Talk:State highways in California/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AFD, Only the list of highways

You have a very good page here. A lot of good information. On the Edit Page it states "This page is 90 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable" There is a very simiple way to solve this. Switch the List to a Template.

  • It will make the page more compact
  • It will bring it in to Wiki Compliance
  • The Template will make Navigation easier

I'd be happy to offer my time to create the template if it would help. --71Demon 05:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The debate is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of California State Routes. --Rschen7754 05:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Image removal

User:71Demon made a good point in the AFD debate that even on a T-1 line this page loads slowly. On a dial-up connection it takes f-o-r-e-v-e-r! All of the route signs that are not in a section heading should be removed, and I would even recommend removing those in the section headings as well. They don't add any extra information, and my personal opinion is that it makes the page look more cluttered. BlankVerse ∅ 05:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

  • BlankVerse, Why did you make a false statement about me? I like templates. They are easy to navigate. Personally I think all the Highway Systems should use templates by state like the US Highway Template. Now some people have brought some information to change my mind on larger states like CA. That is the point of discussion, but it can do without the personal attacks. Rschen7754, showed me I should voice my opinion, so I did. Because you don't agree with it, you falsely accuse me of WP:POINT. I would like an apology. --71Demon 06:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
From BlankVerse ∅ 01:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC): This is your point that I was referring to: "Good point, I'm on a T-1 line and it loads slow for me. Even if you vote to keep the list, then you should probably remove all the images to make it load faster...." -71Demon 05:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of California State Routes
    • The first header on WP:POINT says State your point; don't prove it experimentally. By doing an AFD on List of California State Routes you were proving it experimentally. --Rschen7754 06:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I didn't do that. The List had issues, and I pointed out what I thought was a possible solution. In the past I would have looked at the history and contact the users that contributed the most to a thread, and then express and opinion to the directly. You showed me the proper way to do that is to create an afd, since they didn't have a partial afd. I still like the simplisity of a template, but you made some valid points against it. And you are talking about making changes to the entry to make it better. Which is a good thing. --71Demon 06:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes you did. The proper way to approach it would have been to make your point on the Talk page and not bring it to AFD. --Howcheng 23:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yup... it looks cool but it takes too long to load. Sadly enough the signs need to go. --Rschen7754 05:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Frankly I vote to leave it as is. So what if it's over 90 KB. It's a guideline not a rule. And in this case the overdraft is well worth it. This page looks sharp and loads well for anyone not using antiquated 56K technology.Gateman1997 07:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
The Wikipedia just isn't for people with broadband connections! Personally, I've always thought that road shields made the page look cluttered and they didn't add any useful information.
FYI: The suggested page size limit is mostly because some older internet browsers cannot edit the larger pages. On the other hand, page size, if it is all just text, doesn't have that much effect upon the speed of the page loading. However, having a HUGE number of graphics, even if they are individually small in size, has a major effect upon the time it takes to load a page. BlankVerse ∅ 01:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
My harsh but honest assessment is that anyone using an older browser or a 56K connection needs to upgrade. Browser upgrades are free for anyone to download, if they're too lazy to do so then they should be SOL. And 56K is dying out. I'm aware not everyone has broadband yet, but 2/3 of all internet users do at this point, with more getting it everyday. We shouldn't hamper Wikipedia just to pander to 56K holdouts. Harsh I know, but progress often is.Gateman1997 18:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • My personal opinion is that even though the roads have different classifications, in California they operate as just one big system, so the List should stay intact as one big list. On the other hand, all the road shields have a major effect upon the speed at which the page loads, yet the road shields do not add any extra useful information. Besides, they make the page look cluttered. The road shields should be removed from the list post-haste. BlankVerse ∅ 01:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleted/Unconstructed CASRs

Rschen7754 brought up an issue that hasn't been resolved yet -- what are we listing on this page? All CASRs, past, present, and future, or just those with current routing? I ask because I just removed a deleted route CA-21 yesterday and created the Deleted California State Routes article. IMHO because we have the deleted and Unconstructed California State Routes articles, this page should list only those that have current routing. Additionally, the Routebox links to this page with the word "Current." Thoughts? --Howcheng 16:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Interstate highways and U.S. Highways

