Talk:Interstate 80 in California/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

WP Cal project

As this a page for a highway within California, this is part of the CA Hwy. WikiProject as stated above. --Geopgeop 15:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Pinole mudslide

On Sunday, April 30, 2006, a retaining wall weakened by recent rains broke, causing a mudslide that blocked lanes on westbound Interstate 80 and forced the closure of the Pinole Valley Road onramp. Cleanup is currently underway, with the right lane expected to be closed for several additional weeks. While traffic on this corridor has only been backed up to Cummings Skyway during the morning commute, the news of the mudslide did worsen traffic significantly on alternate routes, especially on Tuesday, and the steps taken to rectify this incident were seen as wasted effort, if well intentioned. BART added additional trains to its service that Monday morning to its Richmond line, but most of its passengers had to get past the mudslide to get to the stations anyway. The commute past the slide to the Bay Bridge Maze was effectively light on 80, but on Tuesday due to a fire near the Caldecott Tunnel, drivers trying to take the alternate route of 680 had their efforts wasted. This was pretty much a case of too much hype.

That said, anyone know when the cleanup will finish? --Geopgeop 18:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

MacArthur Maze

Shouldn't there be some mention of the MacArthur Maze in this article? Understanding that it does not go in the junction box, I ask where does it go? --Geopgeop 03:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've protected this page due to the edit warring. Please discuss at WT:CASH. Thanks. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Objection to Merger

The Eastshore Freeway article was merged by ambush, with less than a week's notice. The article was reduced to a single uninformative paragraph. Anybody else here care enough to raise a stink? Tmangray (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

One week is long enough for a WP:AFD. Your chances of overturning it are slim and none. ----moreno oso (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Still, I do object to the bad faith use of a summary procedure. If it's important to others, I expect it's easily overturned. Tmangray (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Either you're new here or don't know how an AFD works. Once the AFD is complete, the affected article is treated as indicated by its outcome. There were five redirects if I remember correctly. Nothing was done wrong procedurally. Your expectation of easily overturning it is laudable but won't happen. Trust me, I tried to save the article but realized it could not be done. Its most important parts were preserved/merged. ----moreno oso (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I thoroughly disagree, but such an ambush through summary procedure is one of the many weaknesses of Wikipedia as a whole, and is not particular to this article. The process is obscure and frustrates the best would-be editors who do not usually waste their time bogged down in such antics. It further diminishes the waning reputation of Wikipedia. Yes, the information in the original article was preserved because I added it to the brief section that had been "merged". Otherwise, we really had been left with a summary deletion, which verges on vandalism. Like I said, if there's actual interest, change would be simple. That it doesn't occur is a clear sign that there's little to none. Good job. Tmangray (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
You can disagree all you want. There was no "ambush". Get over it. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Kent Pursel

I found an image of a freeway dedication sign for the emeryville section, taken down and used in a mudflat sculpture, with Pursel's name crossed out, ca. 1977. I think he must have been hated by the counterculture, it would be good to know why he has been forgotten. I know he wrote a letter to the regents in 64. he probably didnt like the free speech movement, as a republican. still, its part of our history.(mercurywoodrose)99.39.149.154 (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Interstate 80 in California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Interstate 80 in California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Promote to C-Class

Here are the needs to C-Class:

The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.

Examples:

Could this article make it to C? The great Satan (Kevon kevono) (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2016 (PT)

Those criteria don't apply, per se. We go by WP:USRD/A for article assessments. As of right now, this has the Big Three (RD, history, RJL) so it merits and upgrade. However, there's plenty of work to be done in terms of citation and focus/expansion before it could go to B-Class. Imzadi 1979 → 10:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Work to B Class

Interstate 80 is a major article in the California Highways scope, and I think it's among one of the most viewed articles, behind California State Route 1 and a few other major Interstates in California. It was upgraded to C-class a few days ago and now I'm trying to get it to B-class. I have trouble researching the construction of I-80 and I need (not yours, necessarily) help. Here's the criteria (read more at WP:USRD/A):

An article that reaches the B-Class level is complete in content and structure, adequately referenced, and includes reasonable supporting materials; overall, it provides a satisfactory encyclopedic presentation of the topic for the average reader, although it may not be written to the standard that would be expected by an expert. Articles at this stage commonly undergo peer review to solicit ideas for further improvement. B-Class is the final assessment level that can be reached without undergoing a formal review process, and is a reasonable goal for newer editors.

