Talk:Golden State Freeway

Untitled

I'm from the UK, and it may be obvious to an American what a 'control city' is in terms of the freeway, but I don't and I'd appreciate it if somebody who did know could add a definition/explanation to the article under the ' Control Cities' heading. Thank you. Saccerzd 17:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Exit List

Splat5572 (talk · contribs) keep adding the exit list back to I-5 article. This makes the exit list repetitive, and I'm not sure if the list is still need here.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 03:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is over time, the exit lists gets outdated. We can't just simply copy-and paste, because I-5 and Golden State Freeways have two different rowspans. The exit list should definitely be here, and link to it on I-5.--Freewayguy ^{Ask questions? See the sodas I've drank} 19:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverted merge

There was absolutely no consensus, nor even discussion, for such a major move. As the merge was controversial, there needs to be a merge proposal discussion. See Wikipedia:Proposed mergers.--Oakshade (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please revert; this article is redundant. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Like the Santa Ana Freeway, it is a distinct freeway.--Oakshade (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So? That doesn't mean it deserves its own article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, like Santa Ana Freeway, it does. A very long urban Freeway, one of the primary Los Angeles freeways, that is distinct from all all freeways and all other sections of Interstate 5.--Oakshade (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As it is, this article is really short and can be effectively covered in Interstate 5 in California. At USRD we are trying to cut down on subarticles that effectively say nothing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A 14,652 bytes article is not a "really short" article. Besides the content already in the in the article, the extremely high amount of reliable sources on this freeway dating back to 1950 indicates potential for an article over 3 times its currently large size.--Oakshade (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Then you read them and add citations to them. You know, you would have a lot better chance of convincing me and most other editors to switch our votes if you actually bothered to do that RIGHT NOW.

A major problem with Wikipedia is that there are a lot of foolish editors who split articles hoping someone else will work on either the article that was split off or the article it was split from. Then no one works on either because no one has the time to keep the two topics synchronized. Which is why we have so many bad articles.

Plus you're not noticing that the largest component of the article by far is the exit list. Which could easily be merged into the Interstate 5 in California article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no deadline. There's no "RIGHT NOW" clause in any of our guidelines. For some articles it takes a great deal of time for improvement. I don't have the time nor inclination to fully revamp an article immediately just to please an impatient demanding user.--Oakshade (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your last sentence effectively concedes my point. When you do have the time, perhaps in two, three, or four years, then you can expand the relevant portion of the Interstate 5 in California article with reliable sources and well-written prose. And then when that article gets very, very long, we can have this conversation again about having a separate article about the Golden State Freeway. But WP:DEADLINE makes no sense in the context of WP's core policies (NPOV, NOR, and NOT). Otherwise we could tolerate all kinds of libelous and biased original research on the ground that we could always fix them in the future. Well, as any economist can tell you, in the long run, we are all dead (John Maynard Keynes). Or as any lawyer can tell you, justice delayed is justice denied. Also, you're not seeing that the time you're spending on this debate might be better spent on gathering those alleged "extremely high amount" of sources (which you have not produced any proof of); and to answer the obvious question, I'm not going to do it myself because this is not one of my highest-priority articles. I've been busy gathering and reading sources for other articles (see my recent contributions to Visa Inc.). --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a freeway is a WP:BLP issue and how there could be "libelous and biased original research" in the article. It's not going take "perhaps in two, three, or four years" to improve an article and again, a single user's demand that the article be improved "RIGHT NOW" will be ignored unless there really is something libelous and biased, which of course there isn't. I'm sorry you feel the need for an instant completely re-written article. If you truly feel this topic is worthy of its own article, then you are free to contribute to this project and make improvements as quickly as you like. As for the available sources that you are claiming are "alleged," Google books and news archives alone are showing plenty of sources that can potentially serve a very long well-written sourced article.[1][2] --Oakshade (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's hilarious. You're the user who's insisting this article be kept separate, despite its numerous deficiencies, yet you're too lazy to fix it yourself, and then when I point out that latter fact, your response is "you fix it." Well. That just proves my point, again! Read my statement above again. This is not one of my highest priority articles, and as you've just proven, it's clearly not one of yours. (If it was one of yours, you would have begun to fix it already, but I don't see any efforts in that direction.) Frankly, it's kind of bizarre that you're saying "if you truly feel this topic is worthy of its own article," because if you had paid attention to all my statements on this talk page, I don't feel that way. Actually, you're the one who's taken that crazy position all along.

