Talk:Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California)/Archive 2

Too many images?
Currently, I think there are too many images on this article. However, I am willing to keep them if we use the Gallery tag. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the number of images is fine &mdash; and yes, I admit I have a personal bias since I took most of them. But if you wish to reorganize them with the Gallery tag, then go ahead.  --Coolcaesar 09:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yah sorry I think I added a lot more pictures and no more text. Originally I had planned to add some text about the freeway route but simply didn't get around to it. I can see why one would want to reduce the ratio of photo:text right now, but I think that as the article grows, it will be able to better accommodate the number of photos. --SameerKhan 20:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, Sameer, I think your photos are better than mine; your current camera is better than the one I was using when I shot those photos last year. Feel free to kick out my photos and keep yours in the article. --Coolcaesar 04:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I was just going to come here and bring this issue up. Seven photos and many of them point out the same things. I say get rid of all the them except the 4th, 5th and maybe the 1st ones. --Jason McHuff 07:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

History notes

 * 1956: Battery Street to SR 1
 * September 26, 1962: SR 1 to Torrance Boulevard
 * August 28, 1962?: Torrance Boulevard to 190th Street
 * July 15, 1960: 190th Street to Alondra Boulevard
 * May 2, 1960: Alondra Boulevard to 124th Street
 * September 24, 1958: 124th Street to Century Boulevard
 * July 31, 1958: Century Boulevard to 88th Place
 * April 24, 1957: 88th Place (temporary ramps) to 42nd Street
 * March 27, 1956: 42nd Street to 23rd Street/Washington Boulevard

--NE2 14:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California) → Harbor Freeway — Originally stated rationale: "Harbor and Pasadena Frwy is sort of distinctive route. Gaffey St. in San Pedro, California is eliminate like one or 2 years ago. You can still see it on some Los Angeles-Orange County map, but Caltrans have project to eliminate it. Harbor Frwy begun construction in 1952 and complete in 1964 as SR 11. US 6 I thought is old Figuerou St. Pasadena Frwy begun at 1939 and finish in 1953, and was old US 66 Aroyo Seco Pkwy if I'm right, and Pasadena Frwy is a historical landmark.-- Freewayguy  Msg USC 21:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)" 217.36.107.9 (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose. SR 110 includes a segment on Gaffey Street (and of course the Pasadena Freeway). --NE2 00:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose: The two routes are more than just Harbor Freeway as NE2 said. —  master son T - C 01:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment:Gaffey St. is delete part of SR 110 I thought.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 22:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Los Angeles-Orange County maps is outdate. This source say it starts at SR 47 to Colorado Blvd. in Pasadena.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 22:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you explain and ? The legislature may have removed that part from their definition, but Caltrans still maintains it as SR 110. --NE2 18:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

oppose merge
I thouhgt we originally oppse merge. Pasadena Frwy has it's own history. This page was terribly merge.-- 57 Free  ways  01:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

SR-110 or I-110 and infobox
Well, On 2003 green plate from Four Level interchange from US 101 South they say to I-5, I-10, SR-60; SR-110 North to Pasadena, I-110 South to San pedro. i saw it on December 2005. On July 2007 I was going north from Hollywood Frwy the new green plate say I-110 South to San Pedro; SR-110 North to Pasadena through Four level interchage. Someone put SR 110 on browsers. HIs changes like this I have to think 3 or 4 times, before i try to clean it. I just change mile of Harbor Frwy only; the whole length is 24 miles I-110/SR 110 together. The 110s have similar stories but harbor and Pasadena Frwys have its own landmarks.-- Freewayguy  Msg USC 00:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

i saw this on july 2007 on Hollywood Frwy passing Four Level interchange northbound. They say i-110 South to San pedro; SR-110 North to Pasadena.-- Freewayguy  Msg USC 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually Gaffey St. is delete part of SR 110. Harbor Frwy start alot later than Pasadena Frwy; and only Pasadena Frwy was once part of US 66.-- Freewayguy  Msg USC 16:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