Participants

  • Myself
  • __

From The great Satan (Kevon kevono) (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2016 (PT)

The biggest step forward would be finding newspaper articles describing how the route was constructed. For I-80, that would be looking in San Francisco and Sacramento newspaper archives (mostly), and possibly some of the other major towns with newspapers. If you're in the area, a San Francisco library card would be the most helpful (free to all California residents but you have to show up in person). Wikipedia:Newspapers.com and Wikipedia:Newspaperarchive.com do provide special access to Wikipedia editors if you sign up. Some of the links off WP:CASH#Resources might also be helpful (especially the California Highways and Public Works journals). Sadly, I don't think I can be of much help as I've been unable to do extended research lately. --Rschen7754 04:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

B-Class Checklist

I-80 isn't ready yet, but I think it's kind of close. Here's the checklist for the B-class:

  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
  3. The article is reasonably well-written.

Kevon kevono (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)(What the hell is UTC?) 13:49 (PT)

The problem is that most of the citations are to a self-published source. --Rschen7754 21:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
True, but even though SPSs should be disregarded, california highways is a very useful source. (talk) Kevon kevono (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)(What the hell is UTC?) 8;27 (PT)
It can be useful for finding reliable sources, yes. Sometimes they link to newspaper articles that can be used, and they also have done the work of figuring out what legislation was responsible for changing the official definitions of the route. It can also serve as an outline so we know what to look for in the newspaper archives. --Rschen7754 17:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
What Rschen said. The roadgeek websites are good for pointing you in the right direction, but you still have to back up your facts with reliable sources. –Fredddie™ 17:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
That's not what I meant, but thanks otherwise. I did find a few newspaper articles in California Highways, though. Kevon kevono (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 11:27 (PT)
@Kevon kevono: your biggest hurdle will be to update the sourcing. Find the appropriate newspaper sources, or switch to map-based history citations, and you're well on your way. As a side note, the generic B-Class list above isn't quite the appropriate assessment tool for USRD articles. The items 1, 2 and 4 are really the only ones that apply as the rest are covered in our general structure necessary to hit C-Class (aka the Big Three), and even at the GA level, the community doesn't actually require photos and other "supporting materials". Imzadi 1979 → 02:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
So far, here's what I got:
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline but lots of self-published citations.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
  3. The article is reasonably well written.

So all need is to deduct the number of self-published citations? Kevon kevono (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 20:36 (PT)

Those need to be reduced, yes (they are not tolerated at all once you hit the GA level). But take a look at Interstate 8 and all the information in it - is this article as complete as that one? --Rschen7754 03:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
But I-8 is a FA. I'm trying to promote this to B-class. Kevon kevono (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 21:10 (PT)
I'm going through the article for a minor copyedit now. The biggest issue I see is the article has a lot of statements that need a source, but wouldn't need a source with minor changes. An example is this statement in the lead, "The speed limit is 65 miles per hour (105 km/h) along the entire route instead of the state's maximum of 70 mph (110 km/h) since the road passes exclusively through urban and mountainous areas in California." Worded like that this needs a source, as it is implying a specific reason why I-80 has a reduced speed limit. Makes sense, but if challenged, I doubt that could be proven. But if the sentence is reworded to list two non-controversial facts, and not imply a cause and effect relationship, no source is needed. I'll play with this sentence to see if I can find something that works, but there are many such sentences in this article. Others include all the past local names for the various segments that are no longer commonly heard.
Another issue that would be good to bring up is the memorial designations. I really struggle with California road articles as that state is so enamored with memorializing everything. You can literally be driving on the Joe Sixpack bridge of the George Sixpack offramp of the Jane Sixpack Interchange of the Fred Sixpack segment of the Mary Sixpack freeway. It's to the point that a memorial designation on a highway in CA is diluted to the point of no meaning. I seriously wonder if _I_ have some memorial ditch along a highway in CA named after me. It really shows in this article, but there are worse. We may want to use this article as an example of how to handle "over memorialized" highways before trying to get I-5 or US-101 up to B class. For now I have de-bolded the memorial names (only about 1/3rd were bolded before I unbolded them all), but that may be too harsh. If a highway has only one or two memorial designations, bolding may be appropriate. Thoughts???
Another issue is this entire paragraph, what the heck does this mean? It's almost as if this paragraph was accidentally copy-pasted from an unrelated article, and needs a major re-write or simply deleted entirely, as it breaks the flow of the section:

Legislative Route 242 was defined in 1957, connecting pre-1964 Legislative Route 6 west of Sacramento to pre-1964 Legislative Route 3 northeast of Sacramento.[12] I-880, a bypass of I-80, was approved along Legislative Route 242 by the American Association of State Highway Officials on November 10, 1958.[1] The Route 880 designation was adopted by the state in the 1964 renumbering; the bypass was completed in 1972.

