Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/California

Edit warring on some of the California interstate pages

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)

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

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

i agree with Scott warring should stop. I think since Golden State Freeway is only part of I-5, Interstate 5 in California should only link to exit list. There is no reason to duplicate an exit list, because duplicating is always annoying.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 21:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Duplicating is annoying. That's why we delete images when they are duplicated. Thi is why File:Interstate 8 (California).svg was long gone, as well as File:Interstate 94 (Indiana).svg.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 21:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's annoying when you need to update the list, moreso when cleaning up after revert wars from editors like Freewayguy, 75.47, and Splat. --NE2 21:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so it seems like it's the problems of having to update the list in multiple locations versus the problems of readers looking through the exit list having to jump between pages. Am I right in saying this? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Issues with updating also affect readers, since there's less of a chance that the list they are reading has been updated. --NE2 21:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If the only problem with having two lists is the fact that you'd have to update two, why not just copy and paste the new list onto the unedited list? Simple solution without all this edit-warring crap. —Mr. Matté (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not that simple, because there are various county/city rowspans that need to be changed, and most people won't know that they need to change both tables. --NE2 00:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Would it be feasible to create a template for the exits which would otherwise be duplicated, and transclude that into both the local freeway article and the Interstate state-detail article? That would eliminate the updating problem. Another idea is to totally remove the exit list from the local freeway and have all exits be solely on the Interstate state-detail article. (Of course a link would be provided from the local freeway article to the exit list, but that would at least solve the problem of someone going through the exit list having to jump to the local freeway article and jump back to resume the exit list north or east of the city.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, templates are not for content. As for the other idea, there are two problems: many of the named freeways have multiple numbers, and it makes the most sense to have the exits on the article that discusses them. --NE2 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The other users also remove the missing postmiles I recently added to the exit list when they revert my revisions; check history in U.S. Route 101 in California and compare revisions. Splat5572 (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably not a good thing. You're also not being too careful, such as changing "At-grade intersection; no northbound entrance" to "No northbound entrance" and "At-grade intersection; no northbound exit" to "Interchange; no northbound exit" at these intersections. (It looks like they're actually doing some work there, at least with closing the south intersection.) All of you are essentially reverting blindly, undoing the improvements in the other's version. --NE2 00:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I wasn't going to look at Google maps for all, like, 500 interchanges on this thing. Anyways what I was trying to do was that on the non-freeway segments of US 101 I was trying to note which intersections are interchanges. Splat5572 (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And you failed in your attempt, because you made assumptions that turned out to be incorrect. --NE2 21:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't say I guaranteed I will not fail in my attempts. Besides, it's Wikipedia. It's not a reliable source; information in a lot of articles are incorrect or misleanding. (See WP:NGR and WP:FAIL if you haven't seen it already. Splat5572 (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

When you knowingly insert information that you're not sure about, you're worsening the problem. --NE2 21:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So what is your solution for all this? (No, wait, let me guess, the link that would say, for example, See Santa Ana Freeway. --Splat5572 (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My solution is that you stop guessing... --NE2 21:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:OWN. I can guess however I want. You are more than welcome to revert if you would like, however. Splat5572 (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're citing WP:OWN as a reason to include information you don't know to be correct, you should be banned. --NE2 23:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I ain't banned right now, aren't I? Plus you're not even involed with California articles that much anymore. --Splat5572 (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep it up and you probably will be. --NE2 00:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Give me one official Wikipedia policy that says I will be banned just for guessing while assuming good faith. Splat5572 (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Plus, why would NE2 care about this stuff? He doesn't edit California articles anymore. He should continue to focus on those railroads or Utah articles since he's so interested in them. --Splat5572 (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