75.xxx.xxx; please take a look at this site. Pasadena Frwy is the oldest; start at 1939 finish at 1953.-- Freewayguy  Msg USC 16:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at this site as well. You see when Pasadena Frwy use to be US 66. By the time its finish Harbor Frwy is only under construction, and its built in 1964, only numbering changing makes it to 1981, as use to be SR 11. Gaffey St. is delete part of SR 110. The map prior to 2004 is outdate.-- Freewayguy  Msg USC 16:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh what you say about this. NE2 said these signs are wrong. Even i saw this.-- I-405 ( Free  way) 23:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes the exit 3B from Four Level Interchange points I-110 South. Huh?-- 57 Free  ways  01:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What's this seen from Rosa parks Fwy?-- FR W  Y  00:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Move request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California) → Highway 110 (California) Much shorter, and appropriate in this case. — 98.234.28.27 (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This proposed name seems to violate WP:USSH, whereas the current name does not. –  T M F 03:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, there are probably better titles than the current, it is a bit awkward, but I don't see the need to move it. I suppose if we must have a shorter name, I'd go with California State Route 110 (as California internally considers both parts to all just be state route 110). Whatever is decided here, should also be applied to Interstate 210 (California), it's an identical situation. Dave (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dave. California State Route 110 and Interstate 110 (California) both redirect here, and the former would be an appropriate title with the proper hatnote added. The proposed name violates the naming convention at WP:USSH and should not be used at all, except as a redirect. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The current name is clunky but serviceable, while the suggested name has no real precise meaning. (If we were going to go by the California common name, the article would be "The 110" - but I don't suggest it.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agree with Ken. And "the 110" is bizarre, do you get your kicks on "the" 66? No, that song is about (U.S.) Route 66. "The 110" is presumably short for "the Interstate Highway 110 freeway" -- kinda like saying "the Maple Street road."  (Meet me at 'the' Maple and 'the' Main! - bonkers.) Keep this article name as is, a bit long but correct. Wlindley (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for the excellent reasons stated above. The anonymous user at IP 98.234.28.27 is clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia article title policies. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am familiar, but, like Beyond My Ken said, the name is "clunky", and Highway 110 is a way to refer to both highways. 98.234.28.27 (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that the form under USSH is to use the official adjective for the state, and for California that is "state route", not highway. USSH also says that the article title should have the state name first before the type and the number. The current scheme bends that to blend it with the Interstate naming convention. It might not be the most elegant, but it works.  Imzadi  1979   →   07:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Violates USSH. ---Dough4872 01:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternatives
Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California) → California State Route and Interstate 110 -- Why mention "110" twice, and I believe this does comply with WP:USSH. 98.234.28.27 (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose – create that as a redirect if you wish, but honestly that variation is even clunkier to read than the current name.  Imzadi  1979   →   03:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Imzadi. –  T M F 16:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How about simply California State Route 110 with a hatnote at the top of the page noting a portion is also designated I-210. That would resolve the Clunky title. Is that acceptable?Dave (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tentative support - of the options so far I like this the best, that may change if more options are proposed. Dave (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support this compromise, but this is one of 3 highways in California that has this situation of changing designations into an Interstate, the others being 210 and 238. Interstate 238 is a separate article from SR-238, but 210 has a combination article like this one. My actual preference is to leave this alone, make sure the redirects are in place, the two names are in boldface in the lead and leave them alone. If we had to change the title, this is the title scheme I'd use.  Imzadi  1979   →   07:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's an old discussion on Talk:Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California)/State Route 110 that said something to the effect of "Interstate 110 and California State Route 110 comprise the defined Route 110, but State Route 110 only refers to the part signed with the green shovels". Whether or not there's any basis to that claim, I don't know (and as someone who doesn't edit CA articles, it's none of my concern). I'd rather just leave the title alone since I don't think there's any need to change it. –  T M F 16:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is true. Like most states in the west, California's code only defines state route numbers. Route 110 in California code also includes what is signed I-110, California code has a "route 80" which co-incidentally has a route description that looks an awful lot like Interstate 80's =-). Dave (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Both the interstate and state route designations are used in equal importance, so the current title is probably best. The only other possible option is to split the article between I-110 and CA 110.  Dough 48  72  03:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What if we tried a split? Most numbered routes have their own article, so it could be possible to just divide it in to two articles. 98.234.28.27 (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I-5 signage
In the "I-5 signage" section, about Richard Ankrom's homemade sign, it says "the unofficial modifications remain on the sign to this day", but later on it says that the signs were removed in December 2008. Which one of these is correct?  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 05:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071031030151/http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/aboutdist7/projects/arroyo_seco/pdf/hear_doc.pdf to http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/aboutdist7/projects/arroyo_seco/pdf/hear_doc.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014034335/http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/products/Named_Freeways.pdf to http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/products/Named_Freeways.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014034331/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=250-257 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=250-257
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721033203/http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/2006all.htm to http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/2006all.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 106 (California) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Interstate 106 (California). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 March 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Turnagra (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

