Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/California: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:25, 3 May 2006

Shortcut

[[:|WT:CASH]]

Adding Mile By Mile external links

I'm in the process of adding external links to he highway guides I've created for many North American Highway. Someone suggested that I should let the highway community know I'm doing that so they don't think I'm link spamming. I've got detailed photos and text of lots of stuff along the highways in Canada, Mexico and USA. I'd welcome your thoughts on my project and the links. If folks want to use photos (I've got thousands of lovely photos) from my highway guides, feel free to use them but do give credit. Thanks, James Love James Love 13:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From "my" web site? You are not allowed to add links to your own web site. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the links are useful, there's nothing wrong with adding links to your own site. -- Scott e^iπ 07:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have consensus. See Talk:Jesus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Markers

I have put new SVG markers for California. I would like to encourage the use of the Caltrans term marker for the standalone sign "California 72", etc. and shield for just the overlay sign with the number "22 Long Beach". at least for the naming in templates The new markers are not perfect, but they are in a vector format that should be modifiable. The biggest problems are that the nose of the 3-digit ones are too pointed, routes that have a "1" in them are inappropriately spaced, and certain numbers need to be aligned by hand (see California 4). The 2-digit ones do meet spec, before anyone asks. Joydawg 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about putting in the blanks as well? It seems odd to see these new signs along with the templates, sections for state law, etc. that have the old blanks in them. --Geopgeop 09:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Routeboxca2?

Has anyone been working on junction templates? Creating smaller icons suitable for the junction box? The Major cities box on California State Route 1 looks bad. Any suggestions for a new design? Joydawg 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine... only California State Route 1 and California State Route 99 look bad since they are the longest California State Routes. I don't see any problems with the current template. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We might need to cut down CA1 and CA99 to just major interchanges but the rest are fine.Gateman1997 21:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was referring more to the Wiki markup not visual appearance. But actually, I'm adopting the opinion that most of the data in that box is too technical to begin with, and will focus my time on the body of these articles Joydawg 02:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the current box is fine as is. We might consider limiting it to "Major" cities and remove the reference to the California Highway code and possibly shrinking the legend vertically. But other then that the current box should stay as is.JohnnyBGood 01:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SVG images?

Anyone know why the SVG images aren't taking on routes like California State Route 150?Gateman1997 06:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wikipedia's caching system. The SVG change was made in a template, not a direct edit to the page. The next edit of the page itself will force a refresh. Joydawg 22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone going to upload the SVG version of Image:CA-blank.gif? Templates that still use the old gif are now looking out of place. --Geopgeop 15:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put some up under Image:CA blank.svg and Image:CA blank wide.svg. I also made a commons page for future shield work [1] Joydawg 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I changed the templates to use the SVGs. (It took me a while to figure it out.) --Geopgeop 11:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

I have just created Portal:U.S. Roads. If you have any feedback, please place it under "Portal" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads.Rt66lt 03:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junctions with County roads

If a county road joins a state route, and the county road has an article of its own, can/should those be included in the infobox junction list, or is that reserved for just state and federal highways? (E.g., the north end of TUO J59 where it hits SR-108.) —RandallJones 02:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of space, it needs to be State Routes, Interstates or U.S. Routes in the infobox. It's fine to link from the article though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California Routebox

