Talk:U.S. Route 199/Archive 1

Comment
US Highways should not be tagged with CA routeboxes as they are not single state highways.Gateman1997 01:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. -- hike395 04:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with that... the routebox looked fine (I went back into the history). If we ever start a WP for Oregon then they can just add a routebox for Oregon as well (I started one for Washington the other day). Or a multi-state routebox would be fine but I believe some routebox has to be added because otherwise the browse sections don't work (there is no way to get from CASR 199 to 200 for example.) But this should be discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject California State Highways. --Rschen7754
 * I think it would be better with multistate roads to develop a completely new multistate routebox. It could be used for all primary roads (ie: Primary Interstates and all US Highways).Gateman1997 17:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Legal Definition
I'm sorry, but all of the Legal Definition stuff looks dreadful. What possible purpose does it serve? This here is an Encyclopedia. This stuff is not encyclopedic.

Legal Definition of Route 199 in California
Route 199 is from Route 101 near Crescent City to the Oregon state line via the Smith River. Source: California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 2, Article 3, Section 499

Freeway and Expressway System
The California freeway and expressway system shall include:

Routes [...] 199, [...] in their entirety.

Source: California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 2, Article 2, Section 253.1

Scenic Route
The state scenic highway system shall include:

Routes [...]199, [...] in their entirety.

Source: California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 2, Article 2.5, Section 263.1

At most, this should be reduced to:


 * Legal Definition of Route 199 in California Source: California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 2, Article 3, Section 499


 * Freeway and Expressway System Source: California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 2, Article 2, Section 253.1


 * Scenic Route Source: California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 2, Article 2.5, Section 263.1

-- Mwanner | Talk 20:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Attention needed
Several things: AL2TB's style is in general pretty horrible. --NE2 02:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to move down the California style shield; half the route is signed that way.
 * AL2TB is reintroducing the error in the introduction; it's not part of the scenic highway system, just eligible for it.
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads
 * We don't need separate sections for single paragraphs, and the last paragraph is about California.
 * Again, for the junction list, there are nowhere near enough junctions to split it.
 * Those are not "my" styles; I followed the styles that everyone is currently using throughout roads in the US. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 02:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure if everyone is following that sort of style, but I kind of copied off of Interstate 94 in Wisconsin, where User:Master son splitted the exit list into three subsections because I had disagreements with him about fixing redirects that aren't broken... etc. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a problem: Interstate 94 in Wisconsin is much longer than US 199. Therefore, I-94 WI can be split, whereas US 199 should not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So where else can we put the legal definition tags if the sections were to be removed? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 04:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what the discussion at WT:USRD is about. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do we need the tags at all? The information is all in the introduction. --NE2 11:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been the informal standard to leave the California style shield in the infobox. I agree with the points about not splitting the route desc / jct list, as this route is a bit short. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Pass though there are a lot of red links in the article. They may become an issue should the article be further promoted.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Pass Very well done, most everything has citations.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Pass I doubt there is much else that could be added.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass no problems there.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass no problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass There is plenty of illustration in the form of graphs, but is there any way that additional images could be added? User created or public domain images of the roadway would be very useful.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass decidably a good article, but could use some more images if it was to be made A or FA class. -Ed! (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I found one photo — it's not the best but it shows the road. --NE2 01:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Route 199 split to U.S. Route 199 in California and U.S. Route 199 in Oregon
I believe that U.S. Route 199 should be split in order to better allow WP:CASH and WP:ORSH to manage their own highway articles. In addition, I believe that there is sufficient information enough to be split into two articles (another example: Pasadena Freeway and California State Route 110). And for U.S. Route 199 in California, I provided the length of mileage, but I can't specify it anywhere else other than the infobox, and we can't really show the length of California without the split. Personally, I would be fine if this meant that this article will lose its status as GA. Can we take a poll on this?

Support


 * -- M*gill*FR (blab to me) 00:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose
 * No way. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Justification? The article is of excellent length and does not warrant a split.  Find some info that will make both articles the same length separately as this one is.  —  master son T - C 01:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

USRD GA audit
This article has failed the USRD GA audit and will be sent to WP:GAR if the issues are not resolved within one week. Please see WT:USRD for more details, and please ask me if you have any questions as to why this article failed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The recent split of this article without consensus
Please stop splitting this article without consensus. I shouldn't have to explain this any more. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Article lead
The lead on this article needs to be expanded. It doesn't summarize all of the article, leaving all of the History out. If not rectified, I feel as though this article should be sent to GAR or just delisted.  Imzadi  1979   →   02:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Winter
Does this road close in wintertime? Are mountain snows a problem? Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)