Talk:California State Route 47/Archive 1

Maintenance
Does the ACTA maintain any of Alameda Street, or is all locally maintained? It doesn't seem to have been taken over by Caltrans, despite signage and pages 6 and 10 of. --NE2 23:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

History notes
Note "Proposed freeway". --NE2 17:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

SR 47
Only a small portion of Alameda Street is signed as SR 47. I don't think a redirect is appropriate. 71.109.121.132 (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be split off, if you have something to write about the city street portion. --NE2 06:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Some city streets are notable - WP:USST. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I just took a quick look and although it appears that LA is linked over and over, those are actually linking to different articles, for example: Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Downtown Los Angeles, Los Angeles Harbor, ect... --Holderca1talk 22:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If they're different dabs each and every time that's fine. But there are other duplicate links, even redlinks. Long Beach Boulevard is linked several times, for instance. It's extremely distracting for the reader and completely unnecessary. Van Tucky 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That was the single duplicate redlink in a section, and I removed it. --NE2 23:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Heim Bridge
In the history section -- The Heim Bridge did not replace the Henry Ford Bridge -- the Henry Ford Bridge was always a rail bridge and to this day runs next to the Heim Bridge. The Ford Bridge was built in 1924 and replaced in 1996 and is still there (this info can be found on Wikipedia, by the way). Banjochris (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Split Alameda Street into its own article?
At present, Alameda Street redirects to this article. This article contains some content about Alameda Street when it doesn't carry SR 47. I propose that the content about Alameda Street be split into its own article, noting that many other arterial but not-CA highway streets in Los Angeles have their own articles. I believe Alameda Street to be independently notable of SR 47. Alameda Street exists for 3.1 miles as SR-47, 18.3 miles otherwise; and is a major street for its entire length. That's a factor of 6:1 as not SR-47, so it shouldn't redirect here. p b  p  00:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) As nom p  b  p  01:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) But it did carry SR 47, thus it is relevant. --Rschen7754 00:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion
 * Chen, most (85%) of Alameda Street doesn't carry SR 47. Those parts at least don't really belong in this article, and should be somewhere else.   p  b  p  01:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop referring to me by what you believe is my last name; that's just rude. --Rschen7754 01:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if the topic (Alameda Street) is split out as a separate article, it still would need to be covered here (SR 47). The next question, is that topic (Alameda Street) notable enough to warrant its own article? If it isn't, then that split article would be subject to deletion at AfD. Another consideration is the level of redundancy between separate articles. If enough content is going to be the same in each, it makes sense to keep them merged for simple ease of maintenance.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, redundancy isn't an issue because 85% of Alameda Street isn't SR-47; and the majority of this article isn't about Alameda Street. As for being independently notable, a search for "Alameda Street" "Los Angeles" turned up 20,000 results.  p  b  p  02:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Google Hits ≠ Notability.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but on the first page alone, I found this book. It mentions Alameda Street extensively, with it focusing exclusively on a part of Alameda Street miles north of the north end of SR-47.  This photo history also has much on Los Angeles; again the downtown portion that is miles north of SR-47.  The history of Alameda Street carrying Southern Pacific tracks through downtown is mentioned here.  There's no question that Alameda Street would survive an AfD; actually, the portion between Spring and 8th alone has enough sourced material to survive an AfD.  I don't quite understand why you two are so adverse to a very important street in Los Angeles having its own article  p  b  p  03:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have expressed no opinion about an article split. I have offered some discussion points to consider.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So, why not just start the article? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; there is no need to file a formal request for turning a redirect into an article. --108.38.191.162 (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right...I don't. I just spent an hour creating a userspace draft of ~6 KB at User:Purplebackpack89/AlamedaStreet‎.  As you can see, it is sourced, and quite different from this article.  I'm going to wait a few days, and if there are no additional objections, I'm going to mainspace it  p  b  p  16:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on California State Route 47. 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 tag to http://cricket.csuchico.edu/spcfotos/maps/topo_search.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721033203/http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/2006all.htm to http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/2006all.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)