Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/California/Archive 4

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Business routes
Should we cover business routes that do not have concurrencies with state highways / have their own articles, besides Business 80 in Sacramento? Please see List of Business Routes of the Interstate Highway System; some Business Routes of 5, 205, 8, 10, 40, and 80 are within California. An example: Interstate 8 Business (El Centro, California) -- should it have the project tag on its talk page? Other Business Loops are already covered by concurrent State Route articles, like California State Route 265, for example (Business Loop of I-5) (err, that Business Loop is also covered by US 97, but US 97 does not have a CA specific article yet). --Geopgeop 12:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox discussion, time 3
This discussion is intended as the discussion to deal with the infobox mess.

History
A brief summary of the problem: Back in February 2006, at California State Route 15, routeboxca2 was removed from the page. After a revert war started, the same user tried to modify routeboxca2 to his own liking, but was reverted again. He then proceeded to TFD routeboxca2: Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 2, where consensus was to keep. Thus his alternative was to create Infobox CA Route and switch articles over to it, starting a massive revert war. However, subsequent debates have upheld the use of routeboxca2: /Archive3 for example. Finally, the page move wars took over, and RFC, ArbCom, and WP:SRNC came into being. So now that the dust has cleared, it is time to address this issue again.

Rschen7754
I propose that we use the current routebox with a few modifications: a) Potentially updating the framework to integrate it with Infobox road, b) Splitting out the terminii and putting them in the special terminii fields, c) Updating support for lengths and maps. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Geopgeop
Remember the junction box (which is still in use in many articles)? How it would be too long, such as an implementation in the California State Route 1 or 99 articles? I propose to officially include it again, and also have it hide automatically, then add a "click to show" link that would, well, "click to show". Other infoboxes are using something like this now, such as WP:Anime's with the secondary channels and publishers hiding in its infoboxes, for instance. Of course, I guess this also depends on whether or not it already has a separate exit list. --Geopgeop 04:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Northenglish
I propose changing completely over to infobox road. None of this "click to show" stuff. Major junctions can be included in the infobox; a complete list of all junctions with other state highways can be included in the article text -- similar to WP:NYSR, and to a lesser extent other WikiProjects as well.

The Washington WikiProject had a similar issue (albeit without ugly revert warring), and this was the consensus reached there. -- NORTH talk 19:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Votes and comments (votes bolded please)
Comment: Sure, an integration with Infobox road would be great, considering we have 50 states and there aren't much differences between them except with shields, names, and types. If I were to view California State Route 88, which uses routeboxca2, and then move on to view Nevada State Route 88, which uses plain Infobox road and srbox, I wouldn't want to see a stark contrast as they really are just continuations of each other. I would like to see examples of what the infobox would look like compared to the other infoboxes as well. Remember, our project is part of WP:USRD and we need some collaboration with that and the other states' WikiProjects (especially neighbor Oregon) and also the other states as well (especially neighbors Nevada, Arizona, and possibly Baja California/Mexico). --Geopgeop 04:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm intrigued by the "click to show idea." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Northenglish: I like integration with the Infobox road --- uniformity over large number of articles is good! hike395 04:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Question If Northenglish's proposal was adopted, would junction lists also be created? Would the information be saved for the junction lists? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't add the junctions to the infobox, because it makes certain infoboxes much larger than the others. A good idea would be to create a separate table for the junctions. As the junction lists are now in regards to infoboxes, they become confusing since it incorporates table code in the infobox. --LBMixPro &lt;Sp e ak o n 04:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant... just making sure the old infoboxes would be saved on the talk for help in creating the junction lists. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Northenglish: Originally, I was thinking of a hybrid of the infobox seen in California State Route 37, but I think the use of infobox roads would be best, since it would be helpful for those who edit route articles for other states as well. --LBMixPro &lt;Sp e ak o n 04:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Northenglish: Hidden data doesn't appeal to me. I prefer Infobox road and moving the junction table out to the article body. Doing so removes the box space constraints, and allows the list/table to be tailored for special cases without finding a creative way to stuff it into infobox parameter terms. —RandallJones 23:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Question: We haven't forgotten about the mini routebox, like what's in use in the Richmond Parkway article or California State Route 210, haven't we? Could we have the full routebox use optional parameters instead so we wouldn't need the mini routebox? If we still use the mini routebox, located at routeboxcamini (also, a certain user made Infobox CA Route small), we definitely need it to match the full routebox. --Geopgeop 12:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The main purpose of that was for browsing, and we can just create another browse row in the infobox. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 

Comment: The infoboxes below right now have inconsistent browse boxes, the one provided by Infobox road with the name "State Route", and the embedded ca browse using just "Route". For ca browse, I guess it should say State Route, especially for those users who cannot view images and can't tell if it's really a State Route or an Interstate. Also: Northenglish: that's right, I'll go with his proposal, as I realize we have to be realistic in that not everything can/should be crammed into an infobox. Besides, a junction box just can't give as much detail in a small infobox as an exit list can in the body of the article. --Geopgeop 12:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For the browsing, I would prefer "SR" instead of the full "State Route"; other states almost exclusively use abbreviations. Regarding the mini-infobox, not being an active member of this project, I'm not sure what it was originally used for -- Rschen seems to indicate it's no longer necessary -- but infobox road is programmed with a plethora of if commands, all the parameters are optional. -- NORTH talk 21:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * With that, I'm confirming my vote for Northenglish. --Geopgeop 04:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Northenglish Yup. As long as we have a junction list so no data is lost. Also we might consider adding a section to infobox road for the state law section. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we close this soon? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's consider this closed and move on to the next issue (what we see for the browse section). However, let's only apply this new infobox to one or two articles (preferably a few of each type of older infobox). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What we have now


With the mileposts and all junctions
Some info is fictionalized to get a full infobox.

Without the mileposts and minor junctions
Some info is fictionalized to get a full infobox.

Browse box
On urgent matters, what happened to the browse box in the routebox? For example, I'm getting links to State 2 (California) from the California State Route 1 page. Either all pages have to have the "type" parameter in the routebox set to "State Route" from "State", or the routebox code has to be fixed. --Geopgeop 12:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Err, this is happening specifically with Infobox CA Route and Infobox CA Route small by the way, not Routeboxca2. --Geopgeop 12:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what happened. A change with Infobox CA Route/browse route and Infobox CA Route/browse no route did it. Hold on. --Geopgeop 12:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's fixed for now. --Geopgeop 13:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry... I was creating the prototype and must have broken it... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  16:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the proposal boxes (see above for infoboxes), they're using ca browse for those with additional routes, and that also has that problem. I'm going to change that right now. --Geopgeop 04:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's just the values in the above proposals, not ca browse by itself. --Geopgeop 04:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, they're proposals anyway, I'm not going to change them... --Geopgeop 04:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah we'll need to fix that when we close the poll and get the coding working. Someone will need to look my work over I think, I'm not sure if I made a mess. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