This area is for discussion on possible changes to the CA routebox. Certain users, specifically SPUI have objections to the current userbox. Personally I think the current box is fine provided it is tweaked a little (specifically removing or shrinking the legend and ensuring that only MAJOR cities are listed). Please discuss your opinions on the matter here.Gateman1997 02:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with minor revisions as above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2] [3] [4] --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think you fail to keep some important info in those boxes you created and they fail to take into account years of work by other editors too. However they are a nice attempt.Gateman1997 02:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What information is lost? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The major interchanges and the cities portion, both of which are vital.Gateman1997 02:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of which are in their own sections. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally prefer they remain centralized as they help define a particular road. Specifically the major cities, but also the interchanges. Plus we do not have maps for all 350 CA state highways.Gateman1997 03:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the infobox is just too big with all that information. We should give a few basics in the infobox and the details in other sections. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about a trade off, MAJOR cities and MAJOR interchanges remain in the infobox. Minor interchanges (as part of an exit list) and a full city list can be in the article.Gateman1997 05:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a few very major intersections, like Interstates are now. Cities would be included with those intersections. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why minor cities and junctions need to be eliminated. For Interstates yes since they're so long. Here, no. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the infobox is too long with them. An infobox is not for that level of detail. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree we don't need minor cities (for instance CA1 used to have every XX Beach along it near LA regardless of how unimportant), I do think that if we eliminate any interchanges it should be on articles that are significantly too long, which mainly refers to 1 and 99. In those two cases it should be MAJOR state to state internchanges like CA1 at CA17 along with US and Interstate crossings. I believe handling it on a case by case basis should be our course if we move forward with this.Gateman1997 08:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An example of what I'd like to see done would be as follows (and I'll use California State Route 17 as an example since we're all familiar with it. First I think the legend should be minimized or eliminated all together. It does admittedly add to cluttered look to the page in it's current state. Second I'd agree with putting the "CS&HC Sec. 317" link as a link from the "Route 17" indentifier currently above it as SPUI has in his infobox model, this would also consolidate and eliminate clutter. Third, can we move the KM distance measurement to the same line as the milage, this would eliminate an unneeded vertical line. Fourth would be for the extremely long routes like 1 and 99 to consolidate the infobox listing to major interchanges only. I believe these changes come to a nice middle ground between the current box and those who object to the current box. It would significantly shrink and consolidate the current box incorporating some of SPUIs design without giving much of the current box's content or any need to retag any existing pages.Gateman1997 08:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even California State Route 1 with only the "major interchanges" is still way too big. I'll work on a possible compromise. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too few interchanges IMHO. Also any changes should be made to the existing box, not some new box for simplicity sake. Remember one page long in 8x6 is more then acceptable.Gateman1997 09:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The old box is not adaptable to that format, in which the cities and junctions are combined. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to join them I think. As long as the cities are limited to major cites. Another alternative I would entertain for discussion is something similar to Interstate 270 (Illinois-Missouri). Note if we eliminate the legend from the current CA box and make some minor modification for the CA HW code and limit the cities, it's not too different from this featured article in terms of routebox length. Having a list of 20 or so junctions in the routebox is definitely precedented all over multiple projects, boxes and routes.Gateman1997 10:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not joined the box is too long. I-270 was never updated for the new format; I will fix that. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with minor revisions to the current box. No need to undo alot of hard work simply to make it subjectively "nicer looking".JohnnyBGood 19:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my example of what we should do. Note that the Bus 80 box is based on the standard CA box so these changes shouldn't be that hard, and notice how compacted it is and how much cleaner it looks. The only other change on CA routes would be putting the road code as a link from the route name in the box, however that doesn't apply to this particular route.JohnnyBGood 20:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Gateman here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like SPUI's design a lot. It fits much better to the level of detail Wikipedia should have. Postmile logs are way too technical. The point of the box is to have something to look at a glance and glean important facts quickly. It is not a centralized table to dump data into. If other information is necessary, it can be placed into the article body. Joydawg 00:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that Wikipedia can't be detailed? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that Wikipedia can't be detailed. It's the extent (in depth and scope) I'm concerned with. And more specifically in this situation, cramming the infobox. You should also note what I said, which is that there can be many other places within in an article for placing information, such as creating separate sections and tables for more technically-oriented data. Joydawg 06:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do people feel about the changes I've made to the box? I used Gateman's suggestions as a guide. The only thing left to do is to make the Route name in the box the link to the Calif Hwy code. I tried doing it but was not able to. If someone could assist I'd be grateful.JohnnyBGood 01:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like them. It's much better looking and should placate those that wanted a change.Gateman1997 02:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the difference - it still keeps all the junctions in the box, and a separate section for cities. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what we want right? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly as long as we keep the information in there I don't care how it's presented. But Juntions, cities, and mile markers are a must.JohnnyBGood 23:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want that? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel by keeping mile markers in the box, we're losing sight that the box is probably a place best to summarize important points and display key facts about the article. Is there a problem placing mile markers in a separate table, like it has been done for exit lists? Joydawg 22:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a vote below. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars

For the information of all: Revert wars have broken out at the California and New York State Highway/route WikiProjects. Mass moves of pages and removal of routeboxes have occurred. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: mass reversions to too-big infoboxes have occured. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads has been opened. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Bernardino

I am not going to go through the edit summaries to figure out who the editor is, but someone, probably associated with this WikiProject, can't spell San Bernardino correctly. I just corrected a bunch of internal links to San Bernardino, California and San Bernardino County, California in California state route articles that were originally spelled San Bernadino. ^Blank ^Verse 21:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might have been me... I'm sorry. The sad thing is I was born in that county. :( --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untagged images

User:Joydawg has uploaded about 80+ highway signs but failed to put any source or license tag on them. I am turning this problem over to you fine folks at this project. Please make it go away. Here's a dynamically updated list (at the m:toolserver). Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I added tags. I'm not sure why you made the request here instead of on my talk page, but whatever, it's done. Joydawg 23:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting me guys...

