Talk:California State Route 134

Untitled

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Merged.

Proposed merge of Ventura Freeway into this

So how's this for a solution to this vexing problem—SR 134 and US 101 (CA) both carry their respective portions of the freeway in their exit lists and route descriptions. Ventura Freeway merges and redirects to SR 134. A hatnote is shown on SR 134 along the lines of "Ventura Freeway redirects here. For the portion of the freeway not covered by SR 134, see US 101 (CA)". (Or Ventura Freeway could be a disambig.) These are few options that were bandied around in IRC last night. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not as experienced in these road issues as you guys are, but perhaps a history section of ventura freeway could reside on the ventura freeway article, but otherwise the article would contain a very brief description of each of the two sections and provide a link to those articles as "primary" article. I understand why we want to avoid redundancy.--Milowent (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

NE2 (who knows more about the history aspect) states that there is little history of the Ventura Freeway - it's pretty much all US 101 or SR 134. --Rschen7754 17:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there's not a ton, but maybe enough in non-trivial newspaper coverage about the highway or major projects on it: E.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and in books, [14], [15], [16], [17]--Milowent (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Do those discuss the entire Ventura Freeway though, or just the US 101 part? (I realize that you may not be able to answer this question without paying a fee; I can take a look at the articles since I am at a university later). --Rschen7754 01:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I could only access segments of the articles, but they all seem to be focused on the Ventura Freeway as its own entity based on the headlines. US 101 predates the construction of the Ventura Freeway by about 30 years, but I am guessing the US 101 alignment was changed as the Ventura was built.--Milowent (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Source 1: Talks about the effects of the freeway, but only interviews people affected by the US 101 part.

Source 2: The abstract explicitly excludes the SR 134 part. Not going to look at the article for that reason.

Source 3: Just looking at the abstract it looks like this specifically addresses SR 134. It does talk about the extension of the Ventura Freeway. However... it looks like it's talking about SR 134 between the Glendale and Eagle Rock city boundary (Harvey Drive) and Orange Grove Avenue in Pasadena... as well as SR 57 (!). So no combined history there.

Source 4: It talks about a rail line for the Ventura Freeway. Not sure what stretch of the Ventura Freeway it talks about.

Source 5: The two stretches discussed are on the US 101 part.

Source 6: Focuses on the SR 134 part.

Source 7: Focuses on the SR 134 part.

Source 8: Focuses on part of US 101 - from Calabasas Road to the Hollywood Freeway.

Source 9: Focuses on part of US 101 - in Ventura County.

Source 10: Focuses on the SR 134 part.

Source 11: Pretty sure it's US 101 (Laurel Canyon to Sepulveda, and Encino to Kelvin)

Source 12: This doesn't even seem to focus on any specific route at all. It just seems to tell the story of how freeways are built.

Source 13: The stretch in Source 11 finally opened.

So in conclusion, all of the news sources you cited above (except for maybe Source 4... maybe) fall pretty neatly into either US 101 or SR 134. So why do we need a Ventura Freeway article? We really don't. If everything can be covered in the US 101 or the SR 134 article with no redundancy... we really don't need this article. Please let us get rid of it so we don't have to maintain it.

If you think I grossly misintepreted any of the articles shoot me an email and I can see about getting you the article. --Rschen7754 05:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

These are actually reasons to keep the Ventura Freeway article. That sources are either about the US 101 or CA 134 sections of the Ventura Freeway is even clearer indication that all independent sources designate both numbered routes in these sections as the Ventura Freeway. Including the Ventura Freeway content in only the US 101 article would be inaccurate and it's not completely part of US 101. As the Ventura Freeway is the complete US 134, I would advocate a redirect of CA 134 to Ventura Feeway. Of course, the CA 134 content would be completely off-topic in the US 101 article.--Oakshade (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Before Rschen7754 closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ventura Freeway by withdrawing his AfD, the consensus seemed to be building toward keeping it as a separate article. Rschen7754's rationale for closing it was "This is something that needs to be discussed across the board; I don't think this is the place to do it though." I agree with that, and I CERTAINLY don't think the place to do it is on the talk page of one of the numbered freeways that it might have been redirected to. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts:

• In its current state the Ventura Freeway article, frankly, isn't worth keeping. Everything in the article is redundant with CA-134 or US-101.
• Were the U.S. Route 101 in California article fully developed, it would be big enough to split into sub-articles.
• Although not a SoCal resident, I do go there enough to know a little about the area. Near as I can tell the US-101 is the more notable of the two segments.

Those three facts are leaning me towards this option:

1. Merge the Ventura Freeway and CA-134 articles for now.
2. If US-101 article gets fully developed, have the article on Ventura Freeway focus on the portion signed as US-101, noting that the designation continues on to CA-134.

