Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/California/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Changing termini in infobox

The 75 IP keeps changing the termini in the San Bernardino Freeway from west - east to southwest - northeast. I've reverted him two times and told him to take up the matter at WT:USRD rather than edit war on the article, but to no avail. If I revert him again, I will violate 3RR so there's nothing I can do. CL — 20:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in making this reverts. Count this as my support for a potential consensus in the matter. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
  • i agree with County Lemonade's advice. San BernaD Freeway was once signed as US 60/70, and before the freeway begun construction, those alignments took places on Garvey Avenue west and east through Monterey Park, Rosemead, El Monte, West Covina, Pomona, Ontario. Check the Los Angeles-Orange County Map, Garvey Avenue runs west and east and so does San Bern Freeway which most of the alignment is I-10 with small leg of I-215.--Freewayguy What's up? 04:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 17 - one of the CA exit list templates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What the heck, I'll do them all. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

California State Route 7

[1] - that is not a major intersection. Any comments? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The same with California State Route 98. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least in my opinion, a major intersection has either an interchange or a route number assigned to it. That has neither, so I agree that it isn't. Sometimes I'll include something that isn't strictly defined by those two guidelines, but then it is a major intersection in the sense of high traffic. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Even though I know nothing about California highways, if it is listed on a log, it is not that important. Washington's logs list all roads that cross a state highway. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 02:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_State_Route_1&curid=75245&diff=240806822&oldid=240806483 need to stop. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just an edit war between you and me on that article. Must eat worms (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Why does the above discussion not apply to CA-1? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Because you started this section with a heading entitled California State Route 7.Must eat worms (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
But this applies to the rest of the project. Don't be a smart aleck. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
By claiming your opinion of "this applies to the rest of the project", you too are acting like a "smart aleck". Must eat worms (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Wait a second. So if Rschen renamed the section to "Every article in CASH", it would apply to the entire project? I'm at a loss. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, if Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) renamed the section to "Every article in CASH", then I'll leave the removal of not-so-major intersections alone in all CASH articles. Must eat worms (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
So you've been reverting edits to articles because their name doesn't appear in the name of this thread? Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Orange flags before the war continues

Anybody know Splat5572 (talk · contribs) is now Must eat worms (talk · contribs). A exit list template is a good thought a good try but not exactly a good idea. I don't see a big problem with See Golden State Frwy, but over the tempalte policy over usage these templates just shouldn't exist. Duplicating a exit list is not neccessairly a good idea either. For exit list we can't just copy and paste stuff especially mixing with various of colspnas. Try it you will just mess up the table. For I-5 exit list (since you have no way to merge Santa Ana, Golden State Frwy in) a good idea is to split exit list into smaller sections. We have a section of San Diego Frwy since SD Frwy is also part of I-5 alignment, you can have another section to see Santa Ana and Golden State Frwy, then next section on exit list for north parts of I-5 this will make easier for people to see. Same as US 101, let's start and exit lsit on that page just west of Ventura Frwy then at beginnig put a little flag saying See Santa Ana, Hollywood, Venutra Frwys exit list so what??--57Freeways 23:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Handwritten duplicates may not be better than See Golden State Frwy. On Hollywood Frwy it's also better to have the colspan dividing US 101 and SR 170 so people will not get confuse.--57Freeways 22:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Freeway names

All, question regarding adding freeway names in on freeways in California, particularly in Northern California. In the scope of common usage, freeway names are largely meaningless in Northern California as they are almost never used in favor rather of the freeway numbers (ie: 280 is the common name rather than Junipero Serra Freeway. And as evidence of a further problem several freeways like California State Route 85 and Interstate 680 (California) have multiple names and even names that overlap the same portions of highway. Or in the case of Sinclair Freeway names that overlap multiple highways. Should we even bother listing them since the list is both extensive for most of these routes, and largely meaningless? For instance someone created an article for Bayshore Freeway which while interesting really should just be merged into US 101 in California since the route is primarly known by it's number rather than the name and is entirely within 101. Much like how Nimitz Freeway just redirects to Interstate 880.Gateman1997 (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for California road transport

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection before December 2008, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Exit list issues again

