Talk:Interstate 805/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wikiproject

This is the first interstate (to my knowledge) that has been added to the wikiproject... I'll note things that need to be fixed. --Rschen7754 23:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yuck! It looks really bad. I had to move the I-805 sign to the left (which I believe is against wikipedia policy) to get things to look half decent. Also the I-5 box is obscured by the routebox... yuck! (although that will probably be fixed when I add more content). I'll create a redirect so that CASR 780 links to I-780 so the links will work... and some of the images don't work either. Well, it's a start. --Rschen7754 00:04, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'll fix the images tongiht. atanamir 03:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It's getting better... but it still is a mess! The state law section goes under the routebox. If there was some history info then the state law section would get pushed down... but I don't know anything about the history of this highway. --Rschen7754 03:43, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

if you want, you can put a { { - } } (without the spaces), it will put it under. --atanamir 04:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

rschen, do you think you can get any pictures of this to post up? Its a personal preference, but i like posting one picture for each of the ca/srs =) atanamir 12:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• I do not have any that I have taken at the moment; however there is always the possibility, considering that I do live in Southern California. However, I do have some for CA-241, 91, 79, and I-5, I-15 and 215... I haven't gotten around to uploading them yet. --Rschen7754 02:23, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Classification

Does this page still need to be a stub? --Rschen7754 02:57, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy of dates

Was it really approved as a chargeable interstate before its legislation was passed? I'm deleting the words soon after for now to remove the apparent chronological contradiction. - Pharaonic 09:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Control Cities

On the CA-52 connector to SB I-805, the control cities are listed as "National City/Chula Vista" . . . now, I don't know if it would be appropriate to change the Control Ciy listing here, because those control cities technically are never shown on the actual mainline freeway. Could someone clarify if control cities listed at junctions "count"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.156.222 (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

2006 sign collapse

On January 23, 2006, a recycling truck hit an overhead sign on northbound I-805 south of Mesa College Drive / Kearny Villa Road exit, sending the 18-ton structure toppling onto the freeway. A Hyundai Elantra was crushed and a Volkswagon Jetta rammed into the fallen sign, injuring the driver of the Elantra. (click here for source and more info) On December 16, 2007, a new sign structure was put into place. (source) AkiStuart (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 805/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dough4872 00:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The route description contains several consecutive sentences that begin with "It then continues" or "It then meets".

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Most of the history needs to be referenced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The route description and history could use some more details. The history appears to be missing some information.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

From looking at the article, although fairly decent, it appears to need more information and more references in order for it to be considered a GA. Therefore, I will have to fail it for now. Once more references and information can be added, the article can be renominated. Dough4872 00:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Demotion

Demoted to C; missing a lot out of the history. --Rschen7754 08:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 805/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Philroc (talk · contribs) 11:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well written?: Fail

Spelling and grammar correct?: Pass

Complies with Wikipedia:Manual of style?: Fail

Factually accurate?: Pass

Contains list of references?: Pass

Reliable sources?: Pass

No original research?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Fail

Addresses main aspects of topic?: Pass

Doesn't go into unnecessary detail?: Fail

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

"Well written" did not pass because spelling and grammar passed, but compling with the MoS didn't because the article used the word "apparent".

"Broad in coverage" didn't pass because addressing the main aspects of the subject passed, but not going into unnecessary detail didn't pass because it did go into unnecessary detail.