NE2 is in charge of California highway project. Although he probably does not live in California I believe he lives near it. i guess he lives in Nevada, and he has been to California many times and lets just say he's 63 years old and used to live in California which was earlier than the '70s. Just shut-up about your opinion for once, and you seem to be the dictator. This makes you think to be the same person as 75.47, because you guys act the same.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, Freewayguy. I can personally guarantee that they will never accept you as an administrator because you are more disruptive to Wiki than I am, and even I'm more civil than you are. And note that NE2 warned you about the ban as well (and I bet Freewayguy is 75.47 because they act the same). Splat5572 (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

He's just an editor, but he just believes that he's in charge in a lot of stuff and he reverts anything that doesn't fit into his standards and challenges consensus (or at least he used to). Splat5572 (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you NE2, if he does not want to follow our program, he just as well get out of here. the world does not revolve around him. See Hollywood Freeway what's wrong? When we update one list, sometimes people forget to update another one. NE2 if you were the admin, you have the obligations to block Splat5572 (talk · contribs) if he thinks the world revolves around him. I-5 and i-80 was protected by Scott all becasue of him.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Because of him, you, and 75.47. PS: I would not be able to block him, but if he continues to include information that he does not know to be correct, he should be community banned. The same goes for you, Freewayguy. Consider this a warning to both of you. --NE2 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(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)

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

i beleive one day they will accept NE2 as adminship. I never heard he had a deep civil problem. I think Splat5572 matches up with 75.47 because they always try to boss things around, and chase me around to the point it wears my patience out.--Freewayguy ^Call?

Fish 00:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the 75.47 IP goes into edit wars with me too. In fact he keeps adding SSP tags to my page. Therefore you accusation is moot. Plus, even NE2 is not ready for an admin because he still has consensus issues he has yet to work on. Splat5572 (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as NE2 said the exit list on Hollywood Freeway makes the most sense. However the routes in Southern California have some which uses two number, for example Hollywood Freeway is both signed as both US 101 and SR 170. Otherwise on local routes we can just provide junction lists and most major streets whih was once signed as another route just like California State Route 83. Splat5572 is upset because we have to jump to another article to find the exit list, and some local names is used on two numbers. The other way is for complete state-defined route we use complete list, and local names like Hollywood Freeway we use the major intersections like California State Route 83, just do not use background colours like cyan for concurs.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 03:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

How about putting the relevant portion of the exit list in the article for which the posted exit numbers are derived from? For example, in New York, I-287 has a section on the New York State Thruway and a section on the Cross Westchester Expressway. Both sections have distinct exit numbers and so the exit lists would go on the section articles rather than the I-287 article (which should of course have a link to the exit lists). On the other hand, I-95 has a uniform exit numbering even though it has several sections (Cross Bronx, Bruckner, New England Thruway). In this case, the exit list should go on the I-95 in NY article rather than the section articles since each section does not have its own numbering. --Polaron | Talk 15:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you're not placing the exits on the article that actually describes that section of road. As a somewhat ridiculous example, should Interstate 24 in Georgia link to Interstate 24 in Tennessee for the exit list? --NE2 19:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

The project page in its current state says the following: "Major intersections or Exit list. The contents of this section may vary by route." To me that says the following

1. This is not an optional section, i.e. every road article in the project should have this section.
2. From there the contents of the section should be handled on a case by case basis, but the section shouldn't be blank.

