Talk:California State Route 85/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about California State Route 85. 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

Updates made on 8/9/2005

The updates on 8/9/2005 were made by Apg520, I forgot to logon before making the updates.

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was don't move. —Nightst a llion (?) 20:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Rename to California Highway 85

This article should be renamed California Highway 85. A Google search for "State Route 85" California only turns up 589 hits, while "Highway 85" California comes up with 31,900 articles. Wikipedia's naming conventions dictate that the most common name should be used for articles. Clearly, California Highway 85 is the more common name, by a factor of 54 to 1. Gentgeen 08:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Support. This change would make this article conform with Wikipedia naming conventions. Nohat 09:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. The full proper name is State Highway Route 85, and the common name used by Caltrans is State Route 85 or SR-85. Thus it should be at State Route 85 (California). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Caltrans is inconsistent and sometimes calls it "Highway 85": [1] [2] [3] [4] Nohat 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment - "California Highway 85" is not the more common name, even if one relies solely on your Google results. "Highway 85" is. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Leave as is. Look at Category:California state highways. I think it would be a bad idea to have one highway article that looked & sorted differently from all the rest. Elf | Talk 16:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- California State Highway 17 is already an exception. This move would bring more article titles in line with the actual name people use for things. Nohat 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose 132.205.45.148 18:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I am very much in favor of naming articles by common names, whenever possible. However, in this case, the common name won't really work. Around here, we just call it 85 or sometimes Highway 85, neither of which is really appropriate for wikipedia. So, since we can't really call it by it's common name, let's use the official one. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, see arguments such as mine and Scott5114's at WP:NC/NH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, it is fine as it is. - Chadbryant 10:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Jonathunder 19:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Southern terminus was not SR 9

Article incorrectly states "Before the southern part was built the route's southern terminus was at State Route 9 in Saratoga". The road actually terminated at Stevens Creek Expressway in Cupertino. This is supported by the forth paragraph which correctly states that the unused land was used for overflow parking for De Anza College - well before the road would have reached Saratoga.

Further, SR 85 has never intersected with SR 9. While it is true that, historically, SR 9 ran up De Anza Boulevard (where SR 85 eventaully intersected), SR 9 was re-routed along Saratoga-Los Gatos Road way back in 1964 while the inital span of SR 85 (that didn't even reach De Anza Boulevard) was completed in 1967.

8.4.225.31 (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually you're incorrect. CA 85 used to be routed along city streets down to the intersection of Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd and Saratoga Avenue in downtown Saratoga (CA 9). The right of way of course existed where Stevens Creek Blvd (there is no Stevens Creek Expwy) and De Anza College are but the route numbering was located elsewhere until the freeway was finished. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

does anyone know what the new construction is all about?

I am trying to find out. Can I call CalTrans and just ask? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.176.53 (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

here it is http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/85pavementrehab/ i found it

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/85acresurfacing/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.176.53 (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

B-class observation

Is this article fairly close to B-class? I find this article very descriptive, and besides the lack of citations, I think it's pretty close.

Note: I'm not encouraging the upgrading. Yet.

Kevon kevono (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 15:11 (PDT)

"besides the lack of citations, I think it's pretty close". Those are two incompatible statements. --Rs chen 7754 00:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Alma street

Well, I thought it was a little odd that Alma st. was listed with evelyn & not with central, but I haven't read the exit sign (which I take freqently) in years. Central turns into alma, but not until the far side of Mtn View. So who knows. Elf | Talk 00:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I take the Evelyn Ave. exit every day on my way to work, and it doesn't say Alma St. anywhere. According to the CAHighways.org report on CalNExUS, there are plenty of errors in the Caltrans data, so we'll just chalk up to that (for now). :-) Nohat 00:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)