I have put this article on hold so that the nominator can fix these problems in 7 days.Philroc (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

(stalking) I chanced upon this review and my jaw just dropped. You've given the nominator next to no idea about how on earth they can fix this article in a state where the next GA should be simple. A far better and more collegial exercise would be to stick this on hold, ask the nominator if they can fix it in 7 days, and if they can't, then you quickfail it. May I suggest you revert the fail and do this? See Talk:Paul Butterfield/GA1 for an example. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

OK! Philroc (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, who nominated this article? Philroc (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Rschen7754 according to this diff. The GA bot normally automatically puts a note on the nominator's talk page when you start reviewing, but this message should ping him anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Philroc, I think it would be best if you gained more experience with Wikipedia (such as writing a GA) before actually reviewing an article. If you don't mind, I will be renominating this article and putting it in the queue for another reviewer. --Rschen7754 18:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstate 805/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TCN7JM (talk · contribs) 19:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I can review this later. TCN7JM 19:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I should note that I am still interested in reviewing this. TCN7JM 12:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, starting the review now:

1. You should mention somewhere in the lead that San Ysidro is a district of San Diego and not its own city, otherwise "reentering San Diego" doesn't make much sense.

   Done. --Rschen7754 07:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

2. Does the Hazard for whom the Hazard Memorial Bridge was named have a first name?

   Done. --Rschen7754 07:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

3. A couple of things, I've noticed, use 2011 stats. Specifically, I mean the AADT count and the conversion templates. You should try to update these if possible.

   Done AADT, conversion templates only have up to 2011. --Rschen7754 07:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This is it, other than the minor copyedits I have made myself. TCN7JM 07:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I meant to add the bit about San Ysidro to the lead, and not the RD, but I guess it's fine wherever. I will now pass the article. TCN7JM 07:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Usage of highway

The usage of the highway is dramatically understated in this article. There is just one sentence on average daily users and no contextualization of this figure i.e. How does it compare with similar highways? Does it represent an overall increase in traffic? What was it's effect on nearby highways upon opening?. For all the listing of costs, there is also no mention of the cost-justification for building this road. There is no comment on the composition of traffic (heavy goods, commercial, commuters, cars vs motorcyles, etc). There is no discussion of the social or economic impact of I-805. What is written is factual and to the point, but I'm amazed that this is classed as one of Wikipedia's best articles when it fails to detail the very purpose of the subject. SFB 08:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sillyfolkboy: The problem is that what you want is steering very close to original research, or information that is simply not available. Most of the San Diego roads were built in the 1960s in a very short period of time, so it's hard to match effects to specific roads. This isn't like California State Route 52, where there were significant environmental concerns, as well as a significant drop in the economy of the stores along the old road. Also, I notice that you have made no effort to locate sources for the information you want, either. I simply go off what the local newspapers say. --Rschen7754 00:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the conversation to the relevant WikiProject to get broader input. SFB 16:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Junction Locations

Readers should be able to expect that infoboxes present information in a consistent fashion across all articles with the same infobox type. This should apply to interstate highway infoboxes, even though there is great variety among the interstates - some very long and truly "interstate", and others short and lying within the same urban area, even within the city limits of a single municipality. The convention is to name the city or town where a junction is located - i.e. a municipality (or its equivalent, a CDP, when a place is unincorporated). Not neighborhoods within a city. Not districts of a municipality. Not informal "communities" that lie within formal jurisdictions.

To date, the infobox has presented three different location types: a municipality ("National City"), a "generic" municipality ("San Diego", undifferentiated by a community within the City of San Diego), and communities within a municipality ("Otay Mesa", "Mission Valley", etc. - all of which are part of the City of San Diego). This is inconsistent. This is confusing.

To conform with infoboxes of other interstates, the junction locations should be the CITY (or equivalent, as noted above) where the junction is located - for I-805, there are only two cities with junctions: San Diego and National City.

If instead this article should break with convention and name communities within cities as the junction locations - then to be consistent:

- The SR 15 Junction would have to be placed in "City Heights / Greater North Park" rather than "San Diego"

- The SR 94 Junction would have to be placed in "City Heights / Encanto / Southeastern San Diego" rather than "San Diego"

- The SR 54 Junction would have to be placed in "Southeast National City"

While achieving a form of consistency, this would make the infobox clunky...and not very "concise".

