Talk:U.S. Route 199

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article 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. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on December 31, 2007.
February 20, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
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. Highways California State Highways Oregon State Highways
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-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.
Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
Good article GA This page is rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article is rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in the following regions may able to help:
  • Del Norte County, California
  • Oregon
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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:

-- Mwanner | Talk 20:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
    • 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)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. 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.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    Pass Very well done, most everything has citations.
  3. It is broad in its coverage:
    Pass I doubt there is much else that could be added.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Pass no problems there.
  5. It is stable:
    Pass no problems there.
  6. 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.
  7. 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)