Talk:California State Route 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From --Rschen7754[edit]

This is a part of the California State Highways Wikipedia Project, and this page needs to be called California State Route 15! DO NOT change it!

Classification[edit]

Um... does this page still need to be a stub? Also does this page need to be merged with I-15?--Rschen7754 23:38, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Merge then?[edit]

Sould this page be merged into Interstate 15 since they are now the same?--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 01:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Definition of former Route 15[edit]

The wording sounds wrong, it still is Route 15, just now a completed Interstate. It's just former in terms of using the California State Route shield. Remember, California state law makes no distinction between California, U.S., and Interstate Highways. --Geopgeop 13:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has I-15 actually been extended? All the signs on [1] still show it as SR-15. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

I disagree with the move, but if the consensus succeeds at the highways page I'll take it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also disagree with both the move and the removal of the infobox. Removal of the infobox is both counterproductive and negates months of hard work by other wikipedians. Also based on SPUI saying, "Fuck you too" when doing this I fail to see any good faith behind this move. Gateman1997 06:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Please don't fuck up this article again. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see people are blindly reverting, re-introducing errors such as the incorrect length (there is a milepost equation) and a typo in "Interstate" in the external links. What is wrong with you people? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the infobox (or any other info) is incorrect, fix it, justify it, and cite your sources. Removing the infobox completely (and moving the article without justification, *and* leaving rude messages as your edit summaries) isn't anything close to resembling "good faith" editing. - Chadbryant 08:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have improved the article by including more information where it belongs, in the body. This has made the infobox completely redundant, and so I have removed it. You are simply reverting to the incorrect infobox. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the information in the infobox is incorrect, update it. Removing the infobox entirely (when infoboxes are provided for every other CA SR article) is unjustified. - Chadbryant 08:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally justified when the infobox is too big. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then resize it. - Chadbryant 08:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see how long that lasts. If my hackjob on {{routeboxca}} is not reverted, I will apologize. However, on this article, you have not even used the template - is there a reason for that? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shrunk. California State Route 14 has it shrunk. I'm not going to touch this article yet, even to correct the errors, as that would be a revert. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And it's been reverted. Thus we have to avoid using the infobox, as its owners don't want it shrunk. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

There is still no justification whatsoever for removing the infobox from this article. Claims of redundancy and "it's too big" don't make much sense when this is the only article where those contentions are being made. - Chadbryant 12:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's too big on all articles, and thus I have listed it for deletion. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 13:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then allow the vote process to take place before you arbitrarily decide to remove it from one article. It's there for a reason. - Chadbryant 13:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand how a postmile equation works. Look at the Caltrans bridge log and the note in the exit list. The mileposts do not match the actual mileage. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the correct information, edit the infobox accordingly. You have no justification for removing an item that otherwise appears on every article concerning a CA state route. - Chadbryant 15:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained my justification. It is you who is not listening to reason. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note: This article has been listed on Vandalisms in Prgress. Reading the comments on this page, it defineteley looks like user SPUI is in the wrong here. A single user does not get to make a edcision like this in his own, whether he is right or not. SPUI, I think you are coorect, the info box is too big, but you are going about this all the wrong way. Reinstate it, and do this the democratic way, is there really any point in getting annoyed or annoying others over a bit of HTML? No. Smitz 16:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am annoyed over the way my improvements are treated as vandalism. If you want the infobox, include it. Don't remove the corrections and improvements. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In keeping with the recent edits to {{Infobox Interstate}} and {{Infobox U.S. Route}}. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep the current boxes. They're informative and useful. The one you propose SPUI is useless and uninformative. Claims the other ones are "too long" only hold water on CA 1 and CA99. And even then they can be reduced by listing only major interchanges. No need to delete the template.JohnnyBGood 19:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely wrong. The purpose of an infobox is to give some basics about the topic - that's why it gets the upper right position. It should be short so images are not pushed down below. The intersection list can be elsewhere in the article. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty bad when the infobox is bigger than the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on that point, however I disagree on the solution. The articles should be expanded to be longer then the infobox on most CA routes (mind you I don't think the box is too long except on CA1, CA99 and maybe 101)... which is an ongoing process, give it time. I say keep the current boxes.Gateman1997 20:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The articles should be expanded, in which case they will include a list of cities and junctions, and that will no longer be necessary in the infobox. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. What the article needs is expansion of landpark, points of interest, etc...Gateman1997 02:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not paper; we can have both. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with the routebox? Maybe we need to cut down the one on CA-1 and 99. That's it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are not supposed to be huge like this. Period. Eat it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These infoboxes are nothing compared to the ones I've seen for figure skaters. Some of those go on for well over 1000 pixels. The only thing that should possibly be removed from the routeebox here is the legend, going to a click-link-for-legend arrangement like was formerly used on the infobox for interstates. Other than that, I like the infobox. It gives me the ten-second summary of the road in one quick glance. —C.Fred (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It takes much more than 10 seconds to read the damn thing. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your point? There is no rule that states it must be read in under 10 seconds. SPUI you are virtually alone on this one. And your unilateral attitude may work in US politics, but not here.Gateman1997 05:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It works fine when it jives with common sense. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how common sense and removing the longtime routebox have anything to do with each other.Gateman1997 05:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About interstates renumbering[edit]

Didn't Long Beach Freeway renumber from California 7 to Interstate 710 in 1985? Because the Floodgap old archeive 1984 maps shows Long Beach Freeway was still signed as CA-7 at that time. My guess is the renumber process takes gradual step. I thought was like summer 1984 is when they start to replace shields because approval is in June 1, 1984, in March 1985 there might still be CA-7 signs existing. Beacuse the 1984 still cosider L.B. Freeway as CA-7 I think is 1985 is when whole route renumber to I-710. Freewayguy ( Any questions? - My updates) 02:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

History[edit]

What other history can one provide for this route?  — master sonT - C 03:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it opened, the controversy behind filling the gap... --NE2 03:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Belately, I've decided to redirect this to I-15 CA, as this should really be one route. --Rschen7754 03:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:California_State_Route_15&oldid=1200539049"