Talk:Construction of California High-Speed Rail

Missing Footnotes

Not sure what happened to them. They were all working when the draft was created. Will need to get them back. Robert92107 (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

(NOTE: They should all still be in the original material in the main article.) Robert92107 (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

CP2-3 section has been overlaid in error

Someone has overlaid the CP2-3 section in error with the data from CP1. This needs to be backed out of ASAP! 104.13.86.6 (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Exclude minor structures like canal relocations from tables

Thank you for your efforts @Robinaire:, but I do not think it is appropriate to list the status of canal relocations. Tracking each grade separation in a table is already a bit borderline for Wikipedia, though given the public interest on construction progress, ok. But tracking canal relocations is just too much. That should better be left for a blog or dashboard on an external site. The Authority itself tracks them under utility relocations, and not under major structures by construction package. Further, their construction status is not communicated explicitly anywhere, and citing the EIS is not sufficient in terms of reliable sources. (It only confirms the planned existence of the canal crossing as per environmental impact review, not its status.) But overall, notability is the main issue here.

Also pinging @Tol: as it's related to a recent revert. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@DracaenaGuianensis, I largely agree with this. I think that we should be focusing on projects for which independent sourcing exists — generally there is at least some for grade separations, but not for individual canal relocations. I would propose the selection criteria of either being considered a major structure or otherwise demonstrating independent coverage. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the explanation on this matter @DracaenaGuianensis and @Tol. I can agree with the focus being on the major structures. While I was adding any major structures that were missing in the list or recently discovered and recently communicated by the Authority, I had seen a few canal relocation/culvert projects already existed in the list prior to my attempt at adding those structures or any of the canals I had added. So was not sure if the canal projects I had added were needed to be listed as well considering the canals already listed I am not sure are communicated explicitly as well. Appreciate your efforts of helping clean up the page and establish a criteria as well especially in the event future construction packages for CAHSR are commenced and listed. Robinaire (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

No worries, and thank you very much for your efforts! This article had been an ill-disciplined mess for a long time. But now it already looks much better than before, though the prose still needs an almost complete rework. Well ... one day!

DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

No problem! Happy to help organize info on such an important project. And I agree as well. When I first made edits to the page, it was a bit disorganized and had too many outdate statuses and missing projects, and with the Authority at the time not updating their pages consistently and in timely manner, people had no great source to go to for the latest updates. Fortunately nowadays, both the Authority and here have made improvements as well as we have more valuable contributions from individuals on the ground with their drone coverages to better inform the public of the progresses made! Robinaire (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)