71Demon has suggested that the Interstates and US highways should be moved to List of Interstate Highways in California and List of U.S. Highways in California. Please vote and discuss this matter below. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 00:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Interstates and US Highways on this page. California State Routes include Interstates and US Highways, click here to see why. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 00:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The edit is a good logical edit. Interstates and US Highways are differently signed and it makes a logical edit. I have done other similar edits are large entries that need paired down without issue. Wiki has a warning that it is still to large of an entry, but I don't see an immediate way to make it smaller. You can also expand the detail on the CA Interstates and US Highways now adding some more history without worrying about size. --71Demon 01:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • However, this is a list of California State Routes and needs to list all of them. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 02:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the road shields, but keep Interstates and US Highways on this page. BlankVerse ∅ 01:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the road shields, but keep Interstates and US Highways on this page. I concur with user BlankVerse's well-articulated position. 71Demon appears to be inherently unable to understand basic elements of California transportation law — and we must remember that it is the law that makes the difference between a freeway and a parking lot. A highway is a highway because the law makes it illegal to park in the middle of a piece of land designated as such. --Coolcaesar 02:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the shields and the page as it is. No need to change the whole page because a few holdouts aren't upgrading.Gateman1997 18:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. The law says that Interstates and US Highways are California State Routes within California borders. This is also part of the California State Highways WikiProject definition. --Howcheng 23:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep but delete the shields. After more thought, I agree with BlankVerse -- the shields are pretty, but in the tradeoff between load time and aesthetics, I vote for load time. --Howcheng 16:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't care about the highways, but the shields need to go. I've got a 6Mbps cable connection, and the page takes several minutes to download. --Carnildo 05:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If the consensus hasn't changed by tomorrow (October 8) October 13, I will restore the Interstates and U.S. Highways to the list. (A simple revert cannot be done since people have made good edits to this page in the meantime). However there iosn't a good consensus on the images, so I'll wait on that one. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 03:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

For this to be a proper Wikipedia survey, and to increase the number of editors participating, you should list it at Wikipedia:Current Surveys and Wikipedia:Requests for comments. BlankVerse ∅ 10:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Done. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 17:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm closing the debate now and here are the results: Delete the road shields, but keep Interstates and US Highways on this page. It was 5-1 for the restoration of the Interstates/ US highways and 5-1 for the shield deletion. However it will take some time to put this decision into effect- the page was edited since the Interstates and US highways got removed so a simple revert is not possible. Also, the image deleting will take a while as well. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

List of Interstate Highways in California and List of U.S. Highways in California

Should these pages be taken to VFD? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes since the result of the debate above was to merge them back here. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. --Coolcaesar 04:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

And there they go: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Interstate Highways in California and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. Highways in California. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Formatting

Has anyone delineated the proper format for route aliases on route descriptions? Some are bolded, some are italicized and others link right back to the main article (which seems absolutely unnecessary on this page, at least). There is also some inconsistancy among the main articles as well. If posted elsewhere and I missed it, I'll remove here. My thoughts are to go with italicized only, as the others just confuse the eye and detract from the descriptions themselves. Linking redirects also seem unnecessarily redundant. --Kosar 18:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Bold should refer to where the route is defined by law. For example, California State Route 72 is defined from California State Route 39 to Atlantic Boulevard. Thus, Route 39 and Atlantic Boulevard are in bold lettering. When I started out on this project, italics were reserved for routes that for some reason or another do not meet the article route. Bennyp81 07:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Legislative numbers for 1928 U.S. Routes

(they weren't signed in California until 1928)

US 40
US 48
US 50
US 66
  • Route 4???, Los Angeles to San Fernando???
  • Route 9, San Fernando??? to San Bernardino
  • Route 31, San Bernardino to Barstow
  • Route 58, Barstow to Arizona
US 80
US 91
US 99
US 101
US 199

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI (talk • contribs) 11:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Pre-1964 State Routes

ACSC (red) and CSAA (blue) territory
Northern California
Southern California
LA area, west to east
San Diego area, west to east
Further north, west to east
LA area, north to south
Further east, north to south
San Diego area, north to south
North of LA, north to south
U.S. Routes

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI (talk • contribs) 11:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Naming

