Talk:Ridge Route

Other subpages: /Description

Distance Castaic to Grapevine

In the late 1920s ACSC called it 53 miles from Castaic to Grapevine; the highway had been slightly straightened by then, but not enough to shorten it much.

www.flickr.com/photos/mytravelphotos/1738553066/sizes/h/

www.flickr.com/photos/mytravelphotos/1738554088/sizes/h/

Scott's book always (?) uses California Highways as a source for distances; we might as well do the same, if you don't like the ACSC maps. But the summary in November/December 1945 Calif Hwys has at least one error (the summit elevation) so no reason to prefer it over ACSC's measurement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.244.243 (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello. If you have a new source for any new information, it should be identified in a new footnote and the old info and footnote should be deleted. We shouldn't just change the info and keep the old source. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I expanded those two URLs into citations using {{cite map}}, but it's obvious that they were published in a book or atlas. That book title needs to be added to the |title= parameter in the template, and the year of publication should replace |date=n.d. as well. If the original scale can be determined, that should be added, along with any OCLC or other identifier for the book. Imzadi 1979 → 04:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Good for you. I'm sure you will get it fixed. Thanks! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no clue about the missing details nor where to find them. That's concerning because this is a Featured Article, so it should be fixed sooner or later. Especially troubling is the lack of a publication date. Really, it's also an issue the lack of provenance of the copies being hosted on Flickr, so at some point without full details, it would be best to revert or remove the information. Imzadi 1979 → 20:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

"it's obvious that they were published in a book or atlas"

They weren't, of course. Since they weren't published together we can only guess that the flickr collection is from about the same date; if so, it's late 1920s. Not that it matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.244.243 (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is apparent that the version of the maps scanned and uploaded were published, or republished, in a book. The first has "32" in the bottom right corner, and the second has "33" in the same location. Those look just like page numbers to me.

Yes, it does matter. This is a Featured Article, and incomplete citations of unknown provenance aren't really indicative of "Wikipedia's finest work". Please help fix the citations, if you can. Imzadi 1979 → 22:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If that isn't a page number, we still have the issue of the date. If those two maps weren't published on or before December 31, 1924, they're under copyright and shouldn't be posted by the uploader on Flickr. If they're under copyright, we can't link to them per our policies on linking to copyright violations. (I've commented out the links in the citations in the article for now as a precaution.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, the uploader replied to me on Flickr. He said he's unsure of when they were published, but he thinks they're from c. 1930. So this makes using them as a source here even more problematic. I've just removed the length and those map citations until we can sort out these issues. (I've also unlinked them above for copyright issues). Imzadi 1979 → 00:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"...until we can sort out these issues."

You're not going to do that, but as long as the wrong Castaic-Grapevine mileage has been deleted it's no big deal.

If Swede's Cut is worth mentioning in the article, its location is worth mentioning. If Deadman's Curve is worth mentioning, its location is worth mentioning. And naturally the location of the 1920 picture is worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.244.243 (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Swede's Cut sounds notable enough to have its own article, which would be linked from here. As for its location here, we generally don't list latitude and longitude coordinates in highway articles, letting prose descriptions of the locations suffice. That's how dozens of other American highway articles assessed as Featured Articles handle the topic, and I see no reason to deviate from that general practice here. As for the location of the photo, that should be contained on the photo's description page. Imzadi 1979 → 23:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Find Swede's Cut on a map, using the "prose description" that you like. Find Deadman's Curve, likewise.

If you want to show the reader where something is, give him a link he can click on that will point to a spot on the map. Lat-lon is the most efficient way to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.244.243 (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, common practice in dozens of American highway articles is not to put latitude and longitude values into the body (or notes) of an article. Please do not restore them without discussion, per WP:BRD, as they've been reverted out of the article a few times. In the meantime, I've redlinked Swede's Cut, and I encourage interested people to start an article about that location (unregistered users will have to start it at Draft:Swede's Cut and request approval through WP:AFC), and I've linked Deadman's Curve as well, and I encourage others to add more content to that article about this specific location. As for the photo, we don't add coordinates to captions, directly or indirectly. The location of the photo should be on the photo's image description page, not here. (This is similar to how we don't list photographer attribution in captions, unless significant.) Imzadi 1979 → 22:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Find Swede's Cut on a map, using the "prose description" that you like. Find Deadman's Curve, likewise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.244.243 (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

(As expected, he can't locate them; does anyone agree that their location is irrelevant?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.244.243 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Unless the location is given as important in some WP:Reliable source, then, no, its exact location is not important. Wikipedia editors don't get to decide on the importance of anything, let alone where some geographical feature might or might not be. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia editors don't get to decide on the importance of anything" (!)

Then who does decide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.244.243 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

We look to the sources to determine that. Imzadi 1979 → 04:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@205.154.244.243: per WP:BRD, your additions of the coordinates have been reverted/disputed, so please stop re-adding them until the discussion here has ended with some consensus. Imzadi 1979 → 04:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

"We look to the sources to determine [what's important]"

If the source says "This is important" then you include it in the article? And if it says "This is unimportant" you don't?

Or maybe you mean: if it's in the source, it's important, and if it's not, it isn't. So the article should repeat everything in Scott's book? And nothing that's not in his book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.244.243 (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, summarizing secondary sources. So we look to see what's included in the appropriate source material. We don't include "everything" from them, because we're writing in summary style.

As for the contention that the precise latitude and longitude of a feature are important to note here, I dispute that. There are dozens of highway articles from the US, plus others from other countries, all rated as Featured Articles, like this one, and none of them that I can recall include latitude and longitude numbers for geographic features. So why would it be important to include them in this article? The coordinate location of the one photo should be part of that photo's description page, so that if a reader is interested, he or she can find it on that page by clicking the photo. (Just as that reader would also find specific details about the creator of the photo, its date of creation and the license under which we are allowed to use it.) Swede's Cut should probably have its own article, and it would have its coordinate location given there. Dead Man's Curve should be expanded to give some more information about this specific example, and the precise location would be given there. Imzadi 1979 → 05:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Imzadi1979 & would ask the unidentified editor to stop the WP:Edit war lest he or she be barred from editing any more. Thanks to all interested, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"So why would it be important to include them in this article [when other articles don't]?"

Yes, that was Wikipedia's mistake -- designating Featured articles, leading people to imagine the articles are good. Some Wikipedia articles are better than other Wikipedia particles, but none of them is good -- that's too much to expect. When editors think the article is good, it'll never get better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.244.243 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

§§ 2600:1700:F420:2F40:F93A:D1D1:3B7A:8AF6 (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)