Jump to content

Talk:California State Route 58/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Kramer Junction

Can junctions be added in the location column? The "location" column is for cities, census-designated places, and named junctions. I think it's widely established that we can add Kramer Junction in. It's a "location" column, not a "city" column. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Incorporated locations should only go in that column. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asking you because obviously I already know your answer. I was more specifically asking NE2 since he added the junctions. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Then hit him up at his talk page. I'm told by the others on IRC that we do include census-designated places; however, Kramer Jct. is not a CDP - as a few years back, a bot created articles for all the CDPs. Thus, Kramer Jct. is not a CDP as it is a redlink. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
So why don't you go remove all the other junctions then? Why just the one on the SR 58 article? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 04:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been putting unincorporated locations in that column for a while, and it makes sense when it's a small community that's grown up around that junction. It doesn't make as much sense when it's a large CDP that happens to include the intersection. --NE2 06:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how signage for Kramer Junction is on SR 58, but a similar example is Vidal Junction at SR 62 and US 95 - the place is specifically noted on signs. I think if there are no signs for an unincorporated place, it shouldn't be listed, but if it's noted on the road, and the intersection is definitely within it, it makes sense to note it. Kramer Junction does appear on mileage signs on US 395. --NE2 08:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I use unincorporated places all the time out in Oklahoma, mostly because it seems like a lot of intersections are "in the middle of nowhere" and we'd need to have a blank cell otherwise. If you're queasy about having a redlink, just make the article. [1] has a short bit about Kramer Junction that would be enough for a stub.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If the place name is reasonably well-known in the area, I don't see why it can't be used as a location, whether it is incorporated or not. If the place name is used on highway signs, then definitely include it. And if the redlink is the problem, go ahead and create a one-sentence stub. Places, no matter how insignificant, apparently only need to satisfy verfiability without the need to satisfy notability. --Polaron | Talk 03:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California State Route 58. 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:

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: 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) 02:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on California State Route 58. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 08:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:California_State_Route_58/Archive_1&oldid=881509946"