They're not "State Highway Routes." The first reference you cited only used "State Highway Route" a fraction of the times that "Route x" is used. The second usage is only in the title. The third was from a 1933 document and doesn't help us today. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - they're officially State Highway Routes, or Routes for short. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Your proof doesn;t support that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The legislative definition sure as hell does. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The 1933 one? Or the one route that uses it out of the 200 others (and it stands apart from the others since it's a scenic notation)? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The current one. State Highway Route X is not always used - it is usually abbreviated Route X. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It says where? No original research. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It says in the Streets and Highways Code. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Where? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Article 3. The State Highway Routes (Sections 300-635)
231. As used in this chapter, "route" means State highway route and the route numbers are those given the State highway routes or portions thereof by the commission. Each complete route is described in article 3 of this chapter. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
And so if we accept that we have to accept "State highway" and "State highway route" uncapitalized? We can't have it both ways. Caltrans doesn't follow the code to the letter of the law. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't care much about capitalization. You figure out that part. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Seriously if it's "as used in this chapter" that takes away some of the worth from that? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
They use "route" in that chapter. "State highway route" is the one that's not only in that chapter. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Also we have to use common names. "State Highway Route" is not at all common. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I only use it in the one sentence. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
And in the title? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
"List of Routes in California" is somewhat ambiguous. "List of State Routes in California" is incorrect, as it also includes Interstates and U.S. Routes. "List of state highways in California" might work. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
If you notice in the highway code there's no diffrentiation between Interstates and U.S. Routes (read debates above). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes - those are Routes. But only the Routes that are not Interstates or U.S. Routes are State Routes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The Highway code makes no diffrentiations. The routes are treated equally throughout the Highway Code. Didn't you just quote the definition of "Route" in the chapter we are concerned with? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Those are Routes. Not State Routes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

(moving out) Source that shows that under California law, these routes are treated differently? Read what has been written above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

They are identical under state law, which does not use the term "State Route". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you agree to a move to state highways in California? This is information about and a list of all state highways (state-maintained roads) in California, all of which are assigned Route numbers. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No. Moving back. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Please give a reason why the new name is bad. I have explained the problem with the old name - U.S. Routes and Interstates are not State Routes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I've protected the page from further moves, until you guys reach an agreement. After reading the above discussion, I don't see any reason why "State highways in California" isn't a perfectly acceptable name for this article. Raul654 06:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Because they are specifically known as California State Routes. Also per discussion at the top all Interstate/US Routes are California State Routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
They are not specifically known as "California State Routes". Not even the ones signed as State Routes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Then why did we call them California State Route 1 (until you decided to move them)? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Because we were using an improper naming convention. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather useful link

[1] --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Post-1964 history

(below 256 is likely incomplete)

1965
1967
1968
1970
1972
1974
1979
1981
1983
1984
1988
1990
1991
1994

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI (talk • contribs) 17:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup of short descriptions next to highway links

Can anyone cleanup the short descriptions next to the links of their respective articles? Such as removing redundant links, formatting, etc.?

Example:

State Route 22 East 7th Street in Long Beach from SR-1 to Interstate 405, and the Garden Grove Freeway from Interstate 405 in Seal Beach to SR-55 in Orange.
State Route 23 Called Grimes Canyon Road/Moorpark Freeway / Westlake Boulevard/Decker Canyon Road, it connects Fillmore to Malibu.

etc.


Change it to:

State Route 22 East Seventh Street in Long Beach - From State Route 1 to Interstate 405.
Garden Grove Freeway - From Interstate 405 in Seal Beach to State Route 55 in Orange.
State Route 23 Grimes Canyon Road, Moorpark Freeway, Westlake Boulevard, Decker Canyon Road - From State Route 126 in Fillmore to State Route 1 in Malibu.

etc.


--Geopgeop 03:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just changed that for Ca-245, which had listed Exeter as being in Fresno County, rather than Tulare County, where it actually resides. Eganio (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We could use a format like list of state highways in Utah. --NE2 10:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, not bad. I like it. I say go for it. Anyone agree/disagree? Eganio (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Geopgeop's proposal sounds good. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Preposition in title

Somehow, "State Highways in California" doesn't seem to sound as eloquent/correct as "State highways of California". What do other people think of this? I noticed that many other states use "in." atanamir (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I could go with either one, though I think the current usage sounds better (it makes clear the geographical limitation of the article). --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Date??

Second paragraph under history ends with this -- " . . . which had been active in signing national auto trails and local roads since the mid-1900s."

Shouldn't it say since the mid-1800s? Because it goes on to talk about further work done in the 1930s. Garbagemania (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_highways_in_California/Archive_3&oldid=882736288"