SoCalFwy
We haven't forgotten about SoCalFwy, have we? Except for a minor edit in October, this template, it seems, is largely forgotten. This, as well as the articles on Southern California freeways. Also, San Diego Freeway has a lot of cities in its infobox that could be better represented as a list in the body of the article. --Geopgeop 10:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And it already has. --Geopgeop 10:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

State Route 1 exit list
A near complete exit list for State Route 1 has been completed by me, Geopgeop, in my user space. See User:Geopgeop/Exit list of California State Route 1. All I'm missing is the statewide mileposts, plus any additional checks. Oh, as for exit 510 (Mission Street), is the Cal-Nexus data correct on that? SR 1 does not touch Mission Street at all, likely ramps that connect to it are the Alemany Boulevard and Brotherhood Way ramps. Please check that. --Geopgeop 10:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, any chance of implementing this in the main article in some way? --Geopgeop 10:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It probably can just go in like an Interstate list. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, does it match the new WP:IH standards? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Exit list - entrances?
There's an anonIP editing Interstate 580 (California), removing information on entrances for one-directional exits - for example, he's edited the 35th Avenue exit from Eastbound exit and westbound entrance to Eastbound exit only. Is this correct usage? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Argyriou (talk • contribs) 19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Why remove the info? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:CAFESAlt and Template:CAScenicAlt
California highway articles can be changed to uniformly refer to Template:CAFES and Template:CAScenic to comply with the TfD outcome, since these are now changed to handle the "Alt" cases too.

How about changing WP:CASH to reflect this? -- Paddu 00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are subtle link differences... does the coding account for this? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's of course the point of "changed to handle the 'Alt' cases too". Please see for yourself: [ CAFES] and [ CAScenic]. " " is described at ParserFunctions. -- Paddu 06:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, but since I am not aware of how it exactly works, I can't do the changes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The anchor (i.e. the part after the #) in the wikisource link in Template:CAScenic is generated from:


 * If is 28, 35, 38, 52, 53, 62, 74, 75, 76, 89, 96, 97, 127, 150, 151, 154, 156, 158, 161, 173, 197, 199, 203, 209, 221, 236, 239, 243, 247, 254 or 330, the link generated is "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/California_Streets_and_Highways_Code%2C_Section_260-284#Section_" else the link generated is "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/California_Streets_and_Highways_Code%2C_Section_260-284#Route_". Similarly the wikisource link in Template:CAFES is generated. -- Paddu 17:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Another alternative for CAScenic is to replace the with:

and similarly for CAFES:

This code is smaller and requires no modification if sections 253.1/263.1 get amended. -- Paddu 21:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and updated WP:CASH to recommend the use of only CAFES and CAScenic. -- Paddu 20:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if you are interested in photos like this? Historic US 40 sign


Hello, I am a member of the WP:CAL project and saw your project sign on one of our pages. I uploaded a copy of the thumbnail at Commons. If you would like to use it, you are welcome. This sign (and more in Sacramento, CA) have been placed along Historic US routes that passed on major thoroughfares. This one is as per its description, at the intersection of Del Paso Blvd. and Arden Way as per the pic. The sign is actually on Del Paso Blvd. which I guess was part of US 40. Please contact me on my talkpage if you have any questions. Cheers. Ronbo76 00:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Some neat definitions, history and trivia found on the Caltrans website
I am doing some work for a WP:CAL article, Alemany Maze that was recently prod'ed. Today's research found the term maze defined in that article along with its connotation to the MacArthur Maze. Your project may wish to use this Caltrans Facts/Information in defining terms. Cheers, Ronbo76 17:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

68.126.243.162's edits
has been doing a bunch of edits to SoCal freeway articles as well as many other road articles. For example, they changed many of the dates in the Interstate 710. Since I know that you guys are pretty fanatical about such details, I was just going to revert, but decided to bring the issue here for you guys to look at. It looks like that also edited several road templates. Blank Verse  09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed the same thing on Interstate 705 (Washington). There s/he edited a referenced date (for the year established) in the infobox, and also added a completion date to the article text.  The established date was clearly wrong, contradicting the reference, so I reverted that, but I was nice and tacked fact on the date in the article text, since I can find very little information at the moment on the short little freeway in Tacoma.
 * In general, I would go ahead and just revert for the most part, unless it's new information – in which case, tag it and verify it when you get the chance. -- NORTH talk 09:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An anon IP from Orange County, California PacBell/AT&T DSL IPs keeps editing SoCal freeway articles. The latest IP is, but there have been at least one or two more besides the IP I listed at the beginning of this section. The obviously bad thing in their edits is that I saw them remove the tags a couple of times. There are so many edits an admin is going to have to do all the rolbacks, and then should probably semi-protect the articles for awhile. Blank Verse  07:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * TMF and I (I think?) discussed this. It's hard to tell if the IP is vandalizing or telling the truth. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I caught one definately bogus edit: . The Orange Crush is on the border of the city of Orange, California and 2-3 miles from downtown Orange.


 * One edit the 68.126.*.* editor was doing regularly, and therefore originally creating redlinks, was editing 1964 renumbering to 1965 renumbering, which they then later re-edited, taking out the wikilink to read "1965 state highway renumbering". See . Blank Verse  13:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox plans
Here's a proposed plan for fixing the infoboxes:
 * 1) Fix the browsing system (I'm working on right now).
 * 2) Put the new infobox on CA-78, CA-1, and CA-210 and CA-37 (as test cases).
 * 3) Rewrite WP:CASH to include directions for new infoboxes.
 * 4) Remove routeboxcamini. Make new infoboxes on the pages where needed. Save a copy of junction list to talk.
 * 5) Convert Infobox CA Route (not much conversion should be needed). Also go back in histories, find old junction list, and save a copy on talk.
 * 6) Convert routeboxca2. Save a copy of junction list to talk.
 * 7) TFD Infobox CA Route and subpages, routeboxca2 and subpages, routeboxca and subpages, routeboxcamini and subpages.
 * 8) Contact MTF about making some maps.

Sound good? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by making new infoboxes for the ones which used routeboxcamini? Substing them, or just use Infobox road with much less variables? --LBMixPro &lt;Sp e ak o n 08:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Using infobox road with an additional browse parameter. (So there is only one infobox per article).--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Infobox has been put on California State Route 78. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * CA-37 can be infoboxed too since it's undergoing GA... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

routeboxcamini has been sent to TFD. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And it was deleted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox CA Route small sent to TFD. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Infobox CA Route sent to TFD. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 08:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Exits
I have an idea!! Why don't we make exit lists for all state highways!! You see, I'm doing a project of all intersections of state, federal, and interstate highways in Google Earth!! (By the way, you can check out the blog for this project at !!) It would provide a service to me and other people!!