I guess it was worth a shot at doing, but next time I'll ask, Rschen and SPUI.

By the way, Rschen's robot unabbreviated the "U.S. 101" links in the junction box. I now read "U.S. Route 101" in full. Fix it, thanks, and keep up the good work! --Geopgeop 11:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion

I strongly advise all parties to not use the term "vandalism" when making reverts. I think this is what is going wrong with some of the issues that are debated on CA roads. Y'all have a MedCab case, try to work it out. Thank you. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not vandalism (except for edits to the WP:CASH page.) But there's no mediator yet. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but that is one thing I noticed a lot is this term being used a lot, and from the links I saw at WP:AN/I, I do not think it was vandalism, so what I can suggest is to have an outside person look at it or just simply say "revert, please do not do this again, let's discuss." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State Route 264

As no one has created State Route 264's article as of yet, I would like to point out, as said on its new talk page, that it is a pre-1964 route only, and that I just want to know, should it redirect to a specific pre-1964 routes page, or redirect to its present-day State Route 223? --Geopgeop 11:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it should redirect to 223, but it also shouldn't be listed along with post-1964 routes. The post-1964 routes evolved from the pre-1964 sign routes, not the legislative routes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox decision

As SPUI is intent on removing {{routeboxca2}} and replacing it with his less-informative {{Infobox CA Route}} regardless of consensus, this is a vote/ consensus-making page/ whatever you want to call it. Please vote Keep {{routeboxca2}} as is, Modify {{routeboxca2}} or Change to {{Infobox CA Route}}. At the end of five days (minimum), the result of the discussion will be carried out. If consensus (70-80%) forms then that consensus will be taken. Otherwise, we will go with majority (since there has to be a infobox). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modify routeboxca2 to include the year created and only major junctions and cities. Otherwise Keep.JohnnyBGood 23:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Year created has already been added. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a comment: there should probably be strict criteria for what is considered a major city or a major junction. Something like cities with a population of at least 50,000 or junctions with freeways only and/or with some minimum AADT (say 100,000?). This should keep the size of the infobox (regardless of which one is chosen) small and make clear what can and cannot be included. Polaron 17:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Modify routeboxca2 to move the browse state highways to the bottom as the OK and Interstate articles are. Otherwise keep. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's obvious what my "vote" is. Any infobox that lists cities and junctions separately is too big. Any infobox that lists all junctions is too big. Any infobox that lists all cities is too big. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All "votes" which keep this monstrosity should be thrown out. That is the "modified" version. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Modify routeboxca2 - as per above. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 10:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Modify routeboxca2 - as per JohnnyBGood. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to note, migration from {{Routeboxca}} to Routeboxca2 is done. Also, Modify as per Rschen7754. --Geopgeop 10:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Modify routeboxca2 as per JohnnyBGood. —RandallJones 19:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to {{Infobox CA Route}}. Stop the creeping trend toward information overkill (read: "It must be encyclopedic if it contains a ton of stuff") here. --ILike2BeAnonymous 08:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polls are eeevil

This vote seems premature, divisive, and generally ill-considered. I look back up the page a bit and everyone was making some effort to work out a mutually acceptable solution that everyone hated equally. Rather then trying to jam something down the throat of the world with a vote, can't everyone just take two valium and go back to working together eh? But while I'm here, I like the smaller more concise templete, otherwise it's creeping towards the horror of Bundesautobahn 1. - brenneman^{L} 13:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be SOME sorta compromise evolving. Give it a l'il time. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to admit I agree with SPUI on this point. No clear agreement, consensus, or trend in support of either position has developed or looks to be developing.JohnnyBGood 18:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather interesting "primary" and "secondary" proposal from 1996