So that proves my point; namely, because NO ONE, you included, has the time, energy, or interest to fix this article, the salvageable content should be merged into the Interstate 5 in California article, where it will actually make sense in the larger context of the entire interstate route---versus being the incomplete mess it is now. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you bringing a straw man into this? I only said I don't have time "RIGHT NOW" (all-caps is your emphasis, not mine) to fix it, not ever. Your request was that the article be improved "RIGHT NOW." That's the point. It doesn't have to be "RIGHT NOW." Eventually, maybe in a couple of weeks, I'll or another editor will get around to it. Falsely representing every Wikipedia editors' interest in improving a single article is what is truly hilarious. Now please stop with this childish personal attacks and edit constructively. --Oakshade (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Merge with Interstate 5 in California. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

• Strong Oppose to this merge. This is a very long distinct and historic freeway and one of the primary freeways of Los Angeles. There is far too much topic-specific content to be merged.--Oakshade (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Where is the topic-specific content you speak of? 1 paragraph in the route description. That is it. The earthquakes section belongs elsewhere (Newhall Pass interchange) and the exit list can be added back easily for better flow of the Interstate 5 in California article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As for topic-specific content, I've added an early history section which is specifically about the Golden State Freeway and not Interstate 5.--Oakshade (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But is that enough? It's like just over a paragraph. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're suggesting. Merge every article that's only a paragraph or two about a specific topic into a more general topic? This section would be inappropriate for the Interstate 5 article as it's not about that topic.--Oakshade (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support I have no doubt that a unique quality article could be written about just this portion of I-5. However this article in its current state frankly isn't worth keeping. To list a few: the Route description is written backwards, the only history is completely redundant with other articles (e.g. Newhall Pass Interchange), the claim that it extends to the junction of SR-99 is both unsourced and dubious, and such gems in the wording such as "is still legally unofficial" I honestly think starting from scratch would be easier than fixing the issues this article has.Dave (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is reason for expansion of the article along with some content improvement. I never subscribed to the "We must kill this article in order to save it" method of editing.--Oakshade (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If someone were to improve this article to a solid C class, with little to no redundant content to other articles, I would change my vote. My vote is based on my skepticism that it can/will be done before this discussion is closed.Dave (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Wow I really feel dumb for not noticing the route description being backwards. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support I concur with Rschen7754. What topic-specific content? If this article had 20 to 30 paragraphs of real content, I would oppose the merge, but as it currently stands the single longest component of the article is the exit list! It would be clearer to have one single exit list under Interstate 5 in California instead. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - this certainly could be a good separate article, and it seems wasteful to merge only to split in the future, but I don't really care. --NE2 07:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. If this were more developed, with more content specifically about the Golden State Fwy, I could see keeping it separate. As it stands now, the article seems largely redundant and is not in good shape. (If for some reason this isn't merged, somebody please revise the first 12 lines of the junction list--somehow I doubt there are four separate instances of exit 134B!) --LJ (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the earthquake section is rather long and would be inappropriate for the California article. --Oakshade (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I said above it belongs in the Newhall Pass interchange article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral - This article could go either way. It is a fairly short article and overlaps with Interstate 5 in California, so the information could logically fit there. However, the information could overwhelm that article if it is to be expanded, as I-5 in CA covers a nearly 800-mile-long stretch of road. For that purpose, it may be better to keep Golden State Freeway as a separate article. Dough4872 (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support per above - article is generally redundant to Interstate 5 in California. Mgillfr (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• How is the "Early history" section about the Golden State Freeway and its affect on the Mexican American community and all the sources specifically written about the Golden State Freeway redundant to Interstate 5 in California? --Oakshade (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case you can merge the info; Golden State Freeway isn't big enough to stay on its own. Mgillfr (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

How can you merge content about one topic into an article that is about a different topic? And since when are stubs banned?--Oakshade (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This addition is an excellent start. This is exactly the type of content that needs to be added to save this article. Well done, and I encourage you to continue. However it is a start, there's lots more to do. The history section of the parent article, I-5 in CA, is still very short and could still easily absorb all of this content. Also the discrepancy of where the northern terminus is, needs to be resolved and soon. The claim in the article that some teenager in the valley has more authority to declare the northern terminus than the state legislature is unacceptable. Dave (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support, I see no reason the article at Golden State Freeway as it stands now should be separate from the rest of I-5. There is not much unique content there. Gateman1997 (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that most people are okay with merging this article; thus I will see about getting this poll closed within the next few days. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.