I-5, US 101 has gone through few undos after all the exit list tempaltes have been deleteb.Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) just keep undoing my changes without expalining why. I don't see what's the problem with See Golden State Frwy. People just have to jump around pages so what? Will it kill anybody? What's bad about duplicating exit list is people will have to update two exit list. Let's say we open a new exit, somebody update one exit list, they didn't update the other one. people will not know which one is right.--SCFReeways 23:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Also oversignhters can be a pain too. They just randomly post database lock, Wiki error, program error, just to annoy us. Oversighter just make excuse of don't worry about space. Duplciating just take up too much space and waste of computer source. Don't worry about space to me is the worst excuse.--SCFReeways 00:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a thought from an outside party. I agree with Rschen on this issue. There is no reason to arbitrarily break up the complete exit list on one small stretch in Los Angeles. It ruins the flow of the exit list on what is arguably the main article (the numbered freeway). Plus any duplication is minimal since in general this issue is limited to a handful of LA freeways only that very rarely need any updating as freeway exits aren't often changed. Plus from a non-LA user's perspective as well, saying "See Hollywood Freeway" for instance is confusing since the Hollywood Freeway encompasses more than just US 101 for example. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What about Tri-State Tollway, numerous of Chicago highways, and Interstate 278. They all have broken exit lists, of See XXX. Alot of New York highway articles have exit lists broken down. Is this because in Southern Califonria people don't know what Golden State Frwy is, becuase in LA-Orange County and California people don't use those name like Orange Frwy most people just say the 57, the 105 This is probably the bickers of having See Golden State Frwy. One thing is in 3 years how about on I-5 they open another ramp or they expand another alignments?--SCFReeways 00:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Just because a few other articles have the breaking up doesn't mean it's preferable. For instance I'd actually say the 278 exit list is worthless. You can't follow the progression of the exits at all due to the breaks. I'd say the reason it is preferable, at least in California, to have the whole exit list on the main article for the numbered route like US 101 or I-5 is that the state uses the number as the primary means of identifying routes, not the names, even in LA and DEFINITELY outside LA. For instance, California State Route 85 has 5 different names. None of which are used by the state for identification (nor in this case used by the public as they're all largely symbolic). And as for the minor inconvenience in 3 years when 1 new ramp opens of updating 2 charts rather than one... is that really that big of a deal. For how often new ramps open the VERY minor 2 minute inconvenience hardly seems an issue. It's not like new highway ramps open up every week like TV shows air. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Should Interstate 294 exit list be fix. Becasue the exit list is just a link to Tri-State Tollway, and Tri-State Tollway is not just I-294, Tri-State Tollway includes I-80, i-94, I-294 all of them. Isn't alot of exit list outside of California still in a poor shape?--SCFReeways 00:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Honestly I'm not concerned with highways outside CA. But in the case you mention it appears that the entire I-294 route is part of the tollway. In that case the entire exit list is on the Tollway page in its entirety. But if you like you could make the argument for having the I-294 portion also listed on the I-294 page. I'd support that but in that particular case I don't think it's necessary per se. Gateman1997 (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

San Diego Freeway

Should this article stay merge with I-405. Since most contents on SD Frwy is I-405 stuff, control cities, and community serve, basic stuff we should try to avoid. We have too little to wirte of I-5, I know SD Frwy is both I-405 and I-5, is the FRWY I hail off of.--Freewayguy 22:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

;Freeway names and merging Most articles about freeways have been merged into the article about the route it carries. I agree with this, and I don't believe there has been any recent disagreement. The question is what to do with the remaining ones; I also have some possible suggestions for other articles.

Beverly Hills Freeway: could be merged to SR 2, but probably notable enough on its own Eastern Toll Road: tagged for merge to Transportation Corridor Agencies Golden State Freeway: keep separate, since I-5 is a long road and there's enough history to add Laurel Canyon Freeway: could be merged to SR 170, but probably notable enough on its own Richard M. Nixon Parkway: tagged for merge to SR 90; it's no longer state-maintained, but Yorba Linda is required by state law to continue to sign it as SR 90 San Bernardino Freeway: keep separate, since I-10 is a long road and there's enough history to add Santa Ana Freeway: keep separate, since I-5 is a long road and there's enough history to add Hollywood Freeway and Ventura Freeway are two similar cases: part of the freeway is part of US 101, a long road, but the rest is most or all of a short route. Both should certainly remain separate from US 101, but would it make sense, at least in the case of the Ventura, to merge SR 134 into that article? The only thing that would belong in an SR 134 article rather than the Ventura Freeway article is early history as a surface road, and that can still be placed in the history section of the Ventura Freeway article.

San Diego Freeway contains all of I-405 and part of I-5. I don't see what would be in the I-405 article that wouldn't also belong in the San Diego Freeway article; again it might make sense to merge I-405 into San Diego Freeway.

Two other routes might make more sense redone. SR 110 consists of two pieces: a short surface routing south of I-110 (deleted from the legislative definition but not relinquished), and a northern extension that includes the north end of the Harbor Freeway and the Pasadena Freeway. I would suggest moving SR 110 to Pasadena Freeway (or Arroyo Seco Parkway?), and repurposing the I-110 article to cover the entire length of Route 110. There's already ambiguity from the fact that Harbor Freeway redirects there, and I don't think this would cause any more. If the name is confusing, maybe it could be moved to Interstate/State Route 110 (California) or a similar compound name (it's certainly better than North Carolina Highway 106 - Georgia State Route 246).