[5] It might be interesting (not necessarily in an article) to compare the "secondary" routes with the ones that are being relinquished. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#	Secondary piece	Notes (including current status)
SR 1	Route 5 south of San Juan Capistrano to Route 10 in Santa Monica; Route 280 near the south boundary of the City and County of San Francisco to Route 101 near the approach to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco	some relinquishment considered on south part
SR 2	Route 1 near Santa Monica to Route 101 in Los Angeles	partly relinquished and deleted
SR 3	Route 36 near Peanut to Route 299 near Douglas City; Route 5 near Yreka to Montague	nothing
SR 9	Route 1 near Santa Cruz to Route 17 near Los Gatos via Waterman Gap and Saratoga Gap and along the ridge between the San Lorenzo and Pescadero Creeks	full route; nothing
SR 12	Route 1 near Valley Ford to Route 116 in Sebastopol	unbuilt
SR 13	Route 61 near the Oakland International Airport to Route 580; Route 24 near Lake Temescal to Route 61 near Emeryville	mostly unbuilt; rest is surface road
SR 14	Route 1 north of the intersection of Sunset Boulevard northwest of Santa Monica to Route 5 near Tunnel Station	unbuilt
SR 18	Route 10 near San Bernardino to Route 30	unbuilt
SR 19	Route 1 near Long Beach to Route 164 near Pico Rivera	full route; partly relinquished and deleted
SR 22	Route 1 near Long Beach to Studebaker Road	nothing
SR 23	Route 1 near Aliso Canyon to Route 101	nothing
SR 24	Route 680 in Walnut Creek to Route 4 near Pittsburg	unbuilt
SR 26	Route 12 to Route 88 near Pioneer Station via Mokelumne Hill and West Point	nothing
SR 33	Route 166 in Maricopa to Route 5 near Oilfields via Coalinga; Route 5 to Route 152 via the vicinity of Mendota; Route 152 west of Los Banos to Route 5 near Santa Nella; Route 5 near Santa Nella to Route 140; Route 140 to Route 5 near Vernalis	nothing
SR 34	Route 1 between Point Mugu and the City of Oxnard to Route 118 near Somis	full route; nothing
SR 35	Route 17 at Summit Road to Route 92 via Skyline Boulevard; Route 92 to Route 280 at Bunker Hill Drive; Route 280 via Skyline Boulevard to Route 1 in San Francisco	full route; nothing
SR 36	Route 139 north of Susanville to Route 395 near Termo	nothing
SR 37	Route 251 near Nicasia to Route 101 near Novato	unbuilt
SR 39	Route 1 near Huntington Beach to Route 72 in La Habra via Beach Boulevard; Beach Boulevard to Harbor Boulevard in La Habra via Whittier Boulevard; Whittier Boulevard in La Habra to Route 2 via Harbor Boulevard to the vicinity of Fullerton Road, then to Azusa Avenue, Azusa Avenue to San Gabriel Canyon Road, San Gabriel Avenue southbound between Azusa Avenue and San Gabriel Canyon Road, and San Gabriel Canyon Road	full route; partly relinquished and deleted
SR 43	Route 119 to Route 46 in Wasco; Route 46 in Wasco to Route 99 near Selma	full route; nothing
SR 45	Route 113 near Knights Landing to Route 20 near Sycamore; Route 20 near Colusa to Route 32 near Hamilton City	full route; nothing
SR 48	Route 14 near Lancaster to Route 122 near the San Bernardino county line	full route; unbuilt
SR 56	Route 15 to Route 67	unbuilt?
SR 58	Route 101 near Santa Margarita to Route 33; Route 33 to Route 5	nothing
SR 59	Route 152 northerly to Route 99 near Merced; Route 99 near Merced to Snelling	full route; nothing
SR 61	Route 84 near Newark to Route 580 near Albany via the vicinity of San Leandro and Oakland International Airport and via Alameda	full route; partly unbuilt
SR 64	Route 1 near Malibu Beach to Route 5 south of San Fernando	full route; unbuilt
SR 65	Route 198 near Exeter to Route 80 near Roseville on a route along the easterly side of the San Joaquin Valley, which route may include all or portions of any existing state highway route	unbuilt
SR 66	Route 30 near San Dimas to Route 215 in San Bernardino	full route; some relinquishment considered
SR 68	Asilomar Beach State Park to Route 1	nothing
SR 72	Route 39 to Atlantic Boulevard near the City of Los Angeles	full route; some relinquishment considered
SR 74	Route 111 in Palm Desert to Route 10 near Thousand Palms	unbuilt
SR 75	Route 5 to Route 282 via the Silver Strand	nothing
