Talk:U.S. Route 199: Difference between revisions
PUSRD-DYK |
No edit summary |
||
Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
== Winter == |
== Winter == |
||
Does this road close in wintertime? Are mountain snows a problem? [[User:QuartierLatin1968|Q·L·]]''[[User talk:QuartierLatin1968|1968]]'' [[Special:Contributions/QuartierLatin1968|☿]] 18:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC) |
Does this road close in wintertime? Are mountain snows a problem? [[User:QuartierLatin1968|Q·L·]]''[[User talk:QuartierLatin1968|1968]]'' [[Special:Contributions/QuartierLatin1968|☿]] 18:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Panic of 1855? == |
|||
The history section mentions a panic of 1855, should it be panic of 1857 instead? |
|||
[[User:Kevink707|Kevink707]] ([[User talk:Kevink707|talk]]) 17:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:33, 21 December 2018
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the U.S. Route 199 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
U.S. Route 199 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 31, 2007. |
U.S. Route 199 in California was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 July 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into U.S. Route 199. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in California may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
It is requested that a photograph of the "Right lane for Redwood Empire, Oregon Caves, Golden Gate Bridge" historic sign at the north end of Caveman Bridge in Grants Pass be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Oregon may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Comment
US Highways should not be tagged with CA routeboxes as they are not single state highways.Gateman1997 01:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- I completely agree. -- hike395 04:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I would disagree with that... the routebox looked fine (I went back into the history). If we ever start a WP for Oregon then they can just add a routebox for Oregon as well (I started one for Washington the other day). Or a multi-state routebox would be fine but I believe some routebox has to be added because otherwise the browse sections don't work (there is no way to get from CASR 199 to 200 for example.) But this should be discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject California State Highways. --Rschen7754
- I think it would be better with multistate roads to develop a completely new multistate routebox. It could be used for all primary roads (ie: Primary Interstates and all US Highways).Gateman1997 17:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Legal Definition
I'm sorry, but all of the Legal Definition stuff looks dreadful. What possible purpose does it serve? This here is an Encyclopedia. This stuff is not encyclopedic.
Legal Definition of Route 199 in California
Route 199 is from Route 101 near Crescent City to the Oregon state line via the Smith River.Source: California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 2, Article 3, Section 499
Freeway and Expressway System
The California freeway and expressway system shall include: Routes [...] 199, [...] in their entirety.Source: California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 2, Article 2, Section 253.1
Scenic Route
The state scenic highway system shall include: Routes [...]199, [...] in their entirety.Source: California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 2, Article 2.5, Section 263.1
At most, this should be reduced to:
- Legal Definition of Route 199 in California Source: California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 2, Article 3, Section 499
- Freeway and Expressway SystemSource: California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 2, Article 2, Section 253.1
- Scenic Route Source: California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 2, Article 2.5, Section 263.1
-- Mwanner | Talk 20:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Attention needed
Several things:
- There's no reason to move down the California style shield; half the route is signed that way.
- AL2TB is reintroducing the error in the introduction; it's not part of the scenic highway system, just eligible for it.
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#State law sections
- We don't need separate sections for single paragraphs, and the last paragraph is about California.
- Again, for the junction list, there are nowhere near enough junctions to split it.
AL2TB's style is in general pretty horrible. --NE2 02:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Those are not "my" styles; I followed the styles that everyone is currently using throughout roads in the US. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 02:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- What? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure if everyone is following that sort of style, but I kind of copied off of Interstate 94 in Wisconsin, where User:Master son splitted the exit list into three subsections because I had disagreements with him about fixing redirects that aren't broken... etc. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's a problem: Interstate 94 in Wisconsin is much longer than US 199. Therefore, I-94 WI can be split, whereas US 199 should not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- So where else can we put the legal definition tags if the sections were to be removed? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 04:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's what the discussion at WT:USRD is about. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why do we need the tags at all? The information is all in the introduction. --NE2 11:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- So where else can we put the legal definition tags if the sections were to be removed? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 04:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's a problem: Interstate 94 in Wisconsin is much longer than US 199. Therefore, I-94 WI can be split, whereas US 199 should not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure if everyone is following that sort of style, but I kind of copied off of Interstate 94 in Wisconsin, where User:Master son splitted the exit list into three subsections because I had disagreements with him about fixing redirects that aren't broken... etc. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- What? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's been the informal standard to leave the California style shield in the infobox. I agree with the points about not splitting the route desc / jct list, as this route is a bit short. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
GA Review
- It is reasonably well written:
- Pass though there are a lot of red links in the article. They may become an issue should the article be further promoted.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable:
- Pass Very well done, most everything has citations.
- It is broad in its coverage:
- Pass I doubt there is much else that could be added.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy:
- Pass no problems there.
- It is stable:
- Pass no problems there.
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
- Pass There is plenty of illustration in the form of graphs, but is there any way that additional images could be added? User created or public domain images of the roadway would be very useful.
- Overall:
- Pass decidably a good article, but could use some more images if it was to be made A or FA class. -Ed! (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I found one photo — it's not the best but it shows the road. --NE2 01:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
U.S. Route 199 split to U.S. Route 199 in California and U.S. Route 199 in Oregon
I believe that U.S. Route 199 should be split in order to better allow WP:CASH and WP:ORSH to manage their own highway articles. In addition, I believe that there is sufficient information enough to be split into two articles (another example: Pasadena Freeway and California State Route 110). And for U.S. Route 199 in California, I provided the length of mileage, but I can't specify it anywhere else other than the infobox, and we can't really show the length of California without the split. Personally, I would be fine if this meant that this article will lose its status as GA. Can we take a poll on this?
Support
Oppose
- No way. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Justification? The article is of excellent length and does not warrant a split. Find some info that will make both articles the same length separately as this one is. — master sonT - C 01:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Neutral
USRD GA audit
This article has failed the USRD GA audit and will be sent to WP:GAR if the issues are not resolved within one week. Please see WT:USRD for more details, and please ask me if you have any questions as to why this article failed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The recent split of this article without consensus
Please stop splitting this article without consensus. I shouldn't have to explain this any more. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Article lead
The lead on this article needs to be expanded. It doesn't summarize all of the article, leaving all of the History out. If not rectified, I feel as though this article should be sent to GAR or just delisted. Imzadi 1979 → 02:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Winter
Does this road close in wintertime? Are mountain snows a problem? Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Panic of 1855?
The history section mentions a panic of 1855, should it be panic of 1857 instead? Kevink707 (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Engineering and technology good articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles
- GA-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- WikiProject California articles
- GA-Class Oregon articles
- Low-importance Oregon articles
- WikiProject Oregon pages
- GA-Class U.S. Highway system articles
- High-importance U.S. Highway system articles
- GA-Class Road transport articles
- High-importance Road transport articles
- U.S. Highway system articles
- GA-Class California road transport articles
- High-importance California road transport articles
- California road transport articles
- GA-Class Oregon road transport articles
- High-importance Oregon road transport articles
- Oregon road transport articles
- U.S. Roads portal selected articles
- GA-Class U.S. road transport articles
- High-importance U.S. road transport articles
- U.S. road transport articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs in Del Norte County, California
- Wikipedia requested photographs in Oregon