Talk:California State Route 49

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in the United States. 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.
Topics	U.S. auto trails California State Highways
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
	The map in this article is maintained by the Maps task force.

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Linking to Redirects

NE2 and FCYTravis - GENTLEMEN! Are we having a pi&^ing contest over minutia here? PLEASE stop it, the BOTH of you. This is a needless revert war, especially over something this trivial. NE2: You don't need to be involved in a revert war right now, especially one with an ADMIN. FCYTravis - I understand the "why" in your change, it saves on bandwidth and clarifies the links. However, if it ain't broke, don't get sucked into a revert war fixing it. Touch base HERE with NE2, and reach a compromise, INSTEAD of going back and forth in a pointless tennis match of "no, I'M right." "No, I'M RIGHT!".... FYI, This little exchange WILL be noted on the RFAR page, as it only reinforces the notion that there is a problem... Edit Centric (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have also reverted the last major edit by User:AL2TB, as this change placed incorrect info on the exit list table. (Ie: the county abbreviations were all off. Mariposa postmiles are NOT in Tuolomne county. Trust me, I LIVE close enough to Mariposa to know.)

Now, before another reckless edit ruins this article, let's ALL take two steps back, breathe, count backwards from 100, then proceed, keeping in mind a PATIENT edit is always the better edit! (Also, the revision was done by me. The IP addy shows up due to the fact that I needed to log in again, and didn't notice. See what I mean about patience, not haste?) Edit Centric (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:R there's no need to fix links to redirects. I believe the server costs of doing so outweigh the benefits. However, if you're editing an article for some other reason then changing the link target is perfectly acceptable. howcheng {chat} 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! I think the idea that you're positing is actually WP:R2D, on fixing links to redirects that aren't broken. If the redirect link is broken, then okay, it definitely needs to be fixed. But otherwise, you're absolutely right. Edit Centric (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

AL2TB - We have discussed this ad nauseum here. There is NO reason to fix redirect links that are not broken WP:R2D, but if you want to spin your wheels doing so, good on ya, as long as everything gets checked before posting. Edit Centric (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't happen to fix all the redirects; just the pipe links that point to a redirect. I agree with User:FCYTravis, because it is absolutely redundant to create a piped link and point it to a redirect. What are the odds that such redirect page will turn into a new article? I say not so likely. The only time I don't fix a non-broken redirect if, say for example, El Toro Road. It was recently merged and redirected to County Route S18 (California), but I don't fix the El Toro Road redirect because El Toro Road could become an article again in the future. That is how I interpret WP:R2D. AL2TB Gab or Tab 21:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)