SR 76	Route 15 to Route 79 near Lake Henshaw	nothing
SR 77	Route 880 near 42nd Avenue to a connection with Route 580 near High Street in Oakland; Route 580 in Oakland to Route 24 near Lafayette	full route; mostly unbuilt
SR 81	Route 215 east of Riverside to Route 15 south of Devore	full route; unbuilt
SR 82	Route 101 near Blossom Hill Road in San Jose to Route 280 in San Francisco	full route; nothing
SR 83	Route 71 to Route 30 near Upland	full route; nothing
SR 84	Route 1 near San Gregorio to Route 280; Route 580 in Livermore to Route 4 near Brentwood; Route 12 at Rio Vista to Route 80 near Bryte via Ryer Island	some relinquishment considered
SR 86	Route 111 to Route 8 near El Centro; Route 8 near El Centro to Route 78 near Brawley	nothing
SR 90	Route 405 to Route 91 in Santa Ana Canyon passing near La Habra	mostly unbuilt; partly relinquished and deleted
SR 91	Route 1 near Hermosa Beach to Route 110 near Gardena	relinquished and deleted
SR 92	Route 238 to Route 580 near Castro Valley and Hayward	unbuilt
SR 93	Route 77 near Moraga to Route 24 near Orinda; Route 24 near Orinda to Route 80 in Richmond and Pinole; Route 80 to Route 580 in Richmond via San Pablo and north Richmond	full route; unbuilt
SR 94	Route 188 near Tecate to Route 8 west of Jacumba via Campo	nothing
SR 96	Route 299 near Willow Creek via the vicinity of Weitchpec to Route 5 near the confluence of the Shasta and Klamath Rivers	full route; nothing
SR 98	Route 8 near Coyote Wells to Route 8 via Calexico	full route; nothing
SR 100	the junction of Routes 1 and 17 to Route 1 west of the San Lorenzo River via the beach area in Santa Cruz	full route; unbuilt
US 101	Route 80 near Division Street in San Francisco to the junction of Route 1, Funston approach, and the approach to the Golden Gate Bridge in the Presidio of San Francisco	nothing
SR 104	Route 99 near Arno to Route 88 near Ione; Route 88 west of Martell to Route 88 southwest of Pine Grove via the vicinity of Sutter Creek.	full route; nothing
SR 107	Route 1 near Torrance to Route 405 near Lawndale	full route; partly relinquished and deleted
SR 108	Route 5 near Crows Landing to Route 99	unbuilt
SR 109	Route 84 to Route 101	full route; partly unbuilt
SR 111	Route 10 near Indio to Route 10 near Whitewater, passing near Palm Desert	partly relinquished and deleted
SR 112	Route 61 to Route 185 in San Lorenzo	full route; nothing
SR 113	Route 12 to Route 80 near Dixon; Route 5 near Woodland to Route 99	nothing
SR 114	Route 101 in East Palo Alto to Route 84	full route; nothing
SR 115	Route 8 southeasterly of Holtville to Route 78; Route 78 east of Brawley to Route 111 at Calipatria	full route; nothing
SR 119	Route 33 at Taft to Route 99 near Greenfield	full route; nothing
SR 120	Route 395 near Mono Lake to Route 6 near Benton Station	nothing
SR 122	Route 14 south of Palmdale to Route 138; Route 138 to Route 48; Route 48 northeasterly to Route 58	full route; unbuilt
SR 123	Route 580 at San Pablo Avenue in Oakland to Route 80 in Richmond at Cutting Boulevard	full route; nothing
SR 129	Route 1 near Watsonville to Route 101 in San Benito County	full route; nothing
SR 130	Route 101 in San Jose to Route 33 near Patterson via the vicinity of Mount Hamilton	full route; partly unbuilt
SR 131	Route 101 to Tiburon	full route; nothing
SR 135	Route 101 near Los Alamos to Route 1 south of Orcutt; Route 1 near Orcutt to Route 101 in Santa Maria	full route; nothing
SR 137	Route 43 near Corcoran to Route 65 near Lindsay via Tulare	full route; nothing
SR 142	Route 90 near Brea to Route 71 near Chino; Route 71 near Chino to Route 30 near Upland	full route; partly unbuilt
SR 143	Route 99 near Elk Grove to Route 244 near Carmichael	full route; unbuilt
SR 144	Route 101 in Santa Barbara to Route 192 via Sycamore Canyon	full route; some relinquishment considered
SR 146	Pinnacles National Monument to Route 25 in Bear Valley	nothing
SR 147	Route 89 near Canyon Dam to Route 36 near Westwood	full route; nothing
SR 150	Route 101 near the Ventura-Santa Barbara county line to Route 126 near Santa Paula	full route; nothing
SR 151	Shasta Dam to Route 5 near Project City	full route; nothing
SR 152	Route 1 near Watsonville via Hecker Pass to Route 101 in Gilroy	nothing