---Happy 00:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You probably noticed that some articles do have exit lists, just not all of them yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's also some state routes have no exits, because they don't have freeways. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&middot;chill&gt; 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, I will make a junction list format instead. As for the exit lists, you really don't need a blog for the project.  Back to the original subject, most of the exit lists aren't WP:USRD/ELG compliant, so we need some people to start fixing.  I don't really have time for that, so we need some people to do that.  V 6 0  VTalk ·  VDemolitions  ·  VRoads 05:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can help eventually, the exit lists are on my to do list. The Calnexus site is wonderful. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Award
There is curently a proposal for a WikiProject California Award. I proposed expanding it to include this WP. Check out the link and feel free to comment. --evrik (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is currently a final vote being held on a WikiProject Award for all California related projects. You may wish to give your input here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox shields
Is anyone having difficulties with the latest SVG shields not ever loading. I'm finding this happening quite often in the California routes in particular. JohnnyBGood   t   c  VIVA! 21:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an issue we've been having with shields. WP:USRD/S might have more info. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates
All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.  master son T - C 16:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates
All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.  master son T - C 16:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:FEUS
Template:FEUS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.  master son T - C 23:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cal-NExUS exit lists
Is it me, or does the PDF lists for I-5 and I-80 on the Cal-NExUS site look like they were partially copied and modified from the lists on Wikipedia? --Geopgeop 00:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How so? (not that it isn't possible). --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, never mind; apparently, the state postmiles for I-80 are wrong on the article by 0.46 miles, as they are given on the PDF. Since I-80 "begins" at US 101 and its junction is at county postmile 3.95 in the route log, and the next exit, Seventh Street is given as county 3.98, state 0.49 in the Cal-NExUS, and arggh... (I have a headache again) ...Central Avenue, CC 0.22 bridge log and Cal-NExUS, state 13.16 in Wikipedia, 13.57 Cal-NExUS... difference of 0.41 now?  Didn't I put the calculations in the exit list as comment codes? Where does it add up????  I'm getting the idea that we shouldn't even try putting state postmiles if they haven't been given... --Geopgeop 00:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya know, I'll just say "possibly inspired"... --Geopgeop (T) 01:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, the thing that caught my eye was how they put by county and city on the left side. Seems they grouped the interchanges by common destinations, if one side has multiple exits and the other only one, as well as how the exit numbers once were blacked out, which WP:ELG didn't like... --Geopgeop (T) 01:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Southern California freeways
Currently articles exist such as Golden State Freeway that are redundant. They are collecting dust and getting ruined with various IP edits messing them up. My proposal is to redirect them to the corresponding routes (for example, Interstate 5 in California for GSF). --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. When there is enough detail that overwhelms the route articles, we should fork them back out.  However, that's another story.  O2  (息 • 吹) 04:01, 05 November 2007 (GMT)
 * Then what should be done with something like Hollywood Freeway, San Diego Freeway‎, and Ventura Freeway where it has two route numbers? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This probably should be taken care of on a case by case situation. I would convert Hollywood and Ventura to disambig pages. I would redirect SD freeway to I-405 and put a note at the top indicating that part of it is on I-5.


 * I was originally for articles such as this. However, two years later, they are resulting in content forking, and they are becoming a mess very quickly. You can throw out the bottom half of San Diego Freeway and still have a good article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reminder from USRD
In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces:


 * 1) Each project needs to remain aware of developments at WT:USRD and subpages to ensure that each project is aware of decisions / discussions that affect that project. It is impossible to notify every single project about every single discussion that may affect it. Therefore, it is the state highway wikiproject's responsiblity to monitor discussions.
 * 2) If a project does not remain aware of such developments and complains later, then there is most likely nothing USRD can do about it.
 * 3) USRD, in most to nearly all cases, will not interfere with a properly functioning state highway wikiproject. All projects currently existing are "properly functioning" for the purposes mentioned here. All task forces currently existing are not "properly functioning" (that is why they are task forces). Departments of USRD (for example, MTF, shields, assessment, INNA) may have specific requirements for the state highway wikiprojects, but complaints regarding those need to be taken up with those departments.
 * 4) However, this is a reminder that USRD standards need to be followed by the state highway wikiprojects, regardless of the age of the wikiproject.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

US 101 exit list
I'm making a new Geopgeop/Exit list of U.S. Route 101 in California (whether it's going to be used in the article or not I don't care right now), can someone review how I'm doing so far? --Geopgeop 00:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, some trouble spots with the Camarillo exits in US-101... some issue with SR 34 not on the Cal-NExUS list southbound even though it's physically there; a missing interchange for Camarillo Airport, which may be related to the planned Springville Drive interchange. See, (September 2003), and. See also, of course,. --Geopgeop (T) 14:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... the section of US 101 from Camarillo through Ventura is or was under construction as far as images from Google Maps show, like here at the Santa Clara River bridge:. Since many exits are/were being reconfigured, it's difficult to get an exit list with accurate postmiles (the route logs are currently from July 2007), and old exits, like Ventura Road on NB 101, are being replaced with new exits, like Oxnard Boulevard on NB 101. There's also that concurrency with SR 1. How does one work with exit lists on roads that are currently works in progress? --Geopgeop (T) 10:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a full exit list for the article, and we have a problem: it's 43 KB. Not the article but the exit list itself. Should we split it out, like List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario), or split the article? I'm thinking a split at the Golden Gate Bridge might work; that's basically a barrier between the two halves, each of which has its own history. --NE2 17:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow... just wow... I'll see what I can merge in from the puny exit list I made, but good job, I didn't think I would've made a complete exit list in only three days like you did. All the way to Oregon!  You definitely deserve a barnstar for that, which I'll give in just a moment.  --Geopgeop (T) 12:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I find it fun to do. --NE2 15:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment categories
How would we go about making assessment categories for WP:CASH?? Should we take the model of Virginia or Texas, or go with something completely different?? Any opinions would be appreciated!!