Last but not least, the reroute in Sacramento is discussed in three different places in the article, and both mentions present the same basic information. Similarly, there is a lot of coverage about the 1964 highway runumbering, and the changes to US&nbsp50, which may not be necessary, given there is a dedicated article for these topics. Dave (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
One final comment, admittedly this isn't necessary for B class, but noting it in case someone wants to go to GA class. The History section of this article begins with the Lincoln Highway and focuses almost exclusively on route changes since the Lincoln Highway era. Both the national I-80 article and the Nevada I-80 articles mention this, but focus less on pavement changes and include some history before the Lincoln Highway era, mentioning how the I-80 corridor originated with the California trail and the First Transcontinental Railroad. IMO, the history section should at least mention these at some level. If there's space to mention all of the route changes to US 50 (which is only tangentially related to I-80, and to be fair, I just deleted most of the US-50 history from this article) there's space to mention more relevant topics =) Dave (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyediting. I think the article has an explanation for reasons why I-80 is 65 mph, but if not, the reason is it supposedly passes through urban and mountainous areas. IMO, I-80 through the Central Valley could be raised to 70 mph.
I think the named stuff of I-80 you edited is correct and well-done. There are fairly minor named stuff of I-80 that are either half a mile long or some random interchange in the middle of nowhere. CAHighways have two sections called Named Interchanges and Named Structures, but most of them are insignificant.
LRN 6 was part of present-day I-80, but otherwise, I think it should be deleted. +1
Kevon kevono (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC) 12:13 (PDT)
After a two year hiatus, I’m back to Wikipedia. Weird that I openly swore so much back then. Kevon kevono (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Which 10 junctions should appear in the infobox

The recent (and frequent) addition of more than 10 junctions to the infobox begs the question, which 10 should be included? For the record, I have no objections to the 10 selected in the reference version, just trying to nail down the criteria should this continue to be a problem in the future, as the current selection doesn't seem to follow any consistent criteria. In this discussion I shall use this version [1] as the reference version, which is the current version as I type this. I don't think there is any debate that Interstates and US highways are the top priority, so this is a debate about the 2nd and 3rd priorities for the remaining slots.

  • Option1- Freeways have priority - Current version omits two freeway interchanges (CA-113 in Davis, CA-65 in Roseville) and has two non-freeway interchanges (CA-49 in Auburn and CA-89/CA-267 in Truckee).
  • Option 2- regional balance - As the population density, and along with it number of connecting roads, is heavily lopsided in favor of the Bay Area and against the Sierra Nevada portion, arguably priority should be given to any intersections in the Sierra Nevada at the expense of the least major bay area routes. By that logic, CA-20 in Emigrant Gap is a shocking omission. CA-20 is the only numbered highway to interchange with I-80 in the rugged portion of the western Sierra Nevada (i.e. excluding the foothills). In addition CA-20 is by any definition a trans-California route, stretching from the Pacific Ocean to near the top of the Sierra Nevada. Another one that arguably should be included is, again, CA-65, as while Roseville is usually considered to be part of the Central Valley and a Sacramento suburb, the junction with SR-65 is on the edge of town and only slightly to the west of where most people consider the central valley to end and the foothills to begin. I would argue the ones to cut if we were to free up slots for one or both of these omitted Sierra portion interchanges is one of the two mentions of BUS-80 in Sacramento and/or I-780 (yes it's an interstate, but it's also short and light traffic by the bay area standards). It's also worth mentioning that if regional balance is the priority CA-89/267 in Truckee is a sacred cow that cannot be cut as the only numbered highway to interchange with I-80 east of the Sierra crest.
  • Option 3 - longer, through routes have priority - Similar to option 2, definitely CA-20 should be included, arguably CA-65 should be, at the exclusion of one of the Bus 80 and I-780.

Thoughts? Dave (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_80_in_California/Archive_1&oldid=1218077631"