– More concise. Similar to how I-210's article is "Foothill Freeway" rather than "Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California)".&#32;InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 00:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California) → Route 110 (California)
 * Interstate 238 and State Route 238 (California) → Route 238 (California)
 * Interstate 710 and State Route 710 (California) → Route 710 (California)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This should be discussed as a controversial RM discussion proposal because the current article titles were previously decided by such discussions or page mergers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This should probably be discussed at WT:USRD and/or WT:HWY, This potentially affects a LOT more articles than this, hundreds across the world even, just to list a few others State Route 74 (New York–Vermont) and Las Vegas Beltway. Dave (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have notified both Wikiprojects about this RM. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * My $.02. This is coming dangerously close to undoing the naming convention that was decided in 2006, at the arbcom case at WP:SRNC. Long story short, there was a debate how US highway articles should be titled. For state routes the two main factions were State Route 14 (California) or California State Route 14; for US and Interstate highways the two main factions were Interstate 70 (Colorado) or Interstate 70 in Colorado. For the record, I think that compromise got it wrong. Where I active on Wikipedia when this happened, I would have voted for State Route 14 (California) and Interstate 70  (Colorado). So just be advised while this may seem like a trivial little name change, it potentially is re-opening some old wounds. I don't think that's a bad thing, 2006 is 16 years ago, and any hurt feelings certainly have healed by now. But it still is a can of worms, that myself, I have not dared reopen. So if you want to re-open it, your a braver man than I. Dave (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Formally Oppose on the points that Dave brought up, this would set a bad precedent. Using a different common name is one thing, undoing SRNC (especially in a hidden way like this) is another. --Rschen7754 17:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * IF (key word) I wanted to re-open those wounds, what would be the wright way? I think I could make the argument that a lot has changed since 2006, particular the number and variety of backgrounds of Wikipedia editors (in 2006 the project was in its infancy, and only known to specific types of people). However, could I, or anybody else, advertise a poll for a few weeks and if the poll yields a different outcome declare that the new standard? Or because Arbcom decreed the compromise official in 2006, would Arbcom be required to bless the idea of a new poll today? Dave (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would require ArbCom's approval but I would file a request at WP:A/R/CA just to be sure. Following that, it would need to be a WP:RFC and closed by a set of administrators (which was quite a novel idea way back then, but is standard practice for a lot of issues today).
 * My opinion - I think a lot what caused problems that led to an ArbCom case were the conduct of one specific user rather than one convention over another. I think that the discussion would be a lot more orderly in today's Wikipedia. That being said - strategically I am not sure that this is the best use of our limited editor resources: to have a lengthy discussion that could turn contentions, and then conduct 9000+ page moves after that.
 * Any discussion would practically need to factor in roads outside the US (there are way more articles of those than there were in 2006) and state-detail articles (I don't think we had any in 2006). --Rschen7754 19:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see all your points, but I still feel this is different. If you look at the two examples Dave brought up, you'll notice that they are quite similar to what I'm proposing. "State Route 74 (New York-Vermont)" is not "New York State Route 74 and Vermont State Route 74", while "Las Vegas Beltway" is not "Interstate 215 and Clark County Route 215". But with Interstates 110, 238, and 710 and their associated state routes, it's "Interstate X and State Route X (California)". So, there's that difference.
 * The titles of the interstates' articles span half the page, while the article name of the Las Vegas Beltway takes up like 1/5 of the space at the top.
 * SR 74's article title does span half the page, but if it was "New York State Route 74 and Vermont State Route 74", it would span 2/3 of the space (I know this because I used the inspect element to "change" the article title.
 * The current titles vs the proposed titles of the pages in question, compared with the points at WP:AT:
 * Current titles:
 * Recognizable? ✅
 * Concise? ❌
 * Natural? ✅
 * Precise? ✅
 * Consistent? ❌
 * New titles:
 * Recognizable? ✅
 * Concise? ✅
 * Natural? ✅
 * Precise? ✅
 * Consistent? ✅
 * Whew. That was a lot of typing. I hope you got that. InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 15:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per above.  Bobherry  Talk   My Edits  13:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons stated above. I was also active on WP back in 2006 and vaguely remember the debate over article names for U.S. highways.  I am not particularly attached to any of the alternatives, but I agree with the others that an issue this important needs to go through as a RFC.  I also wish to add that any RFC needs to be adequately advertised to get broad and deep community input.  For example, someone pushed through an RFC a few years ago on the article titles for initiatives and referendums which did not get adequate input from American lawyers (who are drilled much more intensely in close reading than lawyers elsewhere) and that is why such titles currently look like an illogical train wreck to American attorneys.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.