Talk:California State Route 14/Archive 1

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.

Archive 1

History notes

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[1] - 14U runs between ~Rainbow Glen Drive and ~San Fernando Road (old 126)

1918 routing (Routes 412, 413)

Bouquet Canyon, Elizabeth Lake, Munz Ranch, gone, 120th (gone), D, 115th (gone), gone, Gaskell, gone, Manley, gone to Mojave
alongside railroad (gone), SR 14 (very roughly)

--NE2 01:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The future section

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The future section of this article contains speculative claims, has POV issues, and needs sources. I'm willing to work on this article, I'm relatively familiar with CA-14, but am not up-to-date with the transportation planning for the region. Would someone else be willing to help out with this section? Dave (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The Major Cities box has been re-added

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I see the Major Cities box is back. I see two problems.

Box claims that cities in bold are officially designated control cities. Please provide the offical Caltrans log of control cities. AFAIK, it doesn't exist, as such there is no official list, and it is inappropriate to claim there is one.
There are errors in the box. I defy anybody to show ma a BGS along the route 14 corridor showing Santa Clarita as a control city, to name one. I'm not claiming to have every sign memorized, but I am very familiar with this road and I don't believe there is one.
I strongly disagree with the directional markers. It's a no brainer that a a city at the southern terminus would only be listed as a control city driving southbound, etc. IMO the directionals are worthless clutter. Dave (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to also see the archived discussion at User:Zzyzx11/Archive21#Control cities box. After that discussion back in February, I initially removed them from all the CA road articles, but was mostly reverted by another user[2] (who ended up being banned in April for an entire different reason) Therefore, I have no objections to remove them again if we cannot find a good source to reference. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just about all of the major cities boxes should be removed immediately from articles. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What about potential layout of boxes designed to fit sources? Mgillfr (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be great... if there were sources. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is going to remove the control city boxes for you Rschen7754. If you want that done, do it yourself. Mgillfr (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I am reverting the addition to the infobox of this being the "aerospace highway". My reasoning, searching google for "aerospace highway", not one hit aside from this article and it's clone on wikedia rip sites, refer to CA-14. The first hits outside of wikipedia and its clone sites refer to U.S. Route 101 and Utah State Route 83. In other words just because the legislature wrote the name down on a scap of paper, doesn't mean the public is using it.Dave (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As a resident of one of the cities the 14 passes through, we do not call it the Aerospace highway. Ever. On any stretch. Matthewedwards : Chat 07:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about shading in the Intersections table

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should exits 6A/B, 37, 43, be shaded pink for "incomplete access" as these are either northbound entrance/southbound exit or southbound entrance/northbound exit.

Also, technically, the southbound entrance at 20th St West is on Avenue J-8 behind the Shell station. I've tried to update the table but keep messing it up. Matthewedwards : Chat 04:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I would ask this question to User:Imzadi1979. I doubt he watches this page, as he works on highways further east, but he was an advocate for the shading system we currently have. I haven't kept up, as I don't view the exit list as an important section, I just follow what is written at WP:ELG the best I can. Dave (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Information about the railroad branch line is out of date

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding the railroad branch line in the "Trails" section, there is an inaccuracy in the statement referring to the railroad, "However, the portion from Mojave to Route 14's terminus near Inyokern is still active and used for connections to the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake and Trona Railway." This is out of date by several years. According to abandondedrails.com, and my own experience, this branch line, also known as the "Lone Pine Branch" has been out of service since "some time between 1972 and 1984". The rails have been physically removed before they cross US395 just north of Searles Station all the way to Lone Pine, so the railroad does not reach the terminus of SR14 near Inyokern.

