Talk:California State Route 52/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about California State Route 52. 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 |
NPOV
Rschen7754 put an NPOV tag on the article with no discussion. I'm sure it's about the references to increased construction costs, etc., to protect endangered birds. I am one of the guilty parties. Although I think the information is correct and useful, I have to admit that it is probably not appropriate in this article. I would not object if it is removed. Rsduhamel (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I decided to remove the "Controversy" section. Nearly every construction project impacts some endangered species so this is really superfluous here. Rsduhamel (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikiproject ordering
There seems to be some debate over the order (and formatting) of Wikiproject banners here. I happen to believe that avoiding redirects and using a logical ordering to those outside of projects (e.g. alphabetical order) is far preferable to a subjective "we got here first" or "we're more important" mentality that seems to be forming in certain projects. Happy to discuss here. There was a discussion here which was closed down prematurely. It was clear to me there's a level of ownership which is unacceptable to general users who may unfortunately stumble into the Roads project, and suffer the wrath of the "active" project. It needs a lot of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see no reason why the California Wikiproject needs to be tagged here, as the San Diego project is descended from that project. Furthermore, I see no reason why the U.S. Roads WikiProject should not be at the top, as that project determines the standards that are used on all U.S. Roads articles (the California WikiProject expressly does not generate standards). --Rschen7754 20:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Show me the guideline or policy that supports your position. Or I'll show you, once again, WP:OWN. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I actually can't find anything in that page to back up your position. --Rschen7754 20:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Funny. And at the same time disappointing from such an experienced editor (and an admin at that). You have nothing in guideline or policy to back up your reversion, and you have no logic other than "our project is more active than that project" to object to the edit. Please, show me the guidelines or policies that back up your edit reversion, and I'll happily step down from this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting, because OWN goes clearly out of its way to defend stewardship of an article. --Rschen7754 20:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Quite, and it also suggests "No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article". So, in any case, the answer the question I posed please: " Please, show me the guidelines or policies that back up your edit reversion, and I'll happily step down from this discussion."? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- No one, singular. And it seems that you have little to back up your assertions either. --Rschen7754 20:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, you're really pushing this ownership thing, aren't you? Well I was just here to try to help the little guy. Turns out you're motivated by something else. Now can you show me "the guidelines or policies that back up your edit reversion, and I'll happily step down from this discussion."? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, as you have not shown me the ones that back up your own. And my standing as an admin has nothing to do with this, or if you think it does, feel free to take this to ArbCom and request a desysop. --Rschen7754 21:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- As a quick reminder, you were the experienced admin that "reverted" a good faith edit without any good reason to do so, no reason in policy, none in guideline, and nothing but a clear ownership edit. It's abundantly clear you have some personal investment in this issue, which is unbecoming of an admin, particularly when it's been pointed out to you that your edits have no substance in guideline or policy. Sure, you've not abused your admin tools in any way, but you're a seriously experienced editor. This crusade is beyond odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I could say the same towards you, as you still have not backed up your position in policy. And it's interesting that you say "odd"... maybe that's why people say Wikipedia is crumbling. --Rschen7754 21:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, let's get back to basics. You "reverted" an edit which placed project tags in alphabetical order and avoided a redirect. Your response to the good faith edit was a "revert" (like you would do to a vandal) and to state to the editor phrases such as "our articles", "our FAs", "they do nothing..." [with respect to another project]... You've since denied the concept of WP:OWN and now you're suggesting you will and should refuse to discuss anything with me because I've not "backed up [my] position in policy". As an experienced editor and admin, you know I don't actually need to do that, particularly when I've asked you to explain why you've assumed bad faith with a fellow editor, demonstrated you're unclear with WP:OWN (with, if nothing else, your expressions of ownership), and have not been able to demonstrate where your ordering of banners is covered in either policy or guideline. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm done here, as it is clear that you are not listening to me, and your perception of the matter is disturbing. --Rschen7754 21:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see. If you could clarify which parts of my summary were incorrect that would be useful. Otherwise, I'll take this as an experience and help other editors who have to deal with your ownership issues in a similar fashion. It would be more beneficial to the project if you could accept your errors and not make them again, and assume good faith with editors. As an aside, it would be helpful if you could show Wikipedians where your "revert" was considered acceptable in either guideline or policy. As yet, you've failed to demonstrate that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've already explained why I mistakenly used the Twinkle rollback button; please re-read. In fact, please re-read everything as I don't have the patience to re-explain it all. --Rschen7754 21:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I thought you were "done". You've spectacularly demonstrated a misunderstanding of ownership and objectiveness, and abused the good faith policy, while simultaneously avoiding questions over your own editing. Good night's work! