Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/California/Archive 2

Featured Articles
I'm currently setting up a "Featured Articles" section. Here, we can pick which articles represents this WikiProject's best work to date, so that future and stub articles can follow these examples. I propose that we select a maximum of three articles each month from any of the articles that best follows the modus operandi of the WikiProject, as outlined in the main WikiProject page. It should also follow as many of the pointers outlined in Wikipedia:What Is a Featured Article. But I wish to discuss the criteria on this talk page; if you actually feel like recommending an article, go to the Featured Article section's talk page. Bennyp81 05:12, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

County abbreviations
Is there a definitive list of county abbreviations to use somewhere? Currently, for example, these 3 that run through Santa Clara County:
 * California State Route 237 uses "SC"
 * California State Route 87 uses "SCL"
 * Interstate 880 uses "SCC" (and SC because I copied syntax from 237)

So far, so inconsistent...

Elf | Talk 04:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am to blame for this. When i was writing the county lists, I used a california government list of county abbreviaitons... but as it turns out caltrans uses different abbreviaions than the ones on the list.  The caltrans abbreviaions can be found on the bridge logs for each route.  atanamir 07:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Browse section of the infobox
Do any of these go in the browse section of the info box?
 * Primary interstates
 * Secondary interstates
 * US Highways
 * Deleted CA highways
 * Unconstructed CA highways

This is getting a little confusing... --Rschen7754 18:09, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think the browse section should be kept as one line if possible. atanamir 02:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category: California State Highways
Just wanted to see what other people thought about the discussion about the category on WikiProject California State Highways/Strategy. --Rschen7754 16:37, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProj Page
Should the list of completed CASRs go on a subpage? It makes the Wikiproj page very bulky. I think WikiProject says that completion lists should go on a subpage (but it might be elsewhere). --Rschen7754 00:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive
The article on Transportation is currently nominated on This week's improvement drive. Vote for Transportation there.--Fenice 09:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Article titles part duex

 * A pair of users have taken the liberty of moving List of California State Routes to list of California county routes. Please weigh in on that article's talk page on the issue.Gateman1997 18:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

California State Route 152
The routebox template in the California State Route 152 article is AFU and needs to be fixed. Blank Verse  &empty; 23:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed the order of the args to match 85. Seems to have fixed. Elf | Talk 00:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Interstate Stub/US Highway Stub
I created these... but use the CA highway stub for the ones that are ENTIRELY in California. Otherwise use the newly created stubs: Interstate Highway Stub, US Highway Stub. --Rschen7754

Retired US Highways in California
It seems to me that we should create a new category for retired US Highways in California. Richard Hendricks 20:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Good idea, but I don't know of any places to get information on these former US routes (US 299, US 399, US 66, US 466, US 40, US 91, etc.) Floydspinky71 01:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Quoting large chunks of state law
should not be done on Wikipedia. It belongs on WikiSource. ed g2s &bull;  talk  13:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1. Don't just change a page drastically like that, flouting the WP, before getting a consensus!
 * 2. The quote of the state law shows what Route 1 is exactly as defined in the law. There are sections of, for example, California State Route 2 that have been erased from state law but are still signed as Route 2. --Rschen7754


 * The "State Law" section being added to all the California sate highway articles doing verbatim quotes from California state law are: 1) mind-numbingly dull, 2) practically meaningless except to Caltrans engineers and road geeks, and 3) inappropriate for the Wikipedia. The external links to the state law should remain, but the descriptions of the "official" route should be paraphrased in plain English, with explanations of where the official route differs from signage or common usage. The sections should then be renamed to something like "The official route". Remember that the Wikipedia is not for primary sources. Blank Verse  &empty;  23:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Road geeks are people and they do need information... actually Wikipedia is one of the best sources around for information on roads... AAroads.com doesn't have the level of coverage that we have (they do have pictures though). But anyway... also what about the provisions of the California S&HC that allow Caltrans to decomission parts of state highway? That would be interesting. But honestly I don't know what to do about all that... I have my hands full already and I didn't start the WP... I haven't even worked on the CA County Routes WP much and I want to get some time for that as well as my own WPs.--Rschen7754 03:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Road geeks may be people who need information, but that doesn't mean that an encyclopedia is a reasonable place for text like this, especially if it is already out there online-- that's what external links are for. This stuff should be deleted. Unless a consensus develops to the contrary, I intend to change the standard, and then the articles. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I can agree with getting rid of the "Freeway and expressway system" and "Scenic highway" sections of state law, as those serve no useful purpose, but I like having the legal definition of the route. In the articles on SRs that I've created, I tend to refer to that section frequently, especially when one's perception of the route differs from the definition (such as in the case of relinquishments to the city; see California State Route 39 for a good example). -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 15:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What purpose does the cut 'n' paste from the source serve that the link to the Source: California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 2, Article 3, Section 339 doesn't fulfill? One click, there you are. Having all this primary-source material pasted verbatim into these articles is about as clearly unencyclopedic as you can get. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I really have no opinion either way. If you want to remove them, I won't object. -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 15:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Well in truth I'd like to have the whole thing as it is right now but if people do object then I'd be okay with just the route definition, as long as somewhere in the article it says that it is a part of the freeway-expressway or scenic highway thing. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

To try to get a wider range of opinion on this question, I have listed it at Requests_for_comment/Style_issues. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that hasn't exactly resulted in a tidal wave of opinion. Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that all four ouside editors ( ed g2s  &bull;  talk,  Blank Verse  &empty; , Carnildo, and myself) who have looked at this issue have agreed that the State Law quotes don't belong in these articles.