SR 153	Route 49 near Coloma to Marshall's Monument	full route; nothing
SR 155	Route 99 near Delano to Route 178 near Isabella via Glennville	full route; nothing
SR 158	Route 395 near June Lake to Route 395 near Rush Creek, via the vicinity of June Lake, Silver Lake, and Grant Lake	full route; nothing
SR 160	Route 5 in Sacramento to Route 51 in Sacramento	relinquished and deleted
SR 162	Route 101 near Longvale to Route 5 near Willows via the vicinity of Covelo and Mendocino Pass; Route 5 near Willows to Route 45; Route 45 to Route 99 near Biggs; Route 99 near Richvale to Route 70 near Oroville; Route 70 near Oroville to Foreman Creek Road via Bidwell Bar Bridge	full route; partly unbuilt
SR 164	Route 605 near Pico Rivera to Route 210 near Pasadena	full route; partly unbuilt; partly relinquished and deleted
SR 165	Route 5 south of Los Banos to Route 99 near Turlock	full route; nothing
SR 167	Route 395 north of Mono Lake to the Nevada state line in the vicinity of the Pole Line Road	full route; nothing
SR 168	Route 395 at Big Pine to Route 266 at Oasis	nothing
SR 169	Route 101 near Klamath to Route 96 near Weitchpec	full route; partly unbuilt
SR 170	Los Angeles International Aiport to Route 90; Route 2 to Route 101 in Los Angeles	some relinquishment considered
SR 172	Route 36 at Mineral to Route 36 near Morgan Summit	full route; nothing
SR 173	Route 138 to Route 18 via Lake Arrowhead	full route; nothing
SR 174	Route 80 near Colfax to Route 20 near Grass Valley	full route; nothing
SR 175	Route 101 at Hopland to Route 29 near Lakeport; Route 29 near Kelseyville to Route 29 at Middletown	full route; nothing
SR 177	Route 10 near Desert Center to Route 62 near Granite Pass	full route; nothing
SR 178	The vicinity of the San Bernardino/Kern county line to Route 127; Route 127 to the Nevada state line in Pahrump Valley	partly unbuilt
SR 179	Route 80 near Vacaville to Route 128 near Berryessa Reservoir	full route; unbuilt
SR 181	Route 116 near Forestville to Route 101	full route; unbuilt
SR 182	Route 395 near Bridgeport to the Nevada state line via Walker River	full route; nothing
SR 185	Route 92 in Hayward to Route 77 in Oakland	full route; nothing
SR 186	the international boundary near Algodones to Route 8	full route; nothing
SR 187	Lincoln Boulevard to Route 10 via Venice Boulevard	full route; nothing
SR 189	Route 18 near Strawberry Peak to Route 173 near Lake Arrowhead via Strawberry Flat	full route; nothing
SR 191	Route 70 near Wicks Corner to Paradise	full route; nothing
SR 192	Route 154 near Santa Barbara to Route 150 near the Ventura-Santa Barbara county line via Foothill Boulevard	full route; nothing
SR 193	Route 65 near Lincoln to Route 80 near Newcastle; Route 49 near Cool to Route 49 near Placerville via Georgetown	full route; nothing
SR 195	Route 86 near Oasis to Route 111 near Mecca via Pierce Street and Avenue 66	full route; possibly deleted
SR 197	Route 199 to Route 101 staying north of the Smith River	full route; nothing
SR 198	Route 101 near San Lucas to Route 33 at Coalinga; Route 33 near Oilfields to Route 5 near Oilfields	nothing
SR 200	Route 101 to Route 299 staying north of the Mad River	full route; nothing
SR 201	Route 99 near Kingsburg easterly to Route 63; Route 63 easterly to Route 245	full route; nothing
SR 202	California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi to Route 58 near Tehachapi	full route; some relinquishment considered
SR 204	Route 58 to Route 99 near Bakersfield via Union Avenue and Golden State Avenue	full route; nothing
SR 207	Route 4 near Lake Alpine to the Mt. Reba Ski Area	full route; nothing
SR 209	Point Loma to Route 5 in San Diego	full route; relinquished and deleted
SR 211	Route 1 near Rockport to Route 101 near Fernbridge	full route; partly unbuilt
SR 213	25th Street in San Pedro to Route 405 via Western Avenue	full route; nothing
SR 216	Visalia to Route 198 near Lemon Cove via Woodlake	full route; nothing
SR 217	Route 101 near Ellwood to the campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara; The campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara to Route 101 northwest of the City of Santa Barbara	full route; some relinquishment considered
