- That was the single duplicate redlink in a section, and I removed it. --NE2 23:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Heim Bridge
In the history section -- The Heim Bridge did not replace the Henry Ford Bridge -- the Henry Ford Bridge was always a rail bridge and to this day runs next to the Heim Bridge. The Ford Bridge was built in 1924 and replaced in 1996 and is still there (this info can be found on Wikipedia, by the way). Banjochris (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Split Alameda Street into its own article?
At present, Alameda Street redirects to this article. This article contains some content about Alameda Street when it doesn't carry SR 47. I propose that the content about Alameda Street be split into its own article, noting that many other arterial but not-CA highway streets in Los Angeles have their own articles. I believe Alameda Street to be independently notable of SR 47. Alameda Street exists for 3.1 miles as SR-47, 18.3 miles otherwise; and is a major street for its entire length. That's a factor of 6:1 as not SR-47, so it shouldn't redirect here. pbp 00:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Support
- Oppose
- Discussion
- Chen, most (85%) of Alameda Street doesn't carry SR 47. Those parts at least don't really belong in this article, and should be somewhere else. pbp 01:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Even if the topic (Alameda Street) is split out as a separate article, it still would need to be covered here (SR 47). The next question, is that topic (Alameda Street) notable enough to warrant its own article? If it isn't, then that split article would be subject to deletion at AfD. Another consideration is the level of redundancy between separate articles. If enough content is going to be the same in each, it makes sense to keep them merged for simple ease of maintenance. Imzadi 1979 → 01:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- As I said, redundancy isn't an issue because 85% of Alameda Street isn't SR-47; and the majority of this article isn't about Alameda Street. As for being independently notable, a search for "Alameda Street" "Los Angeles" turned up 20,000 results. pbp 02:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Google Hits ≠ Notability. Imzadi 1979 → 02:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but on the first page alone, I found this book. It mentions Alameda Street extensively, with it focusing exclusively on a part of Alameda Street miles north of the north end of SR-47. This photo history also has much on Los Angeles; again the downtown portion that is miles north of SR-47. The history of Alameda Street carrying Southern Pacific tracks through downtown is mentioned here. There's no question that Alameda Street would survive an AfD; actually, the portion between Spring and 8th alone has enough sourced material to survive an AfD. I don't quite understand why you two are so adverse to a very important street in Los Angeles having its own article pbp 03:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have expressed no opinion about an article split. I have offered some discussion points to consider. Imzadi 1979 → 03:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but on the first page alone, I found this book. It mentions Alameda Street extensively, with it focusing exclusively on a part of Alameda Street miles north of the north end of SR-47. This photo history also has much on Los Angeles; again the downtown portion that is miles north of SR-47. The history of Alameda Street carrying Southern Pacific tracks through downtown is mentioned here. There's no question that Alameda Street would survive an AfD; actually, the portion between Spring and 8th alone has enough sourced material to survive an AfD. I don't quite understand why you two are so adverse to a very important street in Los Angeles having its own article pbp 03:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Google Hits ≠ Notability. Imzadi 1979 → 02:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- As I said, redundancy isn't an issue because 85% of Alameda Street isn't SR-47; and the majority of this article isn't about Alameda Street. As for being independently notable, a search for "Alameda Street" "Los Angeles" turned up 20,000 results. pbp 02:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- So, why not just start the article? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; there is no need to file a formal request for turning a redirect into an article. --108.38.191.162 (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- You're right...I don't. I just spent an hour creating a userspace draft of ~6 KB at User:Purplebackpack89/AlamedaStreet. As you can see, it is sourced, and quite different from this article. I'm going to wait a few days, and if there are no additional objections, I'm going to mainspace it pbp 16:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on California State Route 47. 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
{{dead link}}tag to http://cricket.csuchico.edu/spcfotos/maps/topo_search.html - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721033203/http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/2006all.htm to http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/2006all.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 02:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)