http://www.abandonedrails.com/Lone_Pine_Branch

The rest of the sentence still applies because the branch line still connects to Trona from Searles Station and the Navy has a spur on that line in Teagle Wash, but neither of these are very close to the routing of SR14. After the railroad and SR14 separate near Jawbone Junction, they never come within 15 miles of each other again. Being that the article is about SR14 and not the railroad, I suggest that the reference to that part of the railroad be remove rather than updated. Mcsew2k (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The map I used a source showed the tracks extending to the base, with the line abandoned north of the base. From my personal experience I knew the line was abandoned north of Ridgcrest, but did not know the abandonment extended farther south. So this is simply the case of using an outdated map as a source. However, this is easily fixable. I'll give it stab. Dave (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, as to your point on relevance. My thought behind including that comment is the reason why the road was built in the first place was because the corridor was already being used by rail and trail. I agree that they deviate by several miles at the northern end. However, at the high level, it's clear they follow each other. This is fairly common in mountainous areas in the west. As trains must have gentle gradients, but can turn relatively sharp corners, verses highway traffic which can climb steeper grades but cannot corner as sharp and stay on the road. It's common for road and rail to used different routes over, under or through mountainous areas. Perhaps the best example of this is the Denver-Salt Lake arterys. Any map scaled enough such that both cities are visible, it's clear that U.S. Route 6 (ironically enough, the origns of the highway being discussed here) follows Denver and Rio Grande Railroad, at that level the two paths practically trace each other. However, looking at maps that zoom in with a more magnified scale, at points in the Rocky Mountains, the two arteries are 30 miles apart and separated by thousands of feet of solid rock. Regardless the two corridors are clearly related. Dave (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A hatnote is needed here

Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

I attempted to add a hatnote to List of highways numbered 14 and got reverted. However, in this case it is needed. Many of our readers come here from Google or other search engines, and that is how I wound up at this page - [3]. While I know results vary, in my case, the California highway was the first result, and the list of highways didn't even appear on the first page. As a result, many users who land at this page didn't intend this page and need the link to the disambiguation page. Ego White Tray (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, why would someone click California State Route 14, if that is not what they are looking for? We don't write our articles for the convenience of Google. --Rs chen 7754 07:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Because they expect to see a helpful hatnote pointing to the article they want, of course. We write our articles and hatnotes for our readers, and they use Google, so we need to reflect this reality. As usual, I don't really hear a good reason to omit the hatnote. Ego White Tray (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"Because they expect to see a helpful hatnote pointing to the article they want, of course" -> {{cn}}. They will usually include the state name in the search - that was one of the major premises of WP:SRNC.

"We write our articles and hatnotes for our readers, and they use Google, so we need to reflect this reality" -> so now Wikimedia endorses Google, and we must write our articles to include their commercial SEO techniques?

"As usual, I don't really hear a good reason to omit the hatnote." -> because it's unnecessary clutter, and because it isn't included in the other 10000 articles, so there is no reason to include it here. And your saying that it is not a good reason is not authoritative. --Rs chen 7754 08:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, the order of the results varies depending on your location, so if you are far from California, it will display a different result first... --Rs chen 7754 08:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NAMB would apply here. "California State Route 14" is an unambiguous title, and "Highway 14" does not redirect here. "Highway 14", as an ambiguous term, does redirect to "List of highways numbered 14". As for the Google issue, I do not find that persuasive. If you think it is, I would recommend that you suggest our guidelines on hatnotes be amended first. Imzadi 1979 → 09:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

NAMB has no consensus and has been repeatedly argues without resolution. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm this is Google altering search results for local interest and not a true universal popularity contest. I used Google.ca to force Canada localization instead of western US, and the first hit is for a hockey team (seriously!) and the second hit was for Alberta Highway 14, so CA 14 will not universally turn up as the first hit of a google search. It would be different if, for example, CA 14 was a scientific term where localization wouldn't matter.Dave (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

on a tangential note, is there anyway to force Google to use localized result for another part of the US aside from where one actually resides? (aside from IP address spoofing?) Dave (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I live in the eastern half of the country, and this article appears as the first search result on Google. As for the argument above, this is not the forum to argue that a guideline lack consensus for its implementation. Unless or until that guideline is altered by the wider community, I will support following it. Imzadi 1979 → 07:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

A guideline that says it "can" be removed - and also "There are cases where some editors strongly believe that such hatnotes should be included." If we didn't title all highway articles with the name of the jurisdiction, one could argue this is the primary topic for the title Highway 14, as it is quite long, very busy and mostly freeway. So, this is one of those cases where a hatnote is appropriate. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You might want to re-evaluate that primacy argument since there are many, many other highways with the number 14 in the world. U.S. Route 14 is over 1,400 miles in length, so it's quite a bit longer than this one. M-14 (Michigan highway) is all freeway and quite busy connecting part of Detroit with Ann Arbor. There are very few cases where one highway is a primary topic for a specific number. U.S. Route 66 would be in for "66", and for all other double-digit numbers, the situation does not support any finding of primacy.

As for the "can" vs. "should" be removed, you're a lone voice arguing against a majority of other editors calling for the removal. You may feel strongly, but there is a stronger and larger group arguing against you. Imzadi 1979 → 22:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on California State Route 14. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)