Talk:State highways in California/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

	This article is part of the California Highway WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to highways in California. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

AFD, Only the list of highways

You have a very good page here. A lot of good information. On the Edit Page it states "This page is 90 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable" There is a very simiple way to solve this. Switch the List to a Template.

• It will make the page more compact
• It will bring it in to Wiki Compliance
• The Template will make Navigation easier

I'd be happy to offer my time to create the template if it would help. --71Demon 05:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The debate is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of California State Routes. --Rschen7754 05:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Image removal

User:71Demon made a good point in the AFD debate that even on a T-1 line this page loads slowly. On a dial-up connection it takes f-o-r-e-v-e-r! All of the route signs that are not in a section heading should be removed, and I would even recommend removing those in the section headings as well. They don't add any extra information, and my personal opinion is that it makes the page look more cluttered. BlankVerse ∅ 05:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• BlankVerse, Why did you make a false statement about me? I like templates. They are easy to navigate. Personally I think all the Highway Systems should use templates by state like the US Highway Template. Now some people have brought some information to change my mind on larger states like CA. That is the point of discussion, but it can do without the personal attacks. Rschen7754, showed me I should voice my opinion, so I did. Because you don't agree with it, you falsely accuse me of WP:POINT. I would like an apology. --71Demon 06:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

From BlankVerse ∅ 01:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC): This is your point that I was referring to: "Good point, I'm on a T-1 line and it loads slow for me. Even if you vote to keep the list, then you should probably remove all the images to make it load faster...." -71Demon 05:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of California State Routes

• • The first header on WP:POINT says State your point; don't prove it experimentally. By doing an AFD on List of California State Routes you were proving it experimentally. --Rschen7754 06:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't do that. The List had issues, and I pointed out what I thought was a possible solution. In the past I would have looked at the history and contact the users that contributed the most to a thread, and then express and opinion to the directly. You showed me the proper way to do that is to create an afd, since they didn't have a partial afd. I still like the simplisity of a template, but you made some valid points against it. And you are talking about making changes to the entry to make it better. Which is a good thing. --71Demon 06:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes you did. The proper way to approach it would have been to make your point on the Talk page and not bring it to AFD. --Howcheng 23:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yup... it looks cool but it takes too long to load. Sadly enough the signs need to go. --Rschen7754 05:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Frankly I vote to leave it as is. So what if it's over 90 KB. It's a guideline not a rule. And in this case the overdraft is well worth it. This page looks sharp and loads well for anyone not using antiquated 56K technology.Gateman1997 07:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia just isn't for people with broadband connections! Personally, I've always thought that road shields made the page look cluttered and they didn't add any useful information.

FYI: The suggested page size limit is mostly because some older internet browsers cannot edit the larger pages. On the other hand, page size, if it is all just text, doesn't have that much effect upon the speed of the page loading. However, having a HUGE number of graphics, even if they are individually small in size, has a major effect upon the time it takes to load a page. BlankVerse ∅ 01:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

My harsh but honest assessment is that anyone using an older browser or a 56K connection needs to upgrade. Browser upgrades are free for anyone to download, if they're too lazy to do so then they should be SOL. And 56K is dying out. I'm aware not everyone has broadband yet, but 2/3 of all internet users do at this point, with more getting it everyday. We shouldn't hamper Wikipedia just to pander to 56K holdouts. Harsh I know, but progress often is.Gateman1997 18:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• My personal opinion is that even though the roads have different classifications, in California they operate as just one big system, so the List should stay intact as one big list. On the other hand, all the road shields have a major effect upon the speed at which the page loads, yet the road shields do not add any extra useful information. Besides, they make the page look cluttered. The road shields should be removed from the list post-haste. BlankVerse ∅ 01:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)