The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. No reason for deletion was given, and the nominator voted to keep the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of California State Routes[edit]

I did not nominate this article but the nominator did not create this page. --Rschen7754 05:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

note: The person who added the ((afd)) template, and then readded it after it was deleted, but who did not follow through on the AFD procedures to create this subpage, was 71Demon (talk · contribs). Because of his keep vote below, it is obvious that this user is making a WP:POINT in response to a vote at Templates for deletion. BlankVerse ∅ 05:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP The nominator was making a WP:POINT, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion (the section called VA Highways). Also, look at how many highways there are- wouldn't that be a huge template? --Rschen7754 05:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a very good page here. A lot of good information. On the Edit Page it states "This page is 90 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable" There is a very simiple way to solve this. Switch the List to a Template.
  • It will make the page more compact
  • It will bring it in to Wiki Compliance
  • The Template will make Navigation easier
  • No data should be lost! You have to much work for that. I'd be happy to offer my time to create the template if it would help. --71Demon 05:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No data should be lost? What about the descriptions of the routes? And how big would the size of this template be? --Rschen7754 05:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The descriptions on the List of California State Routes are all redondant. Each of the individual links have detailed descriptions carry much more info than the brief one, next to the list. A template would only need to be 10x40 to contain the listing and these File:CA-371.gif could populate the template making it colorful and easier to navigate. --71Demon 05:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How long would this page take to load on dial-up? There are over 300 of these highways, and besides, who wants to put the template on all 300 articles? --Rschen7754 05:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good point, I'm on a T-1 line and it loads slow for me. Even if you vote to keep the list, then you should probably remove all the images to make it load faster. That would help, but would that bring it under the size Wiki wants it to be? I still think the Template is the way to go to loading and ease of navigation --71Demon 05:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, there are a whopping 3 states that use the template system, and 1 of them is being converted through TFD to the list and category system. (A second is on TFD already). Meanwhile, all the other states (California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Alaska, Alabama, Kentucky, just to name a few) use the list and category system. --Rschen7754
• Not only did the nominator not complete the AfD, he has voted keep as well. If no reason is given for deletion, and no one votes to delete the article, I will plan to close this nomination early. Wikipedia:Deletion policy has a list of reasons articles can be nominated for deletion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Extremely large nav boxes are frowned upon. I had a template deleted just today :-) Template:Virginia Higher Education—which made perfect sense at the time, but I understand the reasoning now. Categories and Lists are much prefered to large, unwieldly templates. Even if it is somehow desired to generate a template from said information, there is absolutely no reason to delete the list. Presedence is overwhelming across Wikipedia on this matter. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 05:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful article with non-redundant info. I don't understand how converting to template would help. The route sign images aren't needed if size is a concern. -Willmcw 05:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I quote from the VA highways debate: WV doesn't have over 100 Primaries, and only a handful of connectors. So it works well for us being a small state.--71Demon 05:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

California is a big state- over 300 primary routes, and the most people in the nation, not to mention what may be the country's most complicated roads system. --Rschen7754 05:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, no valid reason for deletion given. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, of course, nothing even remotely controversial about this. You need the list in order to redlink, and a template would be way too cumbersome. Antandrus (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this list. Lists like this can be very useful because they can be organized and annotated. Absolutely do not create a template for the California State Routes, either as a substitute or a supplement for this list, because that template will only be a bunch of numbers that is going to absolutely meaningless for anybody but a California road geek. BlankVerse ∅ 05:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I created this afd and voted to keep it was to cause discussion. Now you got some good --71Demon 05:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)discussion going. I still think the Template is the better way to go, and easier to Navigate. But the listing methode is combersome, and you have an entry that is larger than Wiki wants. What about splitting off 0-99, 100-199, etc into seperate entries. That would bring the size down into managable numbers without the template.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.