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've already explained why I mistakenly used the Twinkle rollback button; please re-read. In fact, please re-read everything as I don't have the patience to re-explain it all. --Rschen7754 21:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see. If you could clarify which parts of my summary were incorrect that would be useful. Otherwise, I'll take this as an experience and help other editors who have to deal with your ownership issues in a similar fashion. It would be more beneficial to the project if you could accept your errors and not make them again, and assume good faith with editors. As an aside, it would be helpful if you could show Wikipedians where your "revert" was considered acceptable in either guideline or policy. As yet, you've failed to demonstrate that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm done here, as it is clear that you are not listening to me, and your perception of the matter is disturbing. --Rschen7754 21:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, let's get back to basics. You "reverted" an edit which placed project tags in alphabetical order and avoided a redirect. Your response to the good faith edit was a "revert" (like you would do to a vandal) and to state to the editor phrases such as "our articles", "our FAs", "they do nothing..." [with respect to another project]... You've since denied the concept of WP:OWN and now you're suggesting you will and should refuse to discuss anything with me because I've not "backed up [my] position in policy". As an experienced editor and admin, you know I don't actually need to do that, particularly when I've asked you to explain why you've assumed bad faith with a fellow editor, demonstrated you're unclear with WP:OWN (with, if nothing else, your expressions of ownership), and have not been able to demonstrate where your ordering of banners is covered in either policy or guideline. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I could say the same towards you, as you still have not backed up your position in policy. And it's interesting that you say "odd"... maybe that's why people say Wikipedia is crumbling. --Rschen7754 21:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- As a quick reminder, you were the experienced admin that "reverted" a good faith edit without any good reason to do so, no reason in policy, none in guideline, and nothing but a clear ownership edit. It's abundantly clear you have some personal investment in this issue, which is unbecoming of an admin, particularly when it's been pointed out to you that your edits have no substance in guideline or policy. Sure, you've not abused your admin tools in any way, but you're a seriously experienced editor. This crusade is beyond odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- No one, singular. And it seems that you have little to back up your assertions either. --Rschen7754 20:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Quite, and it also suggests "No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article". So, in any case, the answer the question I posed please: " Please, show me the guidelines or policies that back up your edit reversion, and I'll happily step down from this discussion."? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting, because OWN goes clearly out of its way to defend stewardship of an article. --Rschen7754 20:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Funny. And at the same time disappointing from such an experienced editor (and an admin at that). You have nothing in guideline or policy to back up your reversion, and you have no logic other than "our project is more active than that project" to object to the edit. Please, show me the guidelines or policies that back up your edit reversion, and I'll happily step down from this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- I actually can't find anything in that page to back up your position. --Rschen7754 20:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Show me the guideline or policy that supports your position. Or I'll show you, once again, WP:OWN. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
THIS ARGUMENT IS A WASTE OF TIME FOR ALL INVOLVED. IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY MATTER WHAT ORDER THE TAGS ARE PLACED IN. Sorry for the bold all caps, but it just needs that much emphasis! Please move along, everyone, lest this end up at WP:LAME! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Um, I think we all had... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- What better way to make sure a horse is dead, than to beat it? :P —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Postmile
In this table, there are three notes for the Postmile entry, and a note which says "Except where prefixed with a letter, postmiles were measured on the road as it was in 1964, and do not necessarily reflect current mileage. R reflects a realignment in the route since then.". Firstly, I see no "R"s so I guess no realignments have taken place (is this boilerplate text? If not, there seems no need for it to be here). However, looking at the DoT source (one of the two used to source exit terminology), 1A is not shown at 0.32, nor is 14 or 15A shown at 14.77. Where are these sourced? Is the DoT source in error? I also note refs 6, 14 and 111 are generic and don't specifically source the data in the table. Can they be refined? Finally, is there a reason why the last four exits don't have mile entries? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- It is boilerplate text, and the numbers are sourced using the bridge logs (reference 111). There was an extension of the road in 2011, and even in the 2013 bridge logs, there still was no update for the extension. The Calnexus site has stopped being updated since our state has no more money as well, so the Google Maps is to source the missing exit numbers from that segment, and there are no postmiles.
