Talk:U.S. Route 6 in California/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 |
Fine, merge the article
I see it that multiple Wikipedians on this article suggest merging. Okay, I have no choice but to agree as well. However, if we can create a significant, detailed expansion of the article with its number of reliable sources, can it be put back up? AL2TB Gab or Tab 05:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge?
Rschen, do you really believe that this should be merged at this point? AL2TB Gab or Tab 05:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why yes. It's a whopping two paragraphs. We don't create articles for every single little stretch of road. Otherwise we'll get crap like Interstate 95 in the District of Columbia. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- As both articles exist now, yes merge them. It's silly to have a separate article for a state section when that state section is a paragraph. However, someone could write a quality article on U.S. 6 in California (especially given its history) that would be deserving of its own article. (as an example U.S. Route 91 where most of the article is its history section) If and when such an article exists, then create a separate article for U.S. 6 in California. Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wow Rschen, you've sure expressed a mouthful of sarcasm, and your language is getting off a little bit. But, why do people care? Apparently, some people actually do. Anyways, I think I might to say this more clearly. "After my recent slight expansion of the article, why do you still think about merging?" No wait, your probable response is something like: "Read the comment above." AL2TB Gab or Tab 05:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am intimately familiar with the former route of US 6 in california. Although I don't feel qualified to write an article, as I've only driven it since de-commissioning and am only a frequent visitor to the LA area. but I have several photographs I could donate to the cause if you feel you could write the prose. (have one of the 14U sign in Santa Clarita, a few of Bishop, some of Olancha, Owens "lake", the ghostramps of what was to be I-210,110 and 710 interchange in Pasadena, etc.). I fully support an article for US 6 in California, just saying with the content currently available IMO its not worth it. Davemeistermoab (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Crap" is not bad language. In fact, I've seen full-on profanity on many occasions on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I meant every word I said, which is not sarcasm. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Rschen, I wouldn't go that far. Yes, as it exists now this article should be a section on the main article. However, before the 1964 truncation US 6 in California was over 200 miles long. Ironically most of its former route is now a freeway or is being upgraded to a freeway.(The last portions of SR 14 that are 2 lane are getting widened as we speak, and US 395 is about 50% upgraded to a freeway). It's only after truncation that US 6 in california became a minor stub route. With Interstate 110 in California (which was originally built as US 6) being one of the busiest freeways in the world. To say this article IS crap is not true. There is the potential for a great article on US 6 in California. My opinion is either merge this article or find someone who can take on the project. I can help, but don't feel qualified to take the lead. I saw in National Geographic Magizine a few years back an old picture of the "4-Level" interchange in Los Angeles with the original signage (U.S. 6 and U.S. 66) (It's now Interstate 110 and US 101) and think if we could get rights to that picture, with some text to explain it, it would make US 6 in California worth its own article. Davemeistermoab (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wow Rschen, you've sure expressed a mouthful of sarcasm, and your language is getting off a little bit. But, why do people care? Apparently, some people actually do. Anyways, I think I might to say this more clearly. "After my recent slight expansion of the article, why do you still think about merging?" No wait, your probable response is something like: "Read the comment above." AL2TB Gab or Tab 05:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- As both articles exist now, yes merge them. It's silly to have a separate article for a state section when that state section is a paragraph. However, someone could write a quality article on U.S. 6 in California (especially given its history) that would be deserving of its own article. (as an example U.S. Route 91 where most of the article is its history section) If and when such an article exists, then create a separate article for U.S. 6 in California. Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with merging; this can have a decent amount of history, with template:main pointing to the current numbers, and a description of the current routing, which is itself more notable than many state routes. --NE2 01:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Terminus in Denver?
US 6 never had a terminus in Denver, much less in 1963, as the current form of the article states. The reference used is not 100% factually correct. I refer to this page, by Dale Sanderson, which appears to be better researched: http://www.geocities.com/usend0009/End006/end006.htm
This is corroborated by this page http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/us6.htm
This should be corrected. Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)