Similarly, SR 210 is an eastern extension of I-210, and will supposedly become an extension. The entire route is also the Foothill Freeway. It might again make sense to merge the two under a compound name.

Are there any comments? --NE2 04:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The general rule I use is that if the article is short or has redundant info, I will merge it. In regards to I-110, I would leave the routes separate. In regards to I-210, it's all Interstate standard highway already, so I dunno what the holdup with Caltrans is. :| --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC) The problem with 110 is that the Harbor Freeway and I-110 are two slightly different entities, and SR 110 has two disjointed segments that are not related; the one in San Pedro has more in common with the Harbor Freeway than the Pasadena Freeway. --NE2 05:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC) You're counting the San Pedro portion? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Yes; Caltrans still maintains it as SR 110. --NE2 06:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC) I forgot to look outside SoCal:

Central Freeway: US 101 is long and this has a good amount of history Cypress Street Viaduct: I-880 is short, but this was a notable collapse Eastshore Freeway: I-80 is long, and this probably has enough history Grove-Shafter Freeway: merge to SR 24? James Lick Skyway: I-80 is long but this is very short --NE2 14:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I take all past discussion to this page. They said to merge San Diego Fwy with I-405, they have list of articlesto keep seperate.--Freewayguy 22:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Can you people just answer this. Should we support the merge or should we oppose this merge. I totally have enough of fat Rschen7754, and totally sick of him for his merciless undos. I think Rschen7754 is abusive, and I was to take him out of administator.--Freewayguy 22:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What about San Diego Fwy, would it be valuable to keep it merge with I-405. The whole part of San Diego Fwy is I-405 both Los Angeles and Orange County, and to South Orange County, I-405 becomes the I-5. I gave to rations to merge it with I-405. A. It needs other specifications besides Control Cities, the control cities is base on the Caltrans wants to do. On guide signs in Los Angeles-Orange County, they don't always write alternate names but sometimes. We want to keep control cities out on any Wiki articles since it's like AA Roads. Golden State Fwy is long enough and it can be kept seeprate, but for Rosa Parks or Santa Monica Fwy we merge it with I-10, this one it doesn't matter what we do. I also merge all I-15 segments and Riverside Fwy with SR 91, althouhg Riverside Fwy contains portions with I-215, its still superflow, by the signs passing Orange-Riverside County.--Freewayguy 22:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Capital City Freeway

Someone fouled up the shield in the infobox and changed it from the California one with the smaller number 80. Can someone with better parsing knowledge fix this please? Gateman1997 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Which shield are you talking about? --NE2 00:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The Business 80 shield. I fixed the problem by reverting over at the commons. We'll see if it works. I also noticed other bus routes in CA had been effected as well including Bus 205, 8, 280 and 10. Gateman1997 (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like more 75.47.x.x, though I'm not sure that the bigger numbers are necessarily bad. --NE2 01:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Well in general they're not the size used in CA which is why the regular Interstates don't use them either in CA. Gateman1997 (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Bigger white text won't be neccessairly, the 2003 MUTCD sign drawing use C Ser in green background for BUS Interstates, 75.47, Guest0, and I-215 all have similar habits. They like to use Google maps to track images when they could be wrong big time.--Freewayguy 00:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Business Loop 10.svg and the other BUS interstates have been change like this--Freewayguy 03:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct in some states, not California though. Gateman1997 (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Infoboxes in CA

It appears someone has made a change to the infoboxes in California. Rather than displaying the California version of Interstate shields, the infoboxes are now just displaying the generic interstate shields. Can someone with better coding skills fix this error please?Gateman1997 (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

NE2 made this change after discussion at WT:USRD. I haven't been following this - it may be better to take this question up there. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It appears they made that change after a short discussion and then archived it. Can we reopen it. As it stands now the Interstates are the only shields that aren't state specific and it's pretty inaccurate. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Major Cities box

Not knowing that this change had been more than one place, I started a discussion on Talk:California State Route 14 about weather Major cities boxes are appropriate for California.Dave (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Talk:Golden State Freeway --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