SR 218	Route 1 to Route 68 via Canyon del Rey	full route; nothing
SR 219	Route 99 at Salida easterly to Route 108	full route; nothing
SR 220	Route 84 on Ryer Island to Route 160	full route; nothing
SR 222	Route 101 near Ukiah easterly to East Side Road in Talmage	full route; nothing
SR 224	Route 101 in Carpinteria to Carpinteria State Beach	full route; relinquished and deleted
SR 225	Route 101 near Santa Barbara to Route 101 near Montecito via the coast	full route; partly relinquished and deleted
SR 227	Route 1 south of Oceano to Route 101 in San Luis Obispo	full route; some relinquishment considered
SR 228	Route 86 approximately two and one-half miles southwest of Brawley to Route 86 approximately two miles west of Brawley	full route; unbuilt; deleted
SR 229	Route 58 near Santa Margarita to Route 41 near Creston	full route; relinquished and deleted
SR 230	Route 101 near the south city limits of San Francisco to Route 280 in San Francisco	full route; unbuilt
SR 232	Route 1 near El Rio to Route 118 near Saticoy	full route; nothing
SR 233	Route 152 to Route 99 at Chowchilla via Robertson Boulevard	full route; nothing
SR 234	Route 5 near French Camp to Route 99	full route; unbuilt
SR 235	Route 5 to Route 99 north of the Calaveras River in Stockton	full route; unbuilt
SR 236	Route 9 in Boulder Creek to Route 9 near Waterman Gap via Governor's Camp in Big Basin Redwoods State Park	full route; nothing
SR 238	Route 880 to Route 61 near San Lorenzo	unbuilt
SR 239	Route 580 west of Tracy to Route 5 near Brentwood	full route; unbuilt
SR 245	Route 198 to Route 180 near General Grant Grove section of Kings Canyon National Park	full route; nothing
SR 246	Current west city limits of Lompoc to Route 1; Route 1 to Route 154 near Santa Ynez	full route; nothing
SR 251	Route 580 near Point San Quentin to Route 101 near Greenbrae; Route 101 near San Rafael to Route 1 near Point Reyes Station	full route; unbuilt
SR 253	Route 128 near Boonville to Route 101 near Ukiah	full route; nothing
SR 254	Route 101 near the Sylvandale interchange to Route 101 south of Stafford	full route; nothing
SR 255	Route 101 in Eureka to Route 101 in Arcata via the Humboldt Bay Bridge and the Samoa Peninsula	full route; nothing
SR 257	Route 34 to Route 101 near Ventura	full route; unbuilt
SR 258	Route 405 near Torrance to Route 101 near Hollywood	full route; unbuilt
SR 260	Route 61 in Alameda to Route 880 in Oakland near Seventh and Harrison Streets	full route; some relinquishment considered
SR 263	Route 3 near the north city limits of Yreka northeasterly to Route 96 near the confluence of the Shasta and Klamath Rivers	full route; nothing
SR 265	Route 97 in Weed northwesterly to Route 5 at North Weed Interchange	full route; nothing
SR 266	the Nevada state line easterly of Oasis to the Nevada state line northerly of Oasis	full route; nothing
SR 269	Route 33 at Avenal to Route 145 near Five Points	full route; nothing
SR 270	Route 395 south of Bridgeport to Bodie State Historic Park	full route; nothing
SR 271	Route 101 near Cummings to Route 101 near the Humboldt-Mendocino county line	full route; nothing
SR 273	Route 5 near Anderson to Route 299 in Redding; Route 299 in Redding to Route 5 northeast of Redding	full route; nothing
SR 274	Route 5 near Balboa Avenue to Route 15	full route; relinquished and deleted
SR 275	Route 50 near Westacre Road west of Sacramento to the junction of Capitol Avenue and Ninth Street in Sacramento	full route; relinquished and deleted
SR 276	Route 198 near Three Rivers to Oak Grove	full route; unbuilt
SR 281	Route 29 south of Lakeport to Route 29 southerly of Konocti Bay and via the vicinity of Soda Bay	full route; partly unbuilt
SR 283	Route 101 south of Rio Dell to the north end of the Eel River Bridge and Overhead in Rio Dell	full route; nothing
SR 284	Route 70 at Chilcoot to Frenchman Reservoir	full route; nothing
SR 285	Route 70 on West Street in Portola northwesterly to the north city limits, then to Lake Davis via Humbug Canyon, and then easterly to Grizzly Reservoir via the south shore of the lake	full route; relinquished and deleted
SR 299	Route 395 near Alturas to the Nevada state line via Cedarville	nothing
SR 380	Route 1 near Pacifica to Route 280 in San Bruno	unbuilt