So I'm leaning towards, yes, per project standards Hollywood Freeway et al. should have an exit list. Now, should consensus here decide to change that, the project page should be updated first, then the freeway articles updated to reflect the new guidelines. As I've unfortunately said a lot the past few days, these project pages exist for a reason. Dave (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Dave, we know Hollywood Freeway should have and exit list. But if so, then should US 101 just say See Hollywood Freeway on the line. Becasue duplicating exit list doesn't do any good yet. When we have to update, some people just update one but forgot to update the other one. Then peple will wonder, which one is right. Some poeple don't even know when they have to update. Alot of people don't care much about maps unless they have to go somewhere--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Dave, should we just have one exit list of Hollywood Freeway or should we have two?The problem is we can't just copy and paste Hollywood Samples into US 101. The numbers of county rowsapn will not actually match, so what's the suggestion. Should we just have an exit list on Hollywood Frwy, and then on US 101 just say See Hollywood Freeway, that way people will not have to update two.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 18:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on if the exit list should be duplicated or a "See XXXX" entry in the exit list for the statewide article, but am leaning towards having duplicate exit lists. To be honest, I don't have see what the big deal is with a duplicate exit list. Yes, it is the same information in two places, yes it's likely the two lists will get out of sync because somebody updates one but not the other. How is that any different from the 10k articles interconnected in the USRD project? It seems like every day I see somebody remove content that was inappropriately placed and move it to another article (for example an addition to "U.S. Route 40" that should have gone on "U.S. Route 40 in Illinois" or even "New York Route 40". Welcome to wikipedia cleanup, here's your mop and toilet brush =-). Dave (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't think this is a good idea: Template:Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list --NE2 03:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't, but Freewayguy (talk · contribs) 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)

Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs) implemented the {{start}} to show the tables. --Splat5572 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list

This is a horrible idea, since you can't preview what it will look like when making a change. It also goes against 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)

Well there were disagreements and complaints when I did add the text directly. Plus, I was taking Scott5114 (talk · contribs)'s advice from WT:CASH and doing it without disturbing city/county rowspans. [1] And besides Wikipedia's policies are often flexible. --Splat5572 (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How about simply not adding it to both? --NE2 05:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And add the manual text? You know just as well as I do that some editors disagree that method and they and I engaged in revert wars. And if you thought of adding the "See XX Freeway" that just confuses the reader because they have to jump around articles. Now I gotta get to bed. I won't be up until tomorrow. --Splat5572 (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

So you're restarting the edit war? The articles got protected because of this. --NE2 06:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to edit war. I'm trying to put in a new idea. --16:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Will you also work on Template:Golden State Freeway exit list and [[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)

When I have time, like next Saturday. I'm kind of busy right now. In the meantime you can try doing it if you don't mind. And as for the "XX"s, just ignore it; I was only trying to set an example to NE2. Splat5572 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For Santa Ana Freeway temlates it's a little bit hard. I created the template of both Template:Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) exit list in Orange County and Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) exit list in Los Angeles County. Santa Ana Frwy passes both Los Angeles and Orange County, and plus Santa Ana Frwy becomes a US 101 past East LA Interchange.--Freewayguy ^{Ask? +000s} 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. You're trying to separate the counties so it's easier to apply the templates to both I-5 and Santa Ana Freeway. --Splat5572 (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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

I cleaned some template lists and applied them to the exit lists on US 101 and I-80. Splat5572 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You just have to be very careful when editing the template to not mess up the tables. If you like to try it out use Template:Template sandbox first, then if you are satisfied then you can edit on real template.--Freewayguy ^{Ask? +000s} 01:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And... it's been deleted. Send in the cats. --NE2 18:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And... it's been recreated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.70.154 (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Tagged with {{db-recreation}}. --NE2 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing termini in infobox

The 75 IP keeps changing the termini in the San Bernardino Freeway from west - east to southwest - northeast. I've reverted him two times and told him to take up the matter at WT:USRD rather than edit war on the article, but to no avail. If I revert him again, I will violate 3RR so there's nothing I can do. CL — 20:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in making this reverts. Count this as my support for a potential consensus in the matter. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• i agree with County Lemonade's advice. San BernaD Freeway was once signed as US 60/70, and before the freeway begun construction, those alignments took places on Garvey Avenue west and east through Monterey Park, Rosemead, El Monte, West Covina, Pomona, Ontario. Check the Los Angeles-Orange County Map, Garvey Avenue runs west and east and so does San Bern Freeway which most of the alignment is I-10 with small leg of I-215.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 04:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 17 - one of the CA exit list templates. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What the heck, I'll do them all. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