We wouldn't indicate the junctions of I-15 as being in Montana, Pocatello, Utah, and San Diego (thus mixing cities and states) - so why would we mix cities with neighborhoods for the I-805 junctions? Listing "San Diego" as the location of all but one of the junctions of I-805 may be "repetitive", but it is FACT - as well as being consistent with other interstate article infoboxes. - Trorov (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"as well as being consistent with other interstate article infoboxes" is a red herring - just because "other Interstate Highway articles do it" doesn't mean that it's the most appropriate thing to do. --Rschen7754 02:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And why would it not be appropriate to fulfill reader assumptions that infoboxes present information in a consistent fashion across all articles with the same infobox type?

But ignoring that point, and the hundred-plus other interstate infoboxes, the article is still internally inconsistent:

- For some junctions in the City of San Diego, it indicates "San Diego" as the location, but for others, a community name is indicated. There’s no rhyme or reason for this.

- The Exit List section of the article exclusively indicates cities as the junction locations, and does not mention the community names at all. Isn’t the infobox supposed to summarize the article? It should then provide the junction locations that appear in the Exit List, and only the junction locations that appear in the Exit List: "San Diego" and "National City".

- Finally, the southern terminus is closer to Tijuana than the northern terminus is to Del Mar - why doesn’t the infobox read "near Tijuana" instead of "San Ysidro"? Why are we using this imprecise "near Del Mar" when it in fact lies IN the Sorrento Valley community of San Diego? -- Trorov (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How many of those "hundred-plus other interstate infoboxes" are part of featured articles? --Rschen7754 02:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Has a “featured article” achieved sainthood and perfection, such that there is no edit that could ever be made to improve the article? This article, “featured” or not, contradicts itself as explained above. We should let the internal consistencies stand, just because it’s been “featured”? - Trorov (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You never answered my question, and the thing is that a featured article has been reviewed by both subject experts and experienced "general" editors, so it is better to discuss controversial changes once reverted. Please see WP:BRD. --Rschen7754 02:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your question is moot, because I’m no longer arguing that the article needs to be edited solely for consistency with other articles, but from the perspective that it is inconsistent with itself. Discussing “controversial” changes - that’s what I’m trying to do here, what about you? How about discussing the issues I’ve raised themselves, rather than reiterating the article’s “featured” status? - Trorov (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:RJL uses the designated city that the junction is located in. The infobox is not bound by the same constraint. --Rschen7754 03:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I’m not sure why my motivations remain so unclear. I’m not arguing that there are constraints that the infobox is not adhering to. Rather, that the infobox presents different information than the Exit List - for no apparent reason - and that the information it presents is inconsistent with itself (naming “San Diego” as a location in some instances, while naming a community within San Diego in others). Regardless of whatever “constraints” may currently be in fashion on Wikipedia, surely an article should not contradict itself. -- Trorov (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Trorov: you're missing the obvious. The infobox is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, not just the article. Try reading the route description, you'll see those neighborhoods are mentioned (although some could be better mentioned). So long as the information in the infobox is present in the article, who cares? –Fredddie™ 00:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what difference you are making between the "entire article" and "just the article". If the junction locations are changed to city names only, one could make your same argument: so long as the information in the infobox (the city names) is present in the article (they are, in the Exit List), who cares?

As it stands, we still have two junctions in San Diego that are “orphaned”, such that the communities that they are located in aren’t indicated in the infobox (against the convention that is being used in this infobox, apart from its many dozens of counterparts); and we still have junction locations that don’t relate to the Exit List at all. The reader is bound to be confused why the Exit List says a junction location is in one place, while the infobox says something else. - Trorov (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Potential Typo

Did the The San Diego Union really misspell "milion" on October 23, 1971?

Will fix it, but {{sofixit}} exists for a reason... --Rschen7754 04:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Already  Done. Imzadi 1979 → 04:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 805. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111063936/http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070328/news_1mi28merge.html to http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070328/news_1mi28merge.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928061742/http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/facts/805ManagedLanesNorth.pdf to http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/facts/805ManagedLanesNorth.pdf

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) 16:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)