Talk:California High-Speed Rail

message: I think it might be helpful to have a to-do list for the CAHSR topic. So, I will start one.
This list is to identify significant areas of information that need to be created (now or in the future) or existing areas that need to be updated now. That is, not just minor corrections, but significant amounts of work. So, I'm going to be comprehensive here and list things in progress as well so the entire scope is visible.
ANY topic area in MAIN CAHSR that is long or will grow long over time is a good candidate for separation into its own page.
I've put this at the top (and combined the PENDING list and COMPLETED list into one document). So, each completed task can be easily pasted into the completed section at the bottom.
I'm also going to slightly re-format this so that discussion about each is more direct and simple.
(A) PENDING
(2) "LEGISLATIVE HISTORY" in HISTORY OF CAHSR -- NEEDED NOW
    This is terrible now, and it needs lots of backfill to bring it up to date. In particular, we need a simple chronological format indicating the legislation that has defined and managed the project since its inception. Maybe a table? -- Robert92107 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-Do List:  (A) PENDING & (B) COMPLETED 

message: I made an edit moving the table to the history article as it is both quite detailed, maybe a bit too detailed for the main page, and a full table of CP1-4 would get very long very quickly and take up a sizable amount of the article. I added a main article link to be able to access it from the main page. It got reverted, so I will restore my edits unless someone chimes in with a position otherwise. Jspace727 (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Construction project tables are now in Construction of CAHSR Robert92107 (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  12/21 -- Construction project status table 

message: Could be fun and informative to create a map that shows the construction status of each of the segments of the Phase 1 route. e.g. in construction, environmental review, etc.
Corevette (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have reliable sources for such a map? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an old map sitting around that I'm happy to update for this. All the necessary information is available at the state HSR site. Shannon [ Talk ] 20:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Shannon did this, and it is now in MAIN CAHSR Current Status Robert92107 (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated status map, putting in more discernible colors on segments, and an updated and expanded legend. Robert92107 (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  4/21 -- Add a current status map? 

message: The bias of those organizations is mentioned on the other articles, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. Having mention of the bias prevents people from potentially being mislead about the nature of these organizations, but I don't understand how the article is improved if the bias is not mentioned. In the examples mentioned on the WP:BIASED page, the biases are mentioned on the main pages for each source, but that doesn't preclude the biases from being mentioned in the article. पदाति (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not Neutral calling-out political alignments of any organization in an article not about that organization, unless it is germane to the subject at hand.  Opposition or support for this rail scheme is not based on political leanings, it's bi-partisan as far as I can tell, and the article should not indicate otherwise.  Are we to note the political leanings of every organization mentioned in this article when that info is available at their article for those who wish to know?  That is both unwieldy (bogging down the article) and unnecessary (readily available with the hover tool – or just a click away).  GenQuest "scribble" 15:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definitely germane to talk about the political alignments of groups advocating against the project, given that their lean (e.g. being against government spending) is relevant to their opposition of the project. It's not WP:NEUTRAL to include the viewpoints of a biased group as if the group was neutral. If criticism is bipartisan, then we can include more criticism from more democratic or left-leaning groups as well, but this doesn't mean the bias shouldn't be mentioned. However, I'm skeptical of the claim that opposition is bipartisan - according to a source cited in this very article, "71% of Republicans support stopping construction while only 29% of Democrats want to halt work", suggesting that opinion is divided significantly along party lines. पदाति (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  4/22 -- Mention of Bias 

message: The fundamental problems with the article introduction are (1) it shouldn't get into the details too much, and (2) it should still be factual.
Re (1), there are just a lot of elements here which need fuller explanation in the relevant subsections below to make sense. So, that means the intro should be fairly sparse. Yet, it should still give enough info that the reader has SOME idea of what the project is about.
Re (2) talk about WHEN it will connect to SF and LA is too problematic at this point. The 2022 Business Plan does not even mention a timeline here. Also, all that construction is all dependent on future financial commitments. So, too iffy!
The current intro to my mind has too much info, and too many "unfounded" claims, resulting in conveying inaccuracies to the reader. So, this isn't an easy intro to write. Hence I'm pruning it back again, commenting out PP 2 & 3. Robert92107 (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I added those paragraphs to the lead to provide a general summary of the article's contents. You are right on there being no specific date for full Phase 1 completion, for some reason I thought it was 2033 but now I can't find where I got that information. I should probably take the dates out of the map too. I am going to make a few more edits there in the lead, but omit the ambiguous info this time. Shannon [ Talk ] 04:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the project promises too much! The 2033 date was in earlier Business Plans, but there is no date yet because there is no additional funding yet! In my version I just wanted to give the barest info on the fundamentals, and have people refer to the Contents to get more info for each question. Also, that Project Status map shouldn't have November 2022 as its date; I think it is April of 2021. Go to Further Reading and the Info Center link to see the Authority's maps. I also like the one with the stars to show other investments as well, but there is no one map that is entirely up to date on everything. Robert92107 (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