- California uses a very confusing postmile system instead of using normal mileposts like the rest of the US; for some routes there are normal milepost numbers available for the entire route, but not for 75% of the routes in the system. --Rschen7754 09:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- So you have a source which is incorrect? Why is the "bridge log" more reliable than the DoT source? Is it possible to have a more accurate link to the actual data for ref 111 rather than a generic page? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- They are both DOT sources. I have adjusted the link. --Rschen7754 09:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- One of them is in error though, presumably? This should be noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Which source are you referring to? --Rschen7754 09:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ref 112. Used to ref the Exit numbering, but contradicting the data in the mile column. Also, in the PDF you've now linked (thank you) can you point me to the page where the information I'm looking for is? We'd normally do that for readers when linking them to a large PDF where only a small portion is pertinent to the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I looked at page 30, I can't see a 14.77 anywhere on there (or anywhere in the whole document)? I don't really understand what I'm looking at in all honesty... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Also, that ref has Convoy St at 5.48, not 5.49 as mentioned in the table (although ref 112 has it at 5.49).... In fact, if that's the ref you're using, most of the entries are wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Would you mind not edit conflicting me? I've gotten numerous edit conflicts as I've tried writing responses and it's getting a bit frustrating...
- Well I obviously didn't do it on purpose. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've updated the page number. It's been informal practice to use the bridge logs as those are updated more frequently, and because I'm pretty sure that slightly different formulas are used in both. I suspect that the numbers may have come from the traffic logs site as well (I didn't make the original version of this table). The trucklist XLS is used in certain circumstances as well (I believe to determine official routing in difficult cases), and all three citations are generally copied to all California road articles. Could the way things are cited be improved? Yes, probably - other editors set up the citations and tables years ago, but it's not flat out unreliable data.
- Would you mind not edit conflicting me? I've gotten numerous edit conflicts as I've tried writing responses and it's getting a bit frustrating...
- Which source are you referring to? --Rschen7754 09:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- One of them is in error though, presumably? This should be noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- They are both DOT sources. I have adjusted the link. --Rschen7754 09:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- So you have a source which is incorrect? Why is the "bridge log" more reliable than the DoT source? Is it possible to have a more accurate link to the actual data for ref 111 rather than a generic page? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- In this case, the overall length comes from the trucklist file, as that was updated for the 2011 extension, and goes out to three decimal places. But you can't use that on any route with a concurrency, since concurrencies are not always accounted for in the trucklist files, so you have to go down to bridgelogs, calculation, and postmile equations, and two decimal places. --Rschen7754 09:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well it's totally clear that it's a bit of a mess, you can't expect readers to know all this. All I can say here is that the sources do not back up the data in the table. At least not without some kind of magic calculation which is undefined. This is problematic, particularly in a featured article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Since this is one of the few articles that can be converted to mileposts, I have gone ahead and done so, and added metric conversions as a side effect - that is where I have discovered that most of the old numbers did indeed come from Calnexus. I suspect that the last number had discrepancies since that was where the realignment took place and stuff may have shifted since then. --Rschen7754 10:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good work. Where are the distances now referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Calnexus (same as for the exit numbers). --Rschen7754 10:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's weird, the refs are not showing up in the distance column headers.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed, the template syntax for California is difficult to remember. --Rschen7754 11:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's weird, the refs are not showing up in the distance column headers.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Calnexus (same as for the exit numbers). --Rschen7754 10:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good work. Where are the distances now referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Since this is one of the few articles that can be converted to mileposts, I have gone ahead and done so, and added metric conversions as a side effect - that is where I have discovered that most of the old numbers did indeed come from Calnexus. I suspect that the last number had discrepancies since that was where the realignment took place and stuff may have shifted since then. --Rschen7754 10:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well it's totally clear that it's a bit of a mess, you can't expect readers to know all this. All I can say here is that the sources do not back up the data in the table. At least not without some kind of magic calculation which is undefined. This is problematic, particularly in a featured article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- In this case, the overall length comes from the trucklist file, as that was updated for the 2011 extension, and goes out to three decimal places. But you can't use that on any route with a concurrency, since concurrencies are not always accounted for in the trucklist files, so you have to go down to bridgelogs, calculation, and postmile equations, and two decimal places. --Rschen7754 09:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on California State Route 52. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617114224/http://www.icommutesd.com/Bike/documents/SouthBikeMap_Web_000.pdf to http://www.icommutesd.com/Bike/documents/SouthBikeMap_Web_000.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 01:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)