California State Route 7

[2] - that is not a major intersection. Any comments? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The same with California State Route 98. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least in my opinion, a major intersection has either an interchange or a route number assigned to it. That has neither, so I agree that it isn't. Sometimes I'll include something that isn't strictly defined by those two guidelines, but then it is a major intersection in the sense of high traffic. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Even though I know nothing about California highways, if it is listed on a log, it is not that important. Washington's logs list all roads that cross a state highway. ~~ ĈĠ ☺ ^Simple? 02:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_State_Route_1&curid=75245&diff=240806822&oldid=240806483 need to stop. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just an edit war between you and me on that article. Must eat worms (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does the above discussion not apply to CA-1? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Because you started this section with a heading entitled California State Route 7.Must eat worms (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But this applies to the rest of the project. Don't be a smart aleck. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

By claiming your opinion of "this applies to the rest of the project", you too are acting like a "smart aleck". Must eat worms (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second. So if Rschen renamed the section to "Every article in CASH", it would apply to the entire project? I'm at a loss. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) renamed the section to "Every article in CASH", then I'll leave the removal of not-so-major intersections alone in all CASH articles. Must eat worms (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So you've been reverting edits to articles because their name doesn't appear in the name of this thread? Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Orange flags before the war continues

Anybody know Splat5572 (talk · contribs) is now Must eat worms (talk · contribs). A exit list template is a good thought a good try but not exactly a good idea. I don't see a big problem with See Golden State Frwy, but over the tempalte policy over usage these templates just shouldn't exist. Duplicating a exit list is not neccessairly a good idea either. For exit list we can't just copy and paste stuff especially mixing with various of colspnas. Try it you will just mess up the table. For I-5 exit list (since you have no way to merge Santa Ana, Golden State Frwy in) a good idea is to split exit list into smaller sections. We have a section of San Diego Frwy since SD Frwy is also part of I-5 alignment, you can have another section to see Santa Ana and Golden State Frwy, then next section on exit list for north parts of I-5 this will make easier for people to see. Same as US 101, let's start and exit lsit on that page just west of Ventura Frwy then at beginnig put a little flag saying See Santa Ana, Hollywood, Venutra Frwys exit list so what??--57Freeways 23:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Handwritten duplicates may not be better than See Golden State Frwy. On Hollywood Frwy it's also better to have the colspan dividing US 101 and SR 170 so people will not get confuse.--57Freeways 22:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well all the exit lsit template is delete right now. Got to find other plans.--57Freeways 01:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Freeway names

All, question regarding adding freeway names in on freeways in California, particularly in Northern California. In the scope of common usage, freeway names are largely meaningless in Northern California as they are almost never used in favor rather of the freeway numbers (ie: 280 is the common name rather than Junipero Serra Freeway. And as evidence of a further problem several freeways like California State Route 85 and Interstate 680 (California) have multiple names and even names that overlap the same portions of highway. Or in the case of Sinclair Freeway names that overlap multiple highways. Should we even bother listing them since the list is both extensive for most of these routes, and largely meaningless? For instance someone created an article for Bayshore Freeway which while interesting really should just be merged into US 101 in California since the route is primarly known by it's number rather than the name and is entirely within 101. Much like how Nimitz Freeway just redirects to Interstate 880.Gateman1997 (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for California road transport

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection before December 2008, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Exit list issues again