text: The intro has been re-written. It is still a bit long, but it covers the fundamentals. Robert92107 (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  11/22 -- Article introduction 

message: (1) (Update: Construction of CAHSR has been created as of 1/4/23. This PP has been deleted.)
(2) I am also preparing a draft for Trains of California High-Speed Rail, but have not submitted it yet.
>>>> NOTE (Dec. 27) I am waiting for some significant train events to add to the entry, such as selecting provider or construction contract before requesting it be a separate sub-article. I can then include the specification information which seemed too detailed for the main article, and submit the DRAFT Train article.
 Robert92107 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:   12/22 -- new CAHSR sub articles (Construction in process, Trains to come)

message: This article's "Further reading" section should be converted into bullet points (all appendix-like sections are supposed to use bullet points, I believe) per WP:LAYOUT. The one external link left in it could easily be converted into a reference. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Further reading" section 

message: Should the original estimated  and current estimated cost for completion be in the summary?
Fdr2001 (talk) Fdr2001 (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costs 

message: How has the project "stalled"? Every source I can find indicates that they are making progress and have thousands of workers at constructions sites, etc. I see that you have found a mention in a NYT article that was mostly about California Forever saying that the project is not making progress. This is clearly WP:CONFLICTING. I see that you have quoted "Do not remove the conflicting sources just because they contradict the sources already in the article". I'm not sure how you concluded that I had done that (the "just because")? I did not mention any existing sources. Please clarify why you think that the project has stalled? Leijurv (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As an editor, I make no judgements.  I go by the sources.  I reverted you because in deleting the source, you cited WP:CONFLICTING, a policy that reads: "Do not remove the conflicting sources just because they contradict the sources already in the article”.  It seemed a bit comic to me to use WP:CONFLICTING as justification for “removing the conflicting sources."  That said, hey, if you don’t like the source, feel free to delete it.  I will no longer revert you on this issue.  Peace, XavierItzm (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I don't like the source. I believe it may not be reliable in this case because it's an article about another topic with just a passing mention of CAHSR and perhaps an ambiguous usage of the single word "stalled" that may be misleading to pull out and quote. I also note that it's in direct conflict with our other more reliable sources. That is not comic, I am not sure what you mean. When a source that's perhaps less reliable or perhaps more opinionated is in conflict with many other reliable sources, yes it is indeed valid per WP:UNDUE and WP:CONFLICTING and WP:EDITDISC to set aside the less reliable one and not mention it. Leijurv (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalled 

message: The overview in this article seemed more like a point-by-point debate than an overview, alternating between a highly skeptical point of view and a boosterish one. I've just done some quick restructuring of the overview to try to get to the most important information quicker and improve the flow, without removing any information. Only a first pass and it could be improved a lot more; inline citations might help. Graue (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job,   I have issue with the sentence “When the project began, there was no comparable agency with the skillset necessary to manage this project”, which was probably already there before your efforts.  You see, at the beginning, the most experienced multi-country entity in the world was engaged with CHSR: SNCF.  That’s the entity that either built most of Europe’s TGV’s from Madrid to Amsterdam and from Zurich to London, or whose technology was used in close cooperation.  A previous version of this article used to include SNCF’s involvement, but it got nuked out of the article in 2023, for reasons unclear.  SNCF left California in frustration with the political dysfunction in 2011 and instead opted to build a high-speed TGV in Africa, which has now been operating since 2018.  Source: The New York Times (read the quote in the ref, it is a doozy).  Cheers,  16:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: inserted from prior discussion:
:The more I look at the Project Status map for March 2024, the more problems I see in it. Some of the colors don't have enough difference so it's unclear, thus it looks like construction is completed on the central section when it's not. Also, Caltrain electrification seems to be in engineering design! Yes, these are minor, but a graphical display like this needs to have better design. 
:Added: I do NOT understand why the old diagram was replaced! This one is NOT an improvement. Please fix it or restore the older, more accurate one.
:Robert92107 (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This thread is intended to explain the overall layout and to elicit higher-level feedback. If you have issues with maps, it would be easier for discussion to open it as new topic. When working on the overhaul, we tried our best to make it an improvement along all dimensions. Given the scope of this undertaking, it is unfortunately inevitable that this move will entail some hiccups. As mentioned in my original statement, we are still working on the maps; and if you look at the edit history, Shannon has already reverted the map to its older version until the new version is finalised. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status map 

message: This report definitely deserves significant space. This has a lot more significance than articles in periodicals! Robert92107 (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTNEWS.  Let’s see how external parties end up analysing the report, and update the article accordingly.XavierItzm (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mar. 8, 2024 PRG report re 2024 Business Plan