Talk:California State Route 49/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

Linking to Redirects

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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)

Route description

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

The "route description" is just a list of nearby landmarks. It doesn't actually describe the route of the highway at all. T71024 (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... hopefully someday somebody will rewrite it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That section used to be called "Points of interest". I don't know why you changed it, Rschen. howcheng {chat} 08:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a WP:USRD/STDS standard section. Also, WP:NOT a discriminate collection of information or a travel guide - that stuff doesn't belong. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as cross-referencing. howcheng {chat} 18:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary cross-referencing. It is an indiscriminate collection of information. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not indiscriminate; these are notable objects as defined by the State of California that are accessible via this highway. An indiscriminate list would include all sorts of other "landmarks", and/or those that were only tangentially related to this route. howcheng {chat} 02:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

How are the landmarks you listed related to this route? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

All of the CHLs (that I added) are either located on or directly accessible via Rte 49. howcheng {chat} 06:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not relevance. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how that's not relevant. Here we have historical sites, and the route by which they can be accessed. Please explain your reasoning. howcheng {chat} 04:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, who cares that it is CHL # 3434343423221? Secondly, the sites you listed were not very notable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you don't care, but the State of California cares. howcheng {chat} 16:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(OD) We don't write Wikipedia for the California government. Look, this information does not belong in the article. If you disagree, take it to WT:USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on California State Route 49. 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) 08:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

New Mile Post for Hwy 49

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please add the following mile post for the California State Route 49 article.

County: Sierra Mile Post: 34.26 Intersection at Bassett's corner and Gold Lake Highway. Notes: Leads to Lakes Basin Recreation Area and Hwy 89/Greaegle. Closed in Winter.

2600:1700:BD81:290:396C:EFD4:A118:AC28 (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC) Steve.Rawlinson@att.net