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

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Business routes 

message: 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,  was removed from the page. After a revert war started, the same user tried to modify  to his own liking, but was reverted again. He then proceeded to TFD : Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 2, where consensus was to keep. Thus his alternative was to create  and switch articles over to it, starting a massive revert war. However, subsequent debates have upheld the use of : /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.
===Proposals===
====Rschen7754====
I propose that we use the current routebox with a few modifications: a) Potentially updating the framework to integrate it with , 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)
replies: text: 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 <Speak|on|it!> 04:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  is programmed with a plethora of if commands, all the parameters are optional. -- NORTH talk 21:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With that, I'm confirming my vote for Northenglish.  --Geopgeop 04:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox discussion, time 3 

message: ====Rschen7754====
I propose that we use the current routebox with a few modifications: a) Potentially updating the framework to integrate it with , 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)
thread_title: Proposals

message: I propose that we use the current routebox with a few modifications: a) Potentially updating the framework to integrate it with , 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)
thread_title: Rschen7754

message: 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)
thread_title: Geopgeop

message: I propose changing completely over to .  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)
thread_title: Northenglish

message: Comment: Sure, an integration with  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 , and then move on to view Nevada State Route 88, which uses plain  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)
replies: text: 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 <Speak|on|it!> 04:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  is programmed with a plethora of if commands, all the parameters are optional. -- NORTH talk 21:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With that, I'm confirming my vote for Northenglish.  --Geopgeop 04:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes and comments (votes bolded please)

message: 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)
replies: text: Sorry... I was creating the prototype and must have broken it... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  16:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it's just the values in the above proposals, not  by itself. --Geopgeop 04:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, they're proposals anyway, I'm not going to change them... --Geopgeop 04:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Browse box 

message: We haven't forgotten about , 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)
replies: text: And it already has. --Geopgeop 10:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|SoCalFwy}} 

message: 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)
replies: text: Oh yeah, any chance of implementing this in the main article in some way? --Geopgeop 10:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably can just go in like an Interstate list. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, does it match the new WP:IH standards? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Route 1 exit list 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why remove the info? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exit list - entrances? 

message: 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 Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  Don't know if you are interested in photos like this? Historic US 40 sign 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some neat definitions, history and trivia found on the [http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/trivia.htm Caltrans website] 

message: Here's a proposed plan for fixing the infoboxes:
#Fix the browsing system (I'm working on right now).
#Put the new infobox on CA-78, CA-1, and CA-210 and CA-37 (as test cases).
#Rewrite WP:CASH to include directions for new infoboxes.
#Remove . Make new infoboxes on the pages where needed. Save a copy of junction list to talk.
#Convert  (not much conversion should be needed). Also go back in histories, find old junction list, and save a copy on talk.
#Convert . Save a copy of junction list to talk.
#TFD  and subpages,  and subpages,  and subpages,  and subpages.
#Contact MTF about making some maps.
Sound good? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by making new infoboxes for the ones which used ? Substing them, or just use  with much less variables? --LBMixPro <Speak|on|it!> 08:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Infobox has been put on California State Route 78. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CA-37 can be infoboxed too since it's undergoing GA... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And it was deleted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox plans 

message: 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)
replies: text: You probably noticed that some articles do have exit lists, just not all of them yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also some state routes have no exits, because they don't have freeways. --wL<speak·check·chill> 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 05:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Exits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject Award 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox shields 

message: 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 sonT - C 16:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates 

message: 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 sonT - C 16:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates 

message: Template: 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 sonT - C 23:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:FEUS}}]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: How so? (not that it isn't possible). --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cal-NExUS exit lists 

message: In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces:
# 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.
# If a project does not remain aware of such developments and complains later, then there is most likely nothing USRD can do about it.
# 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.
# 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)
thread_title:  Reminder from USRD 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: To be honest, I find it fun to do. --NE2 15:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US 101 exit list 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Assessment categories 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does anybody have a map from about 1930? 

message: I have completed several subpages of Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  Notes on the history 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo request 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Map request 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You're counting the San Pedro portion? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; Caltrans still maintains it as SR 110. --NE2 06:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeway names and merging 

message: 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 description
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.
SR 110 continues along the Pasadena Freeway, the first freeway in California...
;History
Figueroa Street...SR 11
Upgraded to a freeway, starting with LA to Pasadena...then the Harbor Freeway...
;Exit list
For exits north of US 101, see Pasadena Freeway.
--NE2 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Route 110

message: 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 Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: I took a look at the National Highway System and it matches the High Emphasis Routes pretty well; compare the two columns on Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  Importance ratings 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Interesting trivia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm sorry again, but what's an "IIRC"? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 04:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: wikt:IIRC --NE2 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Should we use the exact definition of freeway that Caltrans uses? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Links 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  New photo request category 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 

message: 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#At-grade_intersections_and_traffic_lights.  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)
thread_title:  At-Grade Intersections on I-5 in central CA 

message: thumb|A catfight, for purposes of illustration
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: If you believe the edit warring should stop, why did you participate in it? Splat5572 (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: What makes it annoying? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Duplicating is annoying. That's why we delete images when they are duplicated. Thi is why  was long gone, as well as .--Freewayguy Call? Fish 21:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And you failed in your attempt, because you made assumptions that turned out to be incorrect. --NE2 21:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: When you knowingly insert information that you're not sure about, you're worsening the problem. --NE2 21:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: My solution is that you stop guessing... --NE2 21:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Keep it up and you probably will be. --NE2 00:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 2, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NE2 3) (just to remind people about NE2's actions in the past.) --Splat5572 (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, you're way is probably the only way to do it then. --Polaron | Talk 20:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: implemented the  to show the tables. --Splat5572 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: How about simply not adding it to both? --NE2 05:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So you're restarting the edit war? The articles got protected because of this. --NE2 06:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to edit war. I'm trying to put in a new idea. --16:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Will you also work on Template:Golden State Freeway exit list and [[Template:San Diego Freeway (I-5) exit list. You also have to work on I-80 templates of exit lists. This is helpful, except we edit on tempalte, so once we save it, the two pages changes automatically. I do understand see XX is a little confusing, because most California Freeways for one name contains 2 numbers.--Freewayguy Ask? +000s 19:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: We should have a template for Bayshore and Eastshore Frwy on I-80 too. --Freewayguy Ask? +000s 22:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: And... it's been recreated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.70.154 (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagged with . --NE2 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring on some of the California interstate pages 

message: This is a horrible idea, since you can't preview what it will look like when making a change. It also goes against Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: How about simply not adding it to both? --NE2 05:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So you're restarting the edit war? The articles got protected because of this. --NE2 06:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to edit war. I'm trying to put in a new idea. --16:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Will you also work on Template:Golden State Freeway exit list and [[Template:San Diego Freeway (I-5) exit list. You also have to work on I-80 templates of exit lists. This is helpful, except we edit on tempalte, so once we save it, the two pages changes automatically. I do understand see XX is a little confusing, because most California Freeways for one name contains 2 numbers.--Freewayguy Ask? +000s 19:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: We should have a template for Bayshore and Eastshore Frwy on I-80 too. --Freewayguy Ask? +000s 22:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: And... it's been recreated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.70.154 (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagged with . --NE2 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list]]