However, I could be convinced otherwise. Dave (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• My current view, informed by the recent deletion discussion of Ventura Freeway, is that this should be treated similar to Cross Bronx Expressway. The separate article should exist and treat the Ventura Freeway as the individual entity which it is. The US 101 article for calfornia will provide a link to Ventura Freeway as the detailed article for that portion of US 101. The Cal 134 article will note that it constitutes an eastern segment of the Ventura Freeway, but will only address its own segment (the exits and all that stuff, but not any cultural stuff). I think the Ventura article, history-wise, could be expanded with a number of the sources I cited above. I understand why this debate exists, but despite all efforts at standardization, the federal and state highway systems have many quirks.--Milowent (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • But I just went through and explained why the sources couldn't be used for expanding Ventura Freeway! --Rschen7754 17:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• The articles are all about the ventura freeway, no?--Milowent (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• You entirely missed the point. The articles specifically reference only the US 101 portion or the SR 134 portion. Not both. Therefore they can only be used on the US 101 article or the SR 134 article. If you tried to use it on the Ventura Freeway article, then you would have to repeat the information on the US 101 or SR 134 pages, leading to duplicated information. --Rschen7754 19:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• no, no no. They can be used in an article about ... The Ventura Freeway. The US 101 article in california is too long to include this detail about one of its segments. The CA134 article can refer to the Ventura Freeway article for its history. I think what myself and some others are trying to say is that artificially splitting coverage of the Ventura Freeway into two articles simply because of the route numbers assigned to the highway is not the best logical choice in this case.--Milowent (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• What you're trying to do is artificially combine the two entirely unrelated segments of freeway into one article and cause the duplication of information. Perhaps I need to send you the articles to reinforce my point? --Rschen7754 19:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would appreciate you emailing the articles my way, but I wouldn't say they are about "entirely unrelated segments of freeway." They are all about the Ventura Freeway. The Ventura Freeway is an entity separate from its route numbers. I understand there is an overlap issue to contend with , but culturally I see it being treated as its own entity.--Milowent (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please send me an email through the Wikipedia system and I can do that.
• The articles may use the phrase "Ventura Freeway" but they deal entirely with either SR 134, or US 101. Not both. --Rschen7754 20:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• We are passing ships in the night here, I think. "SR 134" is a road name. "US 101" is a road name. "Ventura Freeway" is a road name. They are all entities. Just because "Ventura Freeway" does not have a sole "number" assigned it, and indeed roads did not have route numbers assigned to them for the majority of human history, doesn't automatically mean is it less worthy.--Milowent (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Escondido Freeway is a name as well. As is Ortega Highway... etc. Why don't we have articles on those? Because those articles would be redundant to Interstate 15 in California, California State Route 74. --Rschen7754 20:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's because those names are not commonly used by the public. People say "I-15", not "Escondido Freeway." Whereas "Ventura Freeway" is what literally everyone calls it - in everyday speech, on traffic reports, in newspaper articles, that's ALWAYS what it's called. Only the roadgeek community (good word, thanks Dave!) know that it includes two separate numbered routes. The article should be named for the most commonly used name. Furthermore, the freeway is regarded as a unitary thing, and it should be treated in one place. People shouldn't have to guess which road number to click on, or chase back and forth between two articles to find out what they want to know. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Then what do you say to TMF's proposal below? --Rschen7754 23:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As I noted below, I think TMF's proposal is a good one. My main concern is to keep the article under the name "Ventura Freeway" because that's what it's called. If you want to merge the 134 article into that, it's fine with me. The 134 route is so non-notable I think most southern Californians are unaware that it even exists. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I continue to oppose the idea of a merge; I think the Ventura Freeway article should be kept as it is, maybe expanded. The road is by far best known as the Ventura Freeway, that is what people are going to look up - and how will they know which segment they are supposed to go to, for the information they wanted? The road has a long history and a cultural significance, which would be merely clutter at (which of?) the two state road articles. The fact that a lot of the information is duplicated elsewhere is not a "vexing problem", it's a common situation at Wikipedia. And I feel, strongly, that this conversation should NOT be taking place on an obscure talk page, but in full view of the Wikipedia community so that a true consensus can be reached. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Melanie, I see someone has added a merger proposal discussion tag to the top of the Ventura Freeway article, so that should help alert interested editors to the discussion.--Milowent (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is content forking, which is generally frowned upon at the English Wikipedia. This discussion has been linked to from WT:USRD, which is the most appropriate place to link from. --Rschen7754 19:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't see why Ventura Freeway can't be a disambiguation page like San Diego Freeway. However, if the majority want the Ventura Freeway article to stay, then it should be sturctured like a similar article about a freeway that follows multiple routes, like the Cross Bronx Expressway. ---Dough4872 17:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This is more complicated than the San Diego Freeway. In that case, SD Freeway and I-405 are synonymous; it would impossible to have non-redundant seperate SD Freeway and I-405 articles. (Technically the San Diego Freeway also includes a portion of I-5; however, this is not well known outside of the roadgeek community) However, with the Ventura freeway, the named designation does span two numerical designations. Both are well known as the Ventura Freeway. However I also dispute one of Melanie's assertions; I do not consider the Ventura freeway historical. The Pasadena Freeway is what I consider historical. The Ventura freeway is just one of a thousand suburban sprawl freeways that are so homogeneous, the only way you know if you're in Boston or Los Angeles is by the vegetation in the median. Dave (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not historical? Here is a map showing the proposed "Ventura parkway" in 1947! [18] --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that everyone agrees that as it stands right now, the Ventura Freeway article is not worth keeping. The only argument that has been presented as to why the article should be kept is as to what the article could theoretically be. Am I right in saying this? --Rschen7754 19:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus, so no. Indeed ,the AfD was going to be a keep, and you can't discount the opinions expressed there.--Milowent (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the only argument isn't as stated above, then what is your argument? --Rschen7754 20:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you withdrew the AfD nom, I would think you should be barred from eliminating the article. Let the AfD run for 7 days if you don't think the article should exist, and they will fully vet the issue. On the merits, I see that the Ventura Freeway article is already a worthy article, the only question is whether the content should be organized in different places. I also think that a history section of the Ventura Freeway article could be added. I am really not trying to upset any master road article planning here.--Milowent (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn means no consensus. It means that I withdrew the nomination. Even if it was consensus, nothing is ever set in stone on Wikipedia. Consensus can change. --Rschen7754 20:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• The Ventura Freeway is a separate entity than US 101 and the official designation for it is in fact "Ventura Freeway". It is not US 101. As I said in the AfD, which by the way consensus was showing Keep before Rschen7754 withdrew it, in Los Angeles on traffic reports, this route is almost always termed the "Ventura Freeway", not "US 101" or "California 134". While US 101 is generally a north-south route, Caltrans designated the Ventura County and part of the Los Angeles County sections as the "Ventura Freeway" because in those sections, it is an east-west route. "US 101" regains its noth-south distinction as the "Hollywood Freeway" south of the Ventura Freeway-Hollywood Freeway interchange, where then US 101 continues south as the latter name. West of that interchange, the Ventura Freeway continues with the designation as California 134 until it meets I-210 in Pasadena. The reason for the Ventura Freeway officially being designated over 2 different numbered routes is to avoid confusion for motorists so this entire east-west route is always known as the "Ventura Freeway". Additionally, the Ventura Freeway is distinguishly known in American culture in both music and literature. As as far as Rschen7754 bizarre claim that "everyone agrees" that the "Ventura Freeway article is not worth keeping," that is 100% false. Not here and most telling not in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ventura Freeway. A nominator withdrawing an AfD that's showing consensus as Keep and then attempting a merge while claiming consensus is to delete the article is very troubling. --Oakshade (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