I-5, US 101 has gone through few undos after all the exit list tempaltes have been deleteb.Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) just keep undoing my changes without expalining why. I don't see what's the problem with See Golden State Frwy. People just have to jump around pages so what? Will it kill anybody? What's bad about duplicating exit list is people will have to update two exit list. Let's say we open a new exit, somebody update one exit list, they didn't update the other one. people will not know which one is right.--SCFReeways 23:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also oversignhters can be a pain too. They just randomly post database lock, Wiki error, program error, just to annoy us. Oversighter just make excuse of don't worry about space. Duplciating just take up too much space and waste of computer source. Don't worry about space to me is the worst excuse.--SCFReeways 00:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know what's wrong with Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) lately undoing my chnages for no rations. I don't know what's wrong with See Golden State Frwy, it's just a link and all people have to do is click it, and jump anohter page. I don't know what's wrong with this. I HATE having stuff duplicate beacause what people see is not update.--SCFReeways 23:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just a thought from an outside party. I agree with Rschen on this issue. There is no reason to arbitrarily break up the complete exit list on one small stretch in Los Angeles. It ruins the flow of the exit list on what is arguably the main article (the numbered freeway). Plus any duplication is minimal since in general this issue is limited to a handful of LA freeways only that very rarely need any updating as freeway exits aren't often changed. Plus from a non-LA user's perspective as well, saying "See Hollywood Freeway" for instance is confusing since the Hollywood Freeway encompasses more than just US 101 for example. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• What about Tri-State Tollway, numerous of Chicago highways, and Interstate 278. They all have broken exit lists, of See XXX. Alot of New York highway articles have exit lists broken down. Is this because in Southern Califonria people don't know what Golden State Frwy is, becuase in LA-Orange County and California people don't use those name like Orange Frwy most people just say the 57, the 105 This is probably the bickers of having See Golden State Frwy. One thing is in 3 years how about on I-5 they open another ramp or they expand another alignments?--SCFReeways 00:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just because a few other articles have the breaking up doesn't mean it's preferable. For instance I'd actually say the 278 exit list is worthless. You can't follow the progression of the exits at all due to the breaks. I'd say the reason it is preferable, at least in California, to have the whole exit list on the main article for the numbered route like US 101 or I-5 is that the state uses the number as the primary means of identifying routes, not the names, even in LA and DEFINITELY outside LA. For instance, California State Route 85 has 5 different names. None of which are used by the state for identification (nor in this case used by the public as they're all largely symbolic). And as for the minor inconvenience in 3 years when 1 new ramp opens of updating 2 charts rather than one... is that really that big of a deal. For how often new ramps open the VERY minor 2 minute inconvenience hardly seems an issue. It's not like new highway ramps open up every week like TV shows air. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Should Interstate 294 exit list be fix. Becasue the exit list is just a link to Tri-State Tollway, and Tri-State Tollway is not just I-294, Tri-State Tollway includes I-80, i-94, I-294 all of them. Isn't alot of exit list outside of California still in a poor shape?--SCFReeways 00:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Honestly I'm not concerned with highways outside CA. But in the case you mention it appears that the entire I-294 route is part of the tollway. In that case the entire exit list is on the Tollway page in its entirety. But if you like you could make the argument for having the I-294 portion also listed on the I-294 page. I'd support that but in that particular case I don't think it's necessary per se. Gateman1997 (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

San Diego Freeway

Should this article stay merge with I-405. Since most contents on SD Frwy is I-405 stuff, control cities, and community serve, basic stuff we should try to avoid. We have too little to wirte of I-5, I know SD Frwy is both I-405 and I-5, is the FRWY I hail off of.--Freewayguy 22:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• This have to get numerous people's attention, so post comments soon.--Freewayguy 22:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Saw note in orange, anybody comment right away?--Freewayguy 22:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 ;Freeway names and merging

Most articles about freeways have been merged into the article about the route it carries. I agree with this, and I don't believe there has been any recent disagreement. The question is what to do with the remaining ones; I also have some possible suggestions for other articles.