-Happy5214 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Since all you have to do is change one line in the template, there's not much of a reason to do something completely different. --NE2 21:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:California Freeway and Expressway System
Does this need to exist? I'm thinking it would be better to change its scope to only existing freeways, since we have the California Freeway and Expressway System to list all the routes. --NE2 02:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno here. We usually have category and list simultaneously with the state highway systems.  Just a thought.  哦，   是吗？  (User:O) 03:21, 19 November 2007 (GMT)
 * This refers to a specific system as designated by law. Therefore, it needs to stay. There are routes in here that are not freeways or expressways but are still part of the CAFES. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that, and we have a list for that. Why do we need a category just saying what the list says? I can't believe anyone would navigate via the category. --NE2 04:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It indicates that the article is in the system, from the article page. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean like California State Route 120? Note that we don't have a category for the scenic highways. We can (and should) also include details about which parts are on the F&E System, something we can't do with a category. --NE2 04:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do see the point about three mechanisms being a bit much. Frankly, I thought you wouldn't like the template :) --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't, but it puts the information in the article body, where it belongs. All we have to do now is integrate it into the text, like in SR 37 (though those links should really be to the articles on Wikipedia, not to Wikisource). --NE2 05:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as it says something to the effect of the current template, I don't have a problem with it. However, although CAFES should link to Wikipedia, the code section should link to Wikisource. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the CAFES article itself links to Wikisource; this is a minor issue though, unrelated to the current discussion. Do you no longer have a problem with redefining (and of course renaming) the category? --NE2 06:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Redefining and renaming, I do not have a problem with that, as long as those are together. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:Freeways in California? I've made what I believe to be a full list on Talk:California Freeway and Expressway System. --NE2 08:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Cat name is fine. I haven't been able to take a look at the list yet in depth. 56 might be a full freeway depending on what the exact definition of it is. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That won't make a difference for the category anyway, but the definition is "Route 56 is from Route 5 north of La Jolla to Route 67." It's only built to I-15. --NE2 05:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 20 --NE2 07:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody have a map from about 1930?
I'm looking for a map from before 1933, but as late as possible, that shows whether US 99 still takes the dogleg into Visalia that it did in 1928. Thank you. --NE2 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Notes on the history
I have completed several subpages of WikiProject California State Highways/History relating to the history of the state highways. This is more accurate than the years given on cahighways.org. If you want a specific reference for any of these, or just have a general question, let me know; I can also tell you how sure I am that a certain change was made by the law listed. --NE2 08:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WikiProject California State Highways/History/When each route was added to the state highway system should be 99.9% accurate now, and has enough information to look up and thus cite the laws. --NE2 19:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've completed a chronology of the Freeway and Expressway System. --NE2 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Requesting input on a map
Before I make more maps in the same style, is there anything I should modify? Would it be a good idea to show the beginnings of connecting highways in other states, which I have the information to do? --NE2 13:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I decided to add these connecting highways as they were in 1930. --NE2 16:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just one minor rant: how about graying out the connecting highways, as the main focus is the ones in California? 哦，   是吗？  (User:O) 01:40, 24 November 2007 (GMT)
 * State and county lines are gray. --NE2 08:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

How do the first five maps in commons:Category:Road maps of California look now? --NE2 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Do these look good?

Image:California State Route 2.svgImage:California State Route 38.svg

--NE2 06:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they do, just double check with MTF (I'm not familiar with those standards). --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I followed the recommended standards except for dashing the county lines (I couldn't make that work with the data I had, which was areas rather than lines) and making U.S. Highways wider (given what's happened to them in California, it's probably not useful to give more prominence to US 101 and US 395 over SR 99 or SR 299). My plan is to use this zoom level for all routes that are entirely contained with it, for easy comparison of routes in the LA area. --NE2 06:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't have a problem with the maps, but map creation is not my specialty... --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you see any errors, including alignments that may be a bit off? --NE2 08:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no problems. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Checked against other maps, looks bueno to mi! Edit Centric (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo request
If anybody is near Sacramento and can get a photo of the new Riske Lane intersection on former State Route 275 in the next few days, it may be used on the main page as part of the did you know section. --NE2 11:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Scope
In writing about the history of state highways, I've found that the same sources deal with auto trails. For instance, California State Route 160 was part of the Victory Highway, and part of old U.S. Route 66 is still called the National Old Trails Highway. These highways were maintained by the state and coordinated by non-state associations, much like the U.S. Routes and Interstates. --NE2 00:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at WT:USRD related to this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Map request
Does anybody have a street-level map of eastern Los Angeles and Alhambra from about 1935-1955? I'm coming up blank on the original configuration of Ramona Boulevard before it became the San Bernardino Freeway. --NE2 00:53, 13 January 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: --NE2 14:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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

Route 110
After completing Pasadena Freeway, I've tagged Interstate 110 and State Route 110 for merging. Here's the general plan:

Route 110, signed partially as Interstate 110 and State Route 110, is a state highway...It consists of Gaffey Street, the Harbor Freeway, and the Pasadena Freeway...

Route 110 begins in San Pedro...Gaffey Street...becomes Interstate 110 at SR 47...becomes State Route 110 at I-10...the Harbor Freeway ends at the Four Level Interchange.
 * Route description

SR 110 continues along the Pasadena Freeway, the first freeway in California...

Figueroa Street...SR 11
 * History

Upgraded to a freeway, starting with LA to Pasadena...then the Harbor Freeway...

For exits north of US 101, see Pasadena Freeway.
 * Exit list

--NE2 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Importance ratings
I have marked all "High Emphasis Routes" as High-importance, since this seems to be a good way to pick out the articles that are most likely to be viewed and thus make priorities for improvement. (You can see which high-importance articles are below B-class by sorting Version 1.0 Editorial Team/California road transport articles by quality by importance.) However, these routes are all rural; other than Interstates, does anyone have a good suggestion for how to decide which urban routes are high-importance? --NE2 18:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the National Highway System and it matches the High Emphasis Routes pretty well; compare the two columns on WikiProject California State Highways/History/Interregional Road System (the only non-NHS HEs are 17, 49, and 70, and parts of 95, 99, 138, and 905). And the NHS includes urban routes. If we go with the NHS, we'd be adding 2, 4, 12, 18, 22, 23, 24, 37, 47, 55, 57, 60, 65, 71, 73, 74, 78, 79, 84, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 118, 125, 132, 133, 134, 140, 160, 170, 180, 188, 210, and 241. This would be about 1/4 of the total system; does this seem like too much, and if so are there any other suggestions? --NE2 13:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads --NE2 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about state law sections
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads --NE2 21:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