All that aside, an alternate solution was proposed 2 sections down. Could you chime in below if that is acceptable?Dave (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said that as it is people don't think it's worth keeping. The reason that people want to keep the article is because of what it could be. --Rschen7754 05:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And once again you are putting words into people's mouths, or asserting consensus where none exists. There are plenty of people here who feel that the article is a keeper as it is. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Even at that, I said "Am I right in saying this?" to make sure that I had people's opinions straight. Please stop misquoting me. --Rschen7754 16:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Fundamental question

The fundamental question I would like to ask here is this: What information that is currently or could theoretically be in the Ventura Freeway article that could not be in either the U.S. Route 101 in California or California State Route 134 articles? People keep asserting that there is such information... so what is it? --Rschen7754 20:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Another approach to the situation

I've been watching this situation play out from afar, and I don't see the logic of merging/redirecting Ventura Freeway to SR 134. I do, however, see the logic in flipping the merge around; that is, merging SR 134 to Ventura Freeway since as far as I'm aware the entirety of SR 134 is part of the freeway. As for the US 101 segment, it can be described in detail on Ventura Freeway and summarized on US 101 in CA. I feel this is the best way to go. (The other option is a set index, but from a logistical standpoint I believe that the option I described before is better.) – TMF 20:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have a good solution there. If duplication of content is such a terrible thing (which I personally don't think it is), then turn SR 134 into a redirect to Ventura Freeway. And have a link on the US 101 page that says "for more detail about this segment see Ventura Freeway".—Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs)

I think is a reasonable approach and would support it.Dave (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support this as well. --Rschen7754 01:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Count me in too. Reasonable approach that addresses the varying concerns.--Milowent (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Good for me (suggested above in one of my responses). We still have the similar Hollywood Freeway problem (California State Route 170 and US 101) which was recently erased and turned into a dab page. Different topic, I know.--Oakshade (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, the Hollywood Freeway thing got by me (because it was not brought to AfD as it should have been). That was a similar situation to this one, where one person simply blanked the page and made it into a dab page - except that nobody challenged it as was done here. Should anything be done to try to resurrect the Hollywood Freeway article? --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Works well enough. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So... does someone want to merge? --Rschen7754 04:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.