 * Can we all agree on this, or do I need to seek more input on the subject? TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 00:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to have the quotes stay but I'm willing to compromise here- as long as the information stays. In other words, the links need to stay, and we need to note where the legal definition differs from what is signed. A template indicating if the route is in the Freeway/Expressway system and Scenic Highway system. However, I want to make sure that the major contributors to this project think that this is okay. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable. Would you do one article the way you're proposing, so both sides can see what it would look like, and we can take it from there? -- Mwanner | Talk 03:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Rschen7754/California State Route 76 Won't be on Wikipedia much over the next two weeks though. A template would be nice for the F and E and Scenic notices. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, as Rschen7754 is back, I have gone ahead and changed the project standards on quoting the state law, as well as the two articles cited as examples in the state law section. For California_State_Route_13, I diverged from the standard slightly, omitting the reduced font size spec, and changing from full section headings to simple bold text.

I'll stop at this point and see if a better approach develops. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Responding to RfC
The state law defining a highway should never be included. It's redundant with the human-readable description, and it's a primary source. (And besides, most state laws are copyrighted. Including large chunks of them here could very well be a copyvio.) --Carnildo 19:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * California laws, and in fact everything ever printed or published by the government of California, is public domain. However, as you said, it does tend to be redundant to the human-readable description. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Routebox/Junction Routes
The WikiProject says if the junction routes are bold, then that shows the start, end, and discontinuities of the route. Question is, which route, the article route or the junction route? I need clarification, please. Also, do you bold the postmile as well? --Geopgeop 03:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC) (not logged in)
 * The article route. You don't bold the postmile unless you have those weird light blue ones. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see, thanks! Anyways...

The Colors!!!
I was doing a little research on what the WikiProject meant by the green box in the routeboxca2 template, and I noticed you removed the green color on August 17. I'm wondering if you still want to change it back to green, or keep it the near white color it's been since then and change what it says on the WP. Any suggestions, Rschen7754? --Geopgeop 12:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean... I must have removed it by mistake when I was fixing the legend. Could you refresh my memory? Thanks --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * From the WP:
 * The green section on the bottom is to browse the state highways. The first green box is for the previous state highway in numerical order, followed by its location in the California Streets and Highways (CS&HC) code. The last green box is for the next state highway, also followed by its location in said code. An italicized route in any green box designates the route as either entirely deleted or entirely unconstructed. Only route numbers that are or were in use can be used; numbers that were never assigned to any route should not be used (Example: After Route 330, Route 371 should follow, since no number between the two has ever been used for a route.


 * The center white box encompassing both columns lists the route described in the article, hereafter the "article route", followed by its location in the CS&HC code.


 * Does that help? --Geopgeop 17:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How weird... um yeah go ahead and change it back. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Highway 26 problem
I admit I am not fluent in wiki, but I added Highway 26, and it won't update on the Category Page. I have added a few in the past and they automatically came up on the category listing, but 'ol 26 won't do it. Help appreciated....explanation would be great too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_26 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:California_state_highways

-Kosar

It should be working... must be a glitch or something --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I take that back... it's in the right category but is sorted under "26" not "026." Why, I don't know. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

There is an issue with California State Routes that are also Interstates
(Originally written in the California State Route 210 talk page) For those California State Route articles whose next links point to the Interstate part of itself, CA-15/I-15, CA-210/I-210, CA-238/I-238, those links are only pointing to the present article. Considering Interstate 80, California State Route 80 redirects to Interstate 80. But since 15, 210, and 238 already have state routes, there is an issue with coding routeboxes for them. You do not need to edit routeboxint in the Interstates' articles, their browse boxes are editable for the use of various states. 15, 210, and 238 will need custom written routeboxes, I suppose. --Geopgeop 18:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes... I think it's only with CA-110, CA-210, and CA-238 that there's a problem. I guess we could subst:... but then if we edit things in routeboxca2 it becomes a big hassle... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) My RFA 04:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Also CA-905/I-905, though that may change in the future... --Geopgeop 15:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I-905 currently redirects to CA-905, so I don't think there's a problem there. I really don't want to change the whole routebox for 3 articles... I might have an idea... let me test it... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Check it out at California State Route 110. It's a little tacky but it sort of works... the other option is redoing the routebox to be routeboxca3, redirecting the old to the new, and adding in the option. And trashing the extra redirects. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  07:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)