County abbreviations before postmiles
Do we need these county abbreviations? In many places on California State Route 99 it's wrapping, causing each exit to take up two lines. There's already a county column to the left. --NE2 21:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that we do because these are not normal mileposts. All the documentation I have seen puts the abbreviation before the postmile. I have never seen normal mileposts in California. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In some places, they put the route number on the mileposts. I don't see how, in our case, it adds any information. If you want documentation that doesn't put the abbreviation first, look no further than the bridge logs. --NE2 21:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The route number is not part of the designation. The county abbreviation needs to be before the postmile. I'm actually from California; I know. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please detail? Right now, what you're doing is an argument from authority, and your authority doesn't even seem to be right, given that Caltrans doesn't even put them before the numbers in the bridge logs. --NE2 23:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Rschen means this.  O2  (息 • 吹) 23:54, 11 November 2007 (GMT)
 * I understand that the postmiles include the county (and also the route number), but how does that mean it's "part of the designation", and what would be wrong with removing it? --NE2 23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrapping? What display resolution are you using on your computer monitor? What font setting are using on your web browser? I am using 1024x768px on FireFox with normal text size and see no wrapping on that column. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have about that; it might depend on the specific rendering engine and version. Anyway, if you make it smaller, does it become two lines? --NE2 00:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's actually not wrapping any more for me, probably because I removed some excess information from the notes. Does this old version wrap for you? --NE2 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It would imply to the reader that these are mileposts, when they are not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (a) how does it do that, (b) how does it not currently imply they're not mileposts, and (c) how are they not mileposts (other than the name)? Other states, such as Nevada, reset mileposts at the county line. --NE2 00:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A-b) The county abbreviation signifies that these are reset at the county line. c) They are not mileposts because they reset at the county line, Caltrans almost never uses statewide mileage, California does not use milepost signage on highways except for one small stretch of CA-59 that is less than 20 miles long, and because of postmile equations. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you know California it signifies that, but to me it's just redundancy. They actually don't always reset; SR 120 crosses from Tuolumne into Mariposa and back and keeps the sequence through both crossings. --NE2 01:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 95% of the time, they do. SR-120 is probably like that because of the dip into another county. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In regards to NV, it says they use the Ca system. I'd consider converting the NV lists to Postmiles (or whatver tehy're called there). --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They apparently call them mileposts. --NE2 01:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it'd be confusing to not have the county names in there. If I saw 56.10, 56.54, 57.58, 3.06, 6.15, I'd think there was a mistake or something in there (if I weren't aware of the CA system). Without the county names, the numbers would be duplicated as well, adding more chaos. —Scott5114↗ 00:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What should be done to fix Interstate 270 (Illinois-Missouri)? --NE2 01:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The IP should stop changing the page to be contrary to ELG. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yah, I agree with Scott, if I saw "1.23, 1.26, 3.24, 0.07" without the county abbreviations, it would confuse any non-road geek or anyone. — J A 10  Talk • Contribs 01:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be just as confusing if the exit numbering system changes (Interstate 70 in Kansas) or if a milepost equation makes the numbers jump back (the beginning of U.S. Route 101 in California)? How about if the mileposts are based on unsigned highways that differ from the signed routes (Oregon, no examples handy because I don't know of any junction lists that demonstrate that)? --NE2 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Except for Interstaes, are there any jct lists in ORSH? Yes, it would be confusing, but then we put a equation colspan in. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I made one for OR 58, but I don't know of any others. So you're saying an equation colspan is an acceptable alternative to the county abbreviations? --NE2 01:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is only how we would deal with it in another state. The abbreviations signify that California uses a different system tahn teh rest of the U.S. NV should probably be switched over to this system. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If Nevada does it too, it's hardly different from the rest of the country; Other states also do mileage by county; for instance the single exit number on KY 9 is measured from the county line. California is just the only one that doesn't post continuous mileposts on Interstates, so they're the best-known. --NE2 01:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why CA should be done with postmiles, including the county abbreviation to denote the difference. CA almost never uses statewide mileage, so that would be incorrect, and statewide mileage should be removed from all CASH pages (except for maybe CA-58). --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you include milepost equations at the county line, that would leave no way to know the distance between two junctions on opposite sides of a county line; does an overlap that begins at mile A8 and ends at mile B1 stretch only one mile, since the county line is just after mile A8, or is it 20 miles long, since the county line is at A27? Without either statewide mileage or milepost equations, the reader won't know.
 * Which brings up a question: why do we have mileposts on the exit/junction lists? The only reason I can think of is so you can see how far it is between intersections. Are there other reasons? --NE2 01:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The mileposts reset at the state line. --NE2 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So? That's the norm in teh US. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) In this way, an absolute location can be given for an exit. If we included postmile equations at the county line, would you be happy? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked you on WT:ELG how this serves the reader; please reply there. --NE2 08:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A similar discussion has started at WT:ELG. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Section break
So now there's an explicit note above the table that says that numbers reset at county lines. Why do we still need the abbreviations? --NE2 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not go against consensus. They designate that they are postmiles - on the signs that is how they are referred to. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the Caltrans bridge log, or the SR 190 report, or any number of other documents. --NE2 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the signs. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know the signs include it. So what? We're an encyclopedia. --NE2 22:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The county designations are needed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the exact problem I always have: your arguments don't have any meat behind them. Why are they "needed"? Caltrans gets along fine without them, and we can too. --NE2 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your arguments don't have consensus backing them. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus requires reasoning. What's your reasoning for including the abbreviations? --NE2 22:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It differentiates the differences between countywide mileage and countywide postmiles. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean the fact that the postmiles were measured in 1964? That's explained at the top, and I doubt anyone who doesn't already know exactly how postmiles work would be able to figure that out from the addition of a county abbreviation. --NE2 22:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (indent reset) That is not what i mean. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then what do you mean? What are "the differences between countywide mileage and countywide postmiles"? --NE2 22:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Realignments, milepost equations... --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I said - changes since 1964. The fact that they don't represent current mileage is described at the top, and is a red herring, since adding the county abbreviation doesn't magically make that clearer. --NE2 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Keep one or the other. Both cannot be used simultaneously, as it is redundant when both are present, and FA reviewers will roll their eyes.  Personally I'd prefer keeping the county abbreviations and trashing the reset note.  We should go with what is present on the signs, since using raw postmiles may be too technical for a general audience.  If, however, postmiles are shown on the signs, then by all means use them. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 22:50, 03 January 2008 (GMT)
 * What gives you the right to say that one or the other must be kept and not both? Furthermore, postmiles are shown on the signs. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did I every say "must"? I only said "should", which is implying that it is a recommendation.  Back to the original issue, a link to California postmile in the place of the top postmile cell of the exit/junction list should be sufficient, per Make technical articles accessible.  The postmile equations and other technicalities can go over there. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 23:00, 03 January 2008 (GMT)
 * Clarify what you mean by the last sentence. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything that has to do with defining what postmile equations are and how to solve them when found can be described in detail at the postmile article. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 23:27, 03 January 2008 (GMT)
 * Postmile equations are route specific. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And we don't list them, because we don't have all of them (and if we did, we still shouldn't list them, but should add a statewide column). --NE2 23:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * NE2, as you asked me to discuss my reasoning from my talk page, I'll do so. I believe we need county abbreviations so it's much easy for the reader to determine that the mileage is county-based, especially if they might forget to read that little note you created on the top of the exit list table. Bottom line, make it as clear as possible for the reader; don't confuse them. AL2TB   Gab  or Tab 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That needs to be balanced against overwhelming the reader with information. In the recent junction lists, the postmile range in the county column will help remind the reader, as will the fact that, reading down the list, they actually do reset at county lines. Thank you for giving valid reasoning rather than proof by assertion. --NE2 00:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I guess I do see your method considered clear and concise. However, we all still need to listen to the current consensus. Yes, I'm aware that I do need to learn how to resist breaking the guidelines. I might seek an admin coach if i have time. But thanks for stating your reasons. :) AL2TB   Gab  or Tab 01:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How about putting the abbreviation in the county column, like
 * Los Angeles (LA 0.00-54.69)

