Talk:Glendora Curve

Merge with Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California)

On July 15th the page was repeatedly redirected and reverted to Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California), similar edits have appeared in history made by the same users as are now involved with replacing the edits. This is an attempt at debating the merge in talk instead of users talk pages and edit summaries.

As taken from my talk page.

This was not vandalism, as you would have seen if you had investigated in the slightest rather than making assumptions about an IP editor. Please be more careful in future. Thank you. 91.85.188.90 (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to keep Glendora Curve merge. I don't see any other names use on google besdies LA-Orange County group chats. 75.47. keeps playing games with me.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 17:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

While your reference to the games wikiproject page is an impressive display of your knowledge of wikipedia policy, as well as going against the good faith of wikipedia's policies in a fashion similar to Gaming the system as I believe was the accusation you were attempting to bring up. The article merge is debated and has had no discussion aside from reverts between the article and the relevant redirects, and as such should be discussed on the relevant page's talk page and as such I will try to move these separate discussions onto the talk page.Ben (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As taken from talk page of 91.85.188.90

It's not vandalism, it's undoing vandalism. Look at the history, don't just go firing off at IP editors. Okay? 91.85.188.90 (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It was perfectly constructive, it's just that you don't agree with it. Please don't issue vandalism warnings unless there has been actual vandalism. Thanks. 91.85.188.90 (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Glendora curve article appears to be a subset of the article it was redirected to, but useful in it's own merit. There is no notice on the curve article and only a one sided discussion on the other article. As well there appears to be an opposition of tags asking for the merge were removed. As well looking through the history of Glendora Curve this has been an argument that has since been left to keep the article as it is as it appears. As well if you believe this is constructive and it has been repeatedly reverted you may want to put something in the articles talk page to keep from receiving a 3RR block as well.Ben (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree this merge is constructive. i can't find any other useful sources besides discussion forum. All the Los Angeles-Orange County Maps is outdate.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 14:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as the name goes it does appear to be in use both officially and otherwise, a quick search shows it both in several chat locations which are as you said not of real quality, however the first result (as of my search) turned up city minutes of a Glendora town meeting, this seems to be of enough quality. Ben (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yea; I spend over several days on this trying to find a useful source. All i see is forums and chats,those is not a useful source.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 15:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The minutes of a city meeting seem somewhat official to me, they're listed on the city's website, it may not be in the widest use but as contained in the article it is recognized and used. city meeting minutes (pdf warning google html rendering) Ben (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Further Comments

Please do not edit the above comments which are as they appear at other places on the wiki, please place all comments below here.

I have restored the article and added a refrence to a use of the term "Glendora Curve" by the Glendora city council, please note any further objections; however as there is still a large part of the article unsourced I am leaving the citation template up. Ben (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to I-210

FYI a discussion at WT:USRD about redirecting this perma-stub back to CA 210 has so far near unanimous agreement that it is not even controversial to do so. If anyone feels there is a valid reason to keep this page as a separate article, speak now or forever hold your peace. Dave (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)