Beverly Hills Freeway: could be merged to SR 2, but probably notable enough on its own Eastern Toll Road: tagged for merge to Transportation Corridor Agencies Golden State Freeway: keep separate, since I-5 is a long road and there's enough history to add Laurel Canyon Freeway: could be merged to SR 170, but probably notable enough on its own Richard M. Nixon Parkway: tagged for merge to SR 90; it's no longer state-maintained, but Yorba Linda is required by state law to continue to sign it as SR 90 San Bernardino Freeway: keep separate, since I-10 is a long road and there's enough history to add Santa Ana Freeway: keep separate, since I-5 is a long road and there's enough history to add Hollywood Freeway and Ventura Freeway are two similar cases: part of the freeway is part of US 101, a long road, but the rest is most or all of a short route. Both should certainly remain separate from US 101, but would it make sense, at least in the case of the Ventura, to merge SR 134 into that article? The only thing that would belong in an SR 134 article rather than the Ventura Freeway article is early history as a surface road, and that can still be placed in the history section of the Ventura Freeway article.

San Diego Freeway contains all of I-405 and part of I-5. I don't see what would be in the I-405 article that wouldn't also belong in the San Diego Freeway article; again it might make sense to merge I-405 into San Diego Freeway.

Two other routes might make more sense redone. SR 110 consists of two pieces: a short surface routing south of I-110 (deleted from the legislative definition but not relinquished), and a northern extension that includes the north end of the Harbor Freeway and the Pasadena Freeway. I would suggest moving SR 110 to Pasadena Freeway (or Arroyo Seco Parkway?), and repurposing the I-110 article to cover the entire length of Route 110. There's already ambiguity from the fact that Harbor Freeway redirects there, and I don't think this would cause any more. If the name is confusing, maybe it could be moved to Interstate/State Route 110 (California) or a similar compound name (it's certainly better than North Carolina Highway 106 - Georgia State Route 246).

Similarly, SR 210 is an eastern extension of I-210, and will supposedly become an extension. The entire route is also the Foothill Freeway. It might again make sense to merge the two under a compound name.

Are there any comments? --NE2 04:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The general rule I use is that if the article is short or has redundant info, I will merge it. In regards to I-110, I would leave the routes separate. In regards to I-210, it's all Interstate standard highway already, so I dunno what the holdup with Caltrans is. :| --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC) The problem with 110 is that the Harbor Freeway and I-110 are two slightly different entities, and SR 110 has two disjointed segments that are not related; the one in San Pedro has more in common with the Harbor Freeway than the Pasadena Freeway. --NE2 05:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC) You're counting the San Pedro portion? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Yes; Caltrans still maintains it as SR 110. --NE2 06:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC) I forgot to look outside SoCal:

Central Freeway: US 101 is long and this has a good amount of history Cypress Street Viaduct: I-880 is short, but this was a notable collapse Eastshore Freeway: I-80 is long, and this probably has enough history Grove-Shafter Freeway: merge to SR 24? James Lick Skyway: I-80 is long but this is very short --NE2 14:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I take all past discussion to this page. They said to merge San Diego Fwy with I-405, they have list of articlesto keep seperate.--Freewayguy 22:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Can you people just answer this. Should we support the merge or should we oppose this merge. I totally have enough of fat Rschen7754, and totally sick of him for his merciless undos. I think Rschen7754 is abusive, and I was to take him out of administator.--Freewayguy 22:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Capital City Freeway

Someone fouled up the shield in the infobox and changed it from the California one with the smaller number 80. Can someone with better parsing knowledge fix this please? Gateman1997 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Which shield are you talking about? --NE2 00:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Business 80 shield. I fixed the problem by reverting over at the commons. We'll see if it works. I also noticed other bus routes in CA had been effected as well including Bus 205, 8, 280 and 10. Gateman1997 (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like more 75.47.x.x, though I'm not sure that the bigger numbers are necessarily bad. --NE2 01:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well in general they're not the size used in CA which is why the regular Interstates don't use them either in CA. Gateman1997 (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Bigger white text won't be neccessairly, the 2003 MUTCD sign drawing use C Ser in green background for BUS Interstates, 75.47, Guest0, and I-215 all have similar habits. They like to use Google maps to track images when they could be wrong big time.--Freewayguy 00:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Business Loop 10.svg and the other BUS interstates have been change like this--Freewayguy 03:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct in some states, not California though. Gateman1997 (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)