? --NE2 02:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevada
So is there any consensus on this subject? I ask as I'm working on several articles in Nevada. As mentioned above Nevada essentially uses the same standard for Postmiles as CA (except Nevada uses the term MP, which I assume is Mile Post). Currently there is no established standard. The project page is void of information on the subject, and except for freeways, no Nevada route article has a milemarkers. I'd like to start with an established standard and keep the routes consistent. From what I've seen there are 3 standards, use the white postmiles (CA) MP (NV) where the milage resets at each county line, 2 columns, one with MP milage, one with accumulated state wide milage, and state wide milage. Then there is this squabble about if the county abbreviation is part of the mile designation or not. Please advise on what is/will be the standard for CA so I can steal it=-) Davemeistermoab (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists), and we shouldn't be using the county abbreviations in the mile column. Otherwise the problem with California is that we don't have all the equations so we can't calculate statewide mileage. What source are you using for Nevada mileage? --NE2 05:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for opening pandora's box, NE2. Getting milage's for NV routes has proved to be extremely difficult. The manual on NDOT's website called sm_book.pdf has some, repeat _SOME_. Some can also be derived from that pdf by comparing with other route entries, frontage roads etc. My 2nd choice has been personal experience (I'm jotting down the MP for routes I frequently use). So far I've not resorted to estimation via maps, I've just left gaps. But it may come to that. If you've got a better way, i'm all ears. Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How precise (# of decimal places) are NDOT's mileage book? 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 05:11, 20 February 2008 (GMT)
 * 3 decimal places, again, for the few that are noted. Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How are miles marked on the road? Is there a sign at each bridge/junction that says the mileage? --NE2 05:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually, but not always. There is another difference, to the best of my knowledge NV does not have any milepost equations. NDOT is pretty religious about reposting miles for alignment changes. In fact for US 395, they already reflect alignment changes under construction that aren't expected to open for years.Davemeistermoab (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. So the only problem (for continuous mileage) appears to be that mileposts don't reflect overlaps; would there be markers at the junctions? --NE2 05:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For example the U.S. Route 6/U.S. Route 95 overlap from Coaldale Junction to Tonopah reflects US 6 milage, the MP make no mention of US95. I don't recall what is posted at the junctions.Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you can get what the signs say, that can probably be cited . Then you should be able to calculate the total mileage. --NE2 05:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at ? It doesn't seem to be working right now, but that's probably a temporary thing. --NE2 05:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that I recall. I suspect it is an older version of this tool now at  which was at one time hosted on NDOT's web site, but I don't remember the name used. Thanks for the lead. I'll check in a couple of days and see if this is indeed still an active tool, and what can be derived from it.

Also, O? Where were you going with the significant digits? I was thinking use 3 decimal places for SM book miles. Then 0 decimal places for estimates, with a note. Is that what you were thinking, or something else?Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about - it looks like it is still measured via the old route (SR 529)? Or have the CC posts been changed? Can you give an example of how markers are placed at a junction of two state highways? --NE2 05:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the County line between Carson City (which is a county) and Washoe County. Basically from that you can infer that US 395 is 7.70 miles long in Carson City. This includes the unconstructed alignment. In the downtown area that same sign would read SR529 CC XXX. Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually 7.70 is what you get when you add SR 529 to the two ends of US 395 on either side of it. US 395 is 10.64 if you include the unconstructed (and recently-constructed) bypass. --NE2 05:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to SM Book US 395 when finished will be 9.611. That picture was taken during the construction phase of the 395 freeway bypass, on the portion where the old 395 right of way was widened rather than moved to a new alignment. I don't know if that sign is current or not, but the author of the website does mention the freeway was almost but not yet complete when he took it. I can check next time I'm there. I definitely give you the 7.70 is not correct given either the temporary or proposed alignment, and almost has to be using the alignment of 395 before any freeway portion was complete.

Davemeistermoab (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you give an example of how markers are placed at a junction of two state highways? --NE2 07:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can say that many of the minor highways (Route numbers above about SR600) have no MP at the intersection. I'll get back to you on the majors (I.E. route number <600). My memory has already failed me too many times tonight to trust it again =-)

=-) Davemeistermoab (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK back from taking pictures of the Lunar Eclipse tonight... Field trip report. User:NE2: Yes, the picture you mention above is outdated. The current milepost at that spot reads 9.?? As far as MP's at intersections. It's not consistent. Some intersections have non-integer mileposts at both intersecting highways. Other intersections have mileposts at only one. I was not able to determine the criteria for choosing which intersections have mile markers on both highways. It seemed to be a combination of how major the highway was and how close was the next mile marker along the highway.Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Bleh. That means there isn't necessarily enough to get all the information through overlaps. --NE2 08:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(intentionally resetting indent) OK now that I've wrapped the 15 tangents this got dragged into, back to the original question. If I understand correctly, the general opinion is that I should NOT copy the California standard for mileage in the major intersections table. If I understand correctly, the California project is using mileages that reset at the county lines as a last resort, due to no official source available on milepost equations. As it is possible to get true mileages in Nevada (although it may require field trips to do it), the Nevada project should stick to statewide mileages, not countywide mileages. If my understanding is not correct, please advise ASAP as I have already started to update Nevada State Route articles, again I'd like to start the effort off right with a consistent standard.Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm going to assume I have understood correctly and start fixing the articles I did with an mileage log. Please advise if their are any updates Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting trivia
SR 153, which is signed as "California's shortest state hwy", is actually the fourth-shortest, behind SR 77, SR 283, and SR 265; I believe SR 282 is the shortest that is signed normally (assuming SR 265 isn't signed; I believe SR 153 only has the one shield). This can be seen by sorting List of state highways in California by the length column. --NE2 00:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we use the exact definition of freeway that Caltrans uses?
This stems from US 395 and whether the single interchange with SR 70 makes that segment a freeway. Caltrans posts it as a freeway, and notes it in their 2005 traffic counts. There are also roads such as part of US 101 that don't have any interchanges, but are called freeways by Caltrans (MEN R42.96-T43.5). I suggest that we apply common sense - if there are very few interchanges, we probably shouldn't list it as a freeway in the junction list. There is also at least one place where a single RIRO interchange makes a gap in the official freeway. As I understand it, Caltrans's definitions of freeways are a legal distinction, in that they can ban bicycles and pedestrians only if it's posted as a freeway. --NE2 04:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have to think about this one - I do know that Caltrans also posts signs saying "Begin Freeway" and "End Freeway" on the routes as well. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * IIRC, There are begin freeway/end freeway markers before and after the CA-70 junction, for what that's worth. Davemeistermoab (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry again, but what's an "IIRC"? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 04:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * IIRC --NE2 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * After some thought, I think that we should use the Caltrans definition because a) it is official and we risk misrepresentation of legal status and b) one user's opinion of what is a freeway could differ from another's. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One user's opinion of what is a separate interchange - and in fact which intersections to choose on a non-freeway - could differ from another's. We make judgment calls all the time. We have a definition of freeway that we can apply; we don't need Caltrans to hold our hand. --NE2 07:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's a question: if Caltrans says something's not officially a freeway but we want to indicate that it has only interchanges and actually is a freeway, what do we do? This would be an issue for US 101 on the Golden Gate Bridge approach in SF. --NE2 07:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What should we do in this case?
A good point is brought up here -. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. --NE2 07:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Links
Links to San Bernardino should be changed to either San Bernardino, California or San Bernardino County, California, as the case may be. Peter Horn 19:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

