Talk:Interstate 605/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Comment

Is there any reason that a regular Interstate infobox couldn't be used here, to quell the revert war? ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 21:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it was decided when the Interstate project started that in CA at least 3dis are the pervue of the State project since they are California State Routes in CA, not interstates. California makes no distinction between CA and I routes.Gateman1997 21:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

South extension to Orange County (Highway 1)

How come on CSC I saw it extending to Highway 1, but I never hear any plans to extend the 605 to the Highway 1? This is odd.--Freewayguy (Meet) 02:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I did see them on Interstate-Guide and LA highways. Interstate-Guide is not very reliable. I never hear full stories about it.--Freewayguy (Meet) 05:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that, one of the teacher at school told me is because the 605 South will lead the highway straight to the ocean. There is also Mational Wildlife center in Seal Beach, the blue-green land, and this may cause pollutions to the beach and disruption of animals.--Freewayguy (Meet) 21:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

SR 1 was going to be a freeway, and that's why a lot of other freeways were going to connect to it. --NE2 08:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

History section

I thought the 605 section (from 10 to 210) around west-West Covina is use to be Hwy 243, anyways the alignment is made in 1964. The Chargable Interstate is 1956 I thought. Not many people in Metro-Orange-Los Angeles likes the 605.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 20:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I-605 Frwy

On green guide signs they don't use San Gabriel River Freeway; only legislations and map use it. I've been on the 605 Frwy many times and From Valley Blvd. to I-605 interchange at El Monte/West Covina they just say I-605 Frwy north/south, I was going from South St. to 605 Frwy over summer they just say I-605 Frwy south. Technically, they dont sign the I-605 as alt name outside.--Freewayguy ^{Discussions Show all changes} 01:38, 14 June 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Interstate 605 → Interstate 605 (California) — Per WP:USSH, since there are two different I-605 highways, this article (Interstate 605) should be a dab page, and the article regarding California should be moved. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS ("If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed – it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article.") The other I-605, Interstate 605 (Washington), has never existed as an actual road and is not even an active proposal for one. — AjaxSmack 03:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. If both interstates actually existed, or the Washington one was creating a lot of controversy, then I'd agree with this move, but as only one exists I think it's pretty clear what topic readers are more likely to be looking for and so per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC things should stay as they are. Dpmuk (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, an extant designation is far more significant than a proposed one. Powers ^T 14:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per above. – T M F 15:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - The CA I-605 is the only I-605 to have physically existed and been built. For comparison, Interstate 170 covers the MO I-170, the only one that currently exists. The former one in Baltimore is titled Interstate 170 (Maryland). Dough 48 72 23:16, 25 January 2011 (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.

Statement removed from article

I removed this statement, as it is dubious, adds little to the article and only partially supported by the source, "Originally it was planned as I-13 running from Interstate 5 to I-15." CAhighways.org does mention this was briefly (key word) proposed as I-13, but as an urban freeway, not as extending to I-15. Dave (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Dave, that statement was mangled from the first one that was inserted in this edit. I've added the pre-construction numbering sequence back in and updated the source. There always seems to be interest in any possibility of an "Interstate 13", so I don't think it hurts to mention this. — Gorthian (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 605. 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:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 605. 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/20111115132742/http://scvresources.com/highways/la_tidbits.htm to http://www.scvresources.com/highways/la_tidbits.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)