California Highways and Public Works scans available on the Internet Archive

I added the links to Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways#Resources. I'm pretty sure everything including maps and photos can be presumed to be public domain. --NE2 22:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's all public domain as it is a work of the government. I just downloaded one of their PDFs and it is pretty cool. Maybe we should upload these PDFs to Commons? Just a thought. Killiondude (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Only works of the federal government are public domain by default. These, however, have no copyright notice, which was required in the U.S. before 1989. It's possible but unlikely that a still-copyrighted image ended up in an issue. As for uploading to Commons, what would be the point? Individual images could be useful for articles (note: read it online and zoom to 100% for the best quality) but uploading PDFs to Commons seems to have no purpose. --NE2 23:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)For the record, that is not a safe assumption. Works created by the U.S. federal government are in the public domain. That is not the case with most state governments. Per State of California's website terms of use the items on ca.gov are public domain unless marked. However, we would need to find out when that policy was put into place, and if it was made retroactive if the policy is more recent than these magazines. However, this is good news. So far California and Colorado are the only two states I've dealt with where the website explicitly used the words "public domain" in describing website content. Most claim copyright but allow use for non-commercial entities or have vague wording that imply public domain but not explicitly state it. Dave (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I was relying on Commons:Template:PD-CAGov. My reasoning behind uploading to Commons is that it would sort of be a safe place to store the files in case archive.org (for some reason) stopped showing them or something. I feel more confident in Wikimedia for some reason. Killiondude (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting. The wording of that template says CA's works were made public domain by court decision, not law, and as such could be reversed by a higher court. That could explain why the terms of use page I linked above said "public domain" but still claimed copyright. Maybe the state IT department is already prepared for what happens if the court decision is overturned =-) Dave (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Standardizing the terminii in infobox road

Currently there is no standard format used for the terminii in {{Infobox road}}. I really like the format WP:OKSH uses. Are there any objections to stealing that for CASH? --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That looks good in general, though I'd change a few of the details - so in other words we'll have a ten-page argument if we try to do this, because everyone will have their own preferences :) --NE2 07:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't really have an issue with them as they are. What do you propose to change? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd use "near" instead of "[direction] of", I'd give a destination for state line termini ("I-10 towards Phoenix, AZ"), and probably a few other things if I ran across a strange case. (In fact, I think I did essentially standardize them this way a couple years back.) --NE2 07:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Unfortunately, I think some users undid your changes. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

San Francisco area

I recently came across a Flickr user who has scanned images of many San Francisco area freeway/bridge proposals from the 1940s and 50s. http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/sets/72157622139053795/ Thought I'd mention it here in case these might be useful in crafting part of the history section in some related highway articles. -- LJ ↗ 18:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We are now subscribed for popular pages (like the US one at WP:USRD/PP - see Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways/Popular pages. (Unfortunately we just missed August, so we'll have to wait a month). --Rschen7754 04:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject California State Highways to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


County Route S18 (California)

An article that you have been involved in editing, County Route S18 (California) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. --Admrboltz (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:54, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Merger of this project into WikiProject California as a task force

It has been suggested that this project be merged into WikiProject California as a task force since it might be inactive or semi-active after reviewing this project that it appears that there have not been any active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. If you have questions or comments, please let us know. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 08:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I would think merging this into a task force of WP:USRD might be a better candidate, as the two projects already have a lot in common, including sharing many guidelines. However, I'm willing to see what others think. Dave (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Definitely not. The project is still quite active (check the project watchlist tool), and it would make more sense to merge into WP:USRD anyway. WP:CA provides very little support for this project as it is. --Rschen7754 17:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I echo the above concerns and oppose the proposal. Imzadi 1979 → 23:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, no problem, although WP:CAL is quite larger then WP:USRD, since this project does not wish to be merged into WikiProject California, I'll leave these suggestions here if anyone wants to take them for action. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments or need help with implementing these items if desired. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 10:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Template Cite CAstat

I have been reviewing citation templates. Most CA highway articles use {{Cite CAstat}}. From the uses, these appear to be California statutes related to highways. The main template provides parameters for the legislative bodies, but none of the uses I checked implement these. This leaves the citations missing critical information. Fro example, the citation in California State Route 7 reads:

"An act...relating to transportation.", 1998 chapter 877

Which is not at all complete, nor useful. One of the issues may be in that there is no documentation for this template. These citations really need to be fleshed out. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but I'm not a citation expert; what would you suggest? --Rschen7754 20:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
And California highways are not my area of expertise. I created a doc page for the template with my best guess on the parameters. If the template needs work, then I can certainly help.---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Imzadi1979 has reformatted the template to use {{Cite book}} - please comment if you have any other suggestions. --Rschen7754 03:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
And I guessed to the best of my ability on updating the template. At least now it specifies that the legislation is authored by the California State Legislature and published by the State of California. Imzadi 1979 → 03:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC on coordinates in highway articles

There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 01:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

SR-x vs. CA-x

My GPS always says CA-1 instead of SR-1. Why is SR-1 used, it doesn't make sense, no one in California says SR-1! --Gimelthedog (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  • There was a debate on this a few years ago. The state uses State Route in almost all official documentation. Your GPS uses whatever the that particular GPS company feels like using. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed restructuring of USRD

There is a proposal to demote all state highway WikiProjects to task forces; see WT:USRD. --Rschen7754 05:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/California/Archive_5&oldid=1083188003"