Jump to content

Talk:California State Route 54

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

Good articleCalifornia State Route 54 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
DateProcessResult
January 10, 2015Good article nomineeListed
February 2, 2018WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
Current status: Good article

Itliong Vera Cruz overpass

[edit]

Should this article include information about the Itliong Vera-Cruz overpass?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could be convinced otherwise, but I'm leaning towards no, as there's so many bridges that are named in California. --Rschen7754 21:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other named bridges over CA-54, that are also excluded?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are. But quite often the people the bridges are named after don't even have their own article, which comes awfully close to "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information". --Rschen7754 18:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Itliong (google book search)
Philip Vera Cruz {google book search)
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Quite often"... but still, I'm not convinced this should be in the article. --Rschen7754 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there are named overpasses/underpasses perhaps a collapsed list of that verified content could be added to the article. This would only add to the completeness of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, indiscriminate information... in the overall context of the road, it is not significant. (And we don't generally do collapsed lists in articles). --Rschen7754 22:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Count myself as opposed to the above opinion. But whatever, apparently my opinion and the potential of expanding the article with reliable sourced content is not important.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]