TFD
CAScenic and CAFES have been sent to Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 2. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

New photo request category
I created County subcategories for Wikipedia requested photographs in California and tagged each California road talk page with the appropriate photo request. See, e.g., Talk:California State Route 142 where the photo request covers the two counties that Route 142 travels over. GregManninLB (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

At-Grade Intersections on I-5 in central CA
An article on gaps in Interstate Highways mentions I-5 in central California. That article claims I-5 has at-grade intersections and small driveways. The relevant section of the article is List_of_gaps_in_Interstate_Highways. This article is within the scope of WikiProject California State Highways. There is discussion at the article's talk page and the WikiProject Washington State Highways talk page. Sehome Bay (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on some of the California interstate pages
There are multiple edit wars occurring on various Interstate pages, over the exit lists. I'm not aware of the issues surrounding this, but edit warring isn't acceptable, so I've put on my uninvolved admin hat and protected a couple of the pages for 2 weeks (though if the issue seems settled I'll naturally unprotect earlier). This needs to stop, and we all need to sit down and have a cup of tea (or Coke if you prefer) and pleasantly discuss this matter in one centralized place (that is, here). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you said you're not aware of the issues surrounding it, but it would be great if you could post a neutral summary of what the war is over. What is it exactly that's being reverted? -- Kéiryn (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Bayshore Freeway is a section of US 101, and includes an exit list. What is being warred over is whether U.S. Route 101 in California should duplicate those exits or link to the Bayshore Freeway list. --NE2 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * i agree with Scott warring should stop. I think since Golden State Freeway is only part of I-5, Interstate 5 in California should only link to exit list. There is no reason to duplicate an exit list, because duplicating is always annoying.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 21:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you believe the edit warring should stop, why did you participate in it? Splat5572 (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes it annoying? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Duplicating is annoying. That's why we delete images when they are duplicated. Thi is why [[Image:Interstate 8 (California).svg]] was long gone, as well as [[Image:Interstate 94 (Indiana).svg]].-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 21:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's annoying when you need to update the list, moreso when cleaning up after revert wars from editors like Freewayguy, 75.47, and Splat. --NE2 21:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it seems like it's the problems of having to update the list in multiple locations versus the problems of readers looking through the exit list having to jump between pages. Am I right in saying this? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Issues with updating also affect readers, since there's less of a chance that the list they are reading has been updated. --NE2 21:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If the only problem with having two lists is the fact that you'd have to update two, why not just copy and paste the new list onto the unedited list? Simple solution without all this edit-warring crap. —Mr. Matté (Talk/Contrib) 00:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple, because there are various county/city rowspans that need to be changed, and most people won't know that they need to change both tables. --NE2 00:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Its a problem to have junctions show up on multiples of pages. We have the link of the exit lists, so people knows where to look at, for example the colspan on I-5 tell us to go to Golden State Freeway look up exits 30 to 40. With images, if they are duplicated, one copy of them have to be deleted.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 21:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it be feasible to create a template for the exits which would otherwise be duplicated, and transclude that into both the local freeway article and the Interstate state-detail article? That would eliminate the updating problem. Another idea is to totally remove the exit list from the local freeway and have all exits be solely on the Interstate state-detail article. (Of course a link would be provided from the local freeway article to the exit list, but that would at least solve the problem of someone going through the exit list having to jump to the local freeway article and jump back to resume the exit list north or east of the city.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, templates are not for content. As for the other idea, there are two problems: many of the named freeways have multiple numbers, and it makes the most sense to have the exits on the article that discusses them. --NE2 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The other users also remove the missing postmiles I recently added to the exit list when they revert my revisions; check history in U.S. Route 101 in California and compare revisions. Splat5572 (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably not a good thing. You're also not being too careful, such as changing "At-grade intersection; no northbound entrance" to "No northbound entrance" and "At-grade intersection; no northbound exit" to "Interchange; no northbound exit" at these intersections. (It looks like they're actually doing some work there, at least with closing the south intersection.) All of you are essentially reverting blindly, undoing the improvements in the other's version. --NE2 00:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I wasn't going to look at Google maps for all, like, 500 interchanges on this thing. Anyways what I was trying to do was that on the non-freeway segments of US 101 I was trying to note which intersections are interchanges. Splat5572 (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And you failed in your attempt, because you made assumptions that turned out to be incorrect. --NE2 21:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't say I guaranteed I will not fail in my attempts. Besides, it's Wikipedia. It's not a reliable source; information in a lot of articles are incorrect or misleanding. (See WP:NGR and WP:FAIL if you haven't seen it already. Splat5572 (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When you knowingly insert information that you're not sure about, you're worsening the problem. --NE2 21:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So what is your solution for all this? (No, wait, let me guess, the link that would say, for example, See Santa Ana Freeway. --Splat5572 (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My solution is that you stop guessing... --NE2 21:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Read WP:OWN. I can guess however I want. You are more than welcome to revert if you would like, however. Splat5572 (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're citing WP:OWN as a reason to include information you don't know to be correct, you should be banned. --NE2 23:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I ain't banned right now, aren't I? Plus you're not even involed with California articles that much anymore. --Splat5572 (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it up and you probably will be. --NE2 00:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Give me one official Wikipedia policy that says I will be banned just for guessing while assuming good faith. Splat5572 (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus, why would NE2 care about this stuff? He doesn't edit California articles anymore. He should continue to focus on those railroads or Utah articles since he's so interested in them. --Splat5572 (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * NE2 is in charge of California highway project. Although he probably does not live in California I believe he lives near it. i guess he lives in Nevada, and he has been to California many times and lets just say he's 63 years old and used to live in California which was earlier than the '70s. Just shut-up about your opinion for once, and you seem to be the dictator. This makes you think to be the same person as 75.47, because you guys act the same.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 00:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Trust me, Freewayguy. I can personally guarantee that they will never accept you as an administrator because you are more disruptive to Wiki than I am, and even I'm more civil than you are. And note that NE2 warned you about the ban as well (and I bet Freewayguy is 75.47 because they act the same). Splat5572 (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He's just an editor, but he just believes that he's in charge in a lot of stuff and he reverts anything that doesn't fit into his standards and challenges consensus (or at least he used to). Splat5572 (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you NE2, if he does not want to follow our program, he just as well get out of here. the world does not revolve around him. See Hollywood Freeway what's wrong? When we update one list, sometimes people forget to update another one. NE2 if you were the admin, you have the obligations to block if he thinks the world revolves around him. I-5 and i-80 was protected by Scott all becasue of him.-- Freewayguy  Call? Fish 00:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because of him, you, and 75.47. PS: I would not be able to block him, but if he continues to include information that he does not know to be correct, he should be community banned. The same goes for you, Freewayguy. Consider this a warning to both of you. --NE2 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Requests for comment/NE2, Requests for comment/NE2 2, Requests for comment/NE2 3) (just to remind people about NE2's actions in the past.) --Splat5572 (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * i beleive one day they will accept NE2 as adminship. I never heard he had a deep civil problem. I think Splat5572 matches up with 75.47 because they always try to boss things around, and chase me around to the point it wears my patience out.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 00:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the 75.47 IP goes into edit wars with me too. In fact he keeps adding SSP tags to my page. Therefore you accusation is moot. Plus, even NE2 is not ready for an admin because he still has consensus issues he has yet to work on. Splat5572 (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as NE2 said the exit list on Hollywood Freeway makes the most sense. However the routes in Southern California have some which uses two number, for example Hollywood Freeway is both signed as both US 101 and SR 170. Otherwise on local routes we can just provide junction lists and most major streets whih was once signed as another route just like California State Route 83. Splat5572 is upset because we have to jump to another article to find the exit list, and some local names is used on two numbers. The other way is for complete state-defined route we use complete list, and local names like Hollywood Freeway we use the major intersections like California State Route 83, just do not use background colours like cyan for concurs.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 03:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the logical solution to the problem is just to link to the list. So you have to click a link to see the exit list. This seems to be the simplest solution. --Son (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How about putting the relevant portion of the exit list in the article for which the posted exit numbers are derived from? For example, in New York, I-287 has a section on the New York State Thruway and a section on the Cross Westchester Expressway. Both sections have distinct exit numbers and so the exit lists would go on the section articles rather than the I-287 article (which should of course have a link to the exit lists). On the other hand, I-95 has a uniform exit numbering even though it has several sections (Cross Bronx, Bruckner, New England Thruway). In this case, the exit list should go on the I-95 in NY article rather than the section articles since each section does not have its own numbering. --Polaron | Talk 15:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you're not placing the exits on the article that actually describes that section of road. As a somewhat ridiculous example, should Interstate 24 in Georgia link to Interstate 24 in Tennessee for the exit list? --NE2 19:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're way is probably the only way to do it then. --Polaron | Talk 20:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The project page in its current state says the following: "Major intersections or Exit list. The contents of this section may vary by route." To me that says the following So I'm leaning towards, yes, per project standards Hollywood Freeway et al. should have an exit list. Now, should consensus here decide to change that, the project page should be updated first, then the freeway articles updated to reflect the new guidelines. As I've unfortunately said a lot the past few days, these project pages exist for a reason. Dave (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) This is not an optional section, i.e. every road article in the project should have this section.
 * 2) From there the contents of the section should be handled on a case by case basis, but the section shouldn't be blank.