It might also be interesting to look for routes that have been relinquished but weren't proposed as secondary. SR 160 from the south line of Sacramento north to I-5 is one example. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 272

Please see its talk page: Talk:California State Route 272. --Geopgeop 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done

All [[California State Route *]] articles have been created, not including the pre-1964 legislative routes. Let's finish up with the tweaking and expanding and redirecting! --Geopgeop 07:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and not SPUI's [[State Route * (California)]] articles/redirects, that's why there's still redlinks. --Geopgeop 07:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting document...

If we used this PDF, it could have saved us some amount of work, considering it's from Caltrans itself (although this document is from 1995, and it's only meant as a quick reference document.) Actually, much of the Caltrans website is accessible to the public, no 403 errors so far. --Geopgeop 07:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp completion list

Even though the completion list, Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways/Completion list is in our namespace, I wanted to make the list look better. So I created this, User:Geopgeop/WP:CASH completion list, down to Route 7 using data from the existing list. Also, the template used on that page, Template:casr list, may have its contents replaced by the text in User:Geopgeop/CASR list. If the rest of the project members like this, I may replace our old one with this, as I think the long strings of text, even if it's only part of our project, just makes things too hard to look at. --Geopgeop 07:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have a complete working page now, but this table is 85 kilobytes long, divided into three sections. It MIGHT be editable by older browsers by sections, and I guess it's longer than I thought it would be. I removed the template, because if it's only in one page repeated many times, that's too much as well. Now here's the choice: long text that's hard to distinguish from each other, or repeating numbers that shows the name when hovered on, plus special names and shields? --Geopgeop 08:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that all routes have articles, the only purpose of the completion list is to make the redirects. I don't see the point in revamping it. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 18:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll leave the project's completion list alone. --Geopgeop 14:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Routeboxcamini elimination

While I'm not a fan of replacing Template:routeboxca2 with Template:Infobox CA Route (see above), the green browse box in the latter does make the article cleaner, and also replaces Template:Routeboxcamini. I do hear some proposals such as moving the browse box to the bottom of the article, but mainly for now I propose to modify routeboxca2 to include multiple routes (see California State Route 19 (164) vs. California State Route 74 (740)) and delete routeboxcamini in the process. (Funny, I helped make routeboxcamini in the first place when I asked for one a while back.) --Geopgeop 14:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah if someone knows how to do it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPUI and JohnnyBGood move wars

As seeing that these move wars have yet to cease to stop, I'm offering a slight break from mainstream policy to try and settle this one. As someone who by nature is neutral in the dispute (I'm from Canada and heck, I don't even know what the official names of the major highways I drive on are) I think it might be easier to go to binding arbitration sans ArbCom as it seems like a lot of other efforts have failed to solve the dispute. If all parties involved are willing, I'd be more than happy to look at the evidence for naming in both syntax-es and find one that can be used. I know its not perfect but this has gone on long enough. If you feel there is someone more qualified yet still impartial to facilitate this, please let me know -- Tawker 18:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support your Canadian ( ;) ) arbitration of this if SPUI is willing. JohnnyBGood t c 19:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very leery of binding arbitration, as I know I'm correct. Thus I'll have to say no. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 19:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 808: / Line 808: @@
 As seeing that these move wars have yet to cease to stop, I'm offering a slight break from mainstream policy to try and settle this one.  As someone who by nature is neutral in the dispute (I'm from Canada and heck, I don't even know what the official names of the major highways I drive on are) I think it might be easier to go to binding arbitration sans ArbCom as it seems like a lot of other efforts have failed to solve the dispute.  If all parties involved are willing, I'd be more than happy to look at the evidence for naming in both syntax-es and find one that can be used.  I know its not perfect but this has gone on long enough.  If you feel there is someone more qualified yet still impartial to facilitate this, please let me know -- [[User:Tawker|Tawker]] 18:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 :I would support your Canadian ( ;) ) arbitration of this if SPUI is willing. [[User:JohnnyBGood|JohnnyBGood]] [[User talk:JohnnyBGood|t]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JohnnyBGood/ c] 19:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
+:I'm very leery of binding arbitration, as I know I'm correct. Thus I'll have to say no. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/SPUI|C]] - [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SPUI|RFC]]) 19:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)