Talk:Interstate 238 and State Route 238 (California)/Archive 1

Archive 1

I-238 and SR 238 (CA)

Shouldn't SR 238 be merge with I-238? I was on the I-580 amd I-880 this summer I-238 say north and south rather than west and east. And also the 238s is section 538 and the whole alignments runs both blue white vs green white 238. I-238 is vertical because of SR 238.--Freewayguy (Meet) 22:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California State Route 238. 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/20061029162728/http://hayward-ca.gov:80/forums/rte-238/pdf/Route_238-Four_Page_NOP_11-21-05.pdf to http://hayward-ca.gov/forums/rte-238/pdf/Route_238-Four_Page_NOP_11-21-05.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Interstate 238 and California State Route 238 into California State Route 238

Mostly duplicate of existing article - including large copy/paste from that article without attribution. MB 16:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed @BenjaminTheTrainGuy:, there are rules for this sort of merge. I've reverted this for now because this should ideally be discussed. --Rschen7754 18:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Having separate articles is just silly. It is one contiguous road, with two designations sharing the same history. I don't know how you could even have 2 separate articles that weren't either redundant, or constantly referring to the other article. Ample precedent for this, including Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California) and Foothill Freeway in California alone. Dave (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support—but I wouldn't rename it as my first preference. I'd just leave it all as California State Route 238 and merge/redirect the Interstate 238 article into this one. As a second preference, we could have Interstate 238 and State Route 238 (California), but that would be a distant second option for me. Imzadi 1979 → 22:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Titling the article Interstate 238 and State Route 238 (California) has one plus, it's consistent with what has been done with similar combined articles, and I'm tempted to favor it for that reason alone. However, it's inconsistent with the conventions decided before my time at the SRNC arbcom case (or RFC or whatever it was). (For the record had I been active on Wikipedia then I'd have voted the other way, but that's another topic.) Regardless, I agree that using the state route title alone makes the most sense once you know the history, but I wonder if it would be a crap magnet for new roadgeek editors if the Interstate title was omitted. Dave (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Just make sure that Interstate 238 is featured in the first sentence. If editors can't figure it out from there, maybe they need not edit articles. Imzadi 1979 → 17:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support but I would prefer Dave's suggestion of the title. --Rschen7754 18:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• I won't vote to support or oppose the merge, but if merged, the title should definitely be something like "Interstate 238 and State Route 238" rather than just State Route 238, because there is clearly a distinction. Most people who drive on the interstate are using it as a connector between two other interstates, while the state route is an arterial road through Hayward, Union City, and Fremont. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 05:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Since the routes have the same number (even though they are different kinds of routes) they should be combined into one page and receive the same kind of treatment that Routes 15, 110, and 210 have received. Pf1127 (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

After letting this sit for almost a month with no opposes I think it's safe to say merging the two articles is the correct decision. I'm working on massaging the text of the 2 articles into 1 on my local computer and hope to publish today. Can someone else handle merging the KML/map files? Dave (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)