 * 1) Dave, we know Hollywood Freeway should have and exit list. But if so, then should US 101 just say See Hollywood Freeway on the line. Becasue duplicating exit list doesn't do any good yet. When we have to update, some people just update one but forgot to update the other one. Then peple will wonder, which one is right. Some poeple don't even know when they have to update. Alot of people don't care much about maps unless they have to go somewhere-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Dave, should we just have one exit list of Hollywood Freeway or should we have two?The problem is we can't just copy and paste Hollywood Samples into US 101. The numbers of county rowsapn will not actually match, so what's the suggestion. Should we just have an exit list on Hollywood Frwy, and then on US 101 just say See Hollywood Freeway, that way people will not have to update two.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 18:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion on if the exit list should be duplicated or a "See XXXX" entry in the exit list for the statewide article, but am leaning towards having duplicate exit lists. To be honest, I don't have see what the big deal is with a duplicate exit list. Yes, it is the same information in two places, yes it's likely the two lists will get out of sync because somebody updates one but not the other. How is that any different from the 10k articles interconnected in the USRD project? It seems like every day I see somebody remove content that was inappropriately placed and move it to another article (for example an addition to "U.S. Route 40" that should have gone on "U.S. Route 40 in Illinois" or even "New York Route 40". Welcome to wikipedia cleanup, here's your mop and toilet brush =-). Dave (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is people don't even know the list is outdated, becasue nobody even cares much about freeways period. Creating a template may not work because there are like 60 exits in los Angeles County, if I can count every exits on I-5, and Golden State Freeway only have 20 exits. Otherwise we can only have major intersection. I say either we just have junction list on Golden State Freeway or we say See Golden State Freeway because most people will just update one instead of two, and eventually everyone will totally be confused wondering which one is right.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 00:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can anybody answer quickly. Copy and Paste is not that easy. Two routes have different rowspan, Orange County have like 30 rowspans on I-5, and Santa Ana Frwy only have 10 rowspans. It's a big deifference, agree?-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 01:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since everyone seems to agree that having pointers from the state-detail page to the local freeway page is the way to go, I've unprotected I-5 and I-80 in CA. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea: Template:Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list --NE2 03:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't, but and I do. If Freewayguy becomes irritated by duplicates (and now I see why because if one user updates the list they have to update the second duplicated list as well), we might as well use templates so one update will apply to two articles at once. For more details read this discussion from my talk page. --Splat5572 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * implemented the to show the tables. --Splat5572 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)



Template:Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list
This is a horrible idea, since you can't preview what it will look like when making a change. It also goes against Template namespace: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." --NE2 05:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there were disagreements and complaints when I did add the text directly. Plus, I was taking 's advice from WT:CASH and doing it without disturbing city/county rowspans. And besides Wikipedia's policies are often flexible. --Splat5572 (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about simply not adding it to both? --NE2 05:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And add the manual text? You know just as well as I do that some editors disagree that method and they and I engaged in revert wars. And if you thought of adding the "See XX Freeway" that just confuses the reader because they have to jump around articles. Now I gotta get to bed. I won't be up until tomorrow. --Splat5572 (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're restarting the edit war? The articles got protected because of this. --NE2 06:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to edit war. I'm trying to put in a new idea. --16:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Will you also work on Template:Golden State Freeway exit list and Freewayguy  Ask? +000s''' 19:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When I have time, like next Saturday. I'm kind of busy right now. In the meantime you can try doing it if you don't mind. And as for the "XX"s, just ignore it; I was only trying to set an example to NE2. Splat5572 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For Santa Ana Freeway temlates it's a little bit hard. I created the template of both Template:Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) exit list in Orange County and Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) exit list in Los Angeles County. Santa Ana Frwy passes both Los Angeles and Orange County, and plus Santa Ana Frwy becomes a US 101 past East LA Interchange.-- Freewayguy Ask? +000s 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. You're trying to separate the counties so it's easier to apply the templates to both I-5 and Santa Ana Freeway. --Splat5572 (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We should have a template for Bayshore and Eastshore Frwy on I-80 too. -- Freewayguy Ask? +000s 22:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I cleaned some template lists and applied them to the exit lists on US 101 and I-80. Splat5572 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You just have to be very careful when editing the template to not mess up the tables. If you like to try it out use Template:Template sandbox first, then if you are satisfied then you can edit on real template.-- Freewayguy Ask? +000s 01:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And... it's been deleted. Send in the cats. --NE2 18:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And... it's been recreated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.70.154 (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tagged with db-recreation. --NE2 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)