Talk:Foothill Boulevard (Southern California)

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 October 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

U.S. Streets Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Streets, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of streets in the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. StreetsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. StreetsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. StreetsU.S. city street
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Roads/U.S. Route 66 Mid‑importance

	U.S. Roads portal This article is within the scope of U.S. Route 66 task force, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. Route 66 and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. Roads/U.S. Route 66Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/U.S. Route 66Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/U.S. Route 66 task forceU.S. Route 66
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

On 9 June 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved to Foothill Boulevard. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Original route

This information is mostly from old USGS topos.

Altadena Drive, Foothill Boulevard, Shamrock Avenue, Royal Oaks Drive, Highland Avenue, Huntington Drive, Foothill Boulevard, Amelia Avenue, Foothill Boulevard, San Dimas Avenue, Baseline Road, Foothill Boulevard

It appears that the original plan was to take it through Pasadena on Colorado Boulevard: [1][2]

The part from Sunland to Pasadena was originally Michigan Avenue. Later, when the boulevard was extended to Sylmar, it used Roxford Street and Foothill Boulevard, with a gap across the Arroyo Seco. --NE2 13:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I think a categorized redirect and merge from Foothill Boulevard Milestone (Mile 11) would make sense for readers. Any objection? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes objection:

The Milestone is a U.S. National Register of Historic Places, so no. If were not a National Register of Historic Place, then yes. But is it is.Telecine Guy (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The milestone is also notable, and possibly more so, for being one of the only remnants of the Highway Commission of Los Angeles County in addition to marking Foothill Boulevard. Merging it into this article would dilute that history. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 June 2025

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foothill Boulevard (Southern California) → Foothill Boulevard – There is no other street in California named Foothill Boulevard. 2600:1700:6180:6290:497F:12F6:59A3:AB61 (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not true, Foothill Boulevard (East Bay, California) is an alternative name for a segment for Interstate 238 and State Route 238 (California). Neutral on whether this should be the primary topic. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The redirect was just created for the SR 238 segment. After a few months we could reassess if there is a primary topic. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The dabpage lists three. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.