Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Discussion

I have commented out the style guide box and put the shortcut template in for now, so teh shortcut still shows but this is not a style guide yet, and won't be unless it is widely accepted. I note a small revert struggle just happened, and I'd warn both parties to discuss here rather than revert again. Make the case that it should be a guide even when unaccepted, if you think you can. ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny, wide acceptance wasn't necessary for principle I. But my intent here was never to call it a guideline but a proposed guideline - I see the proposed tag as modifying whatever's below it. --SPUI (T - C) 05:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed a slight issue with the "proposal" template. It might perhaps be cloned or parameterised so as to make explicit "proposed policy", "proposed guidelines", etc. Or as a brutal hack, subst: it, and edit the text down by hand. Alai 05:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this is basically what CBD suggested. --SPUI (T - C) 05:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Diff? I don't see it in that link. He said a lot of things in there. I have no problem with this existing, and with it capturing the final result but it's proposed, not a style guide yet. putting it in the style guide category is disruptive and you should know better. Don't do it again. ++Lar: t/c 05:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Right at the top, in the numbered list. --SPUI (T - C) 05:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

and what is this : [1] if you KNEW this was PROPOSED why on earth would you put it in the guide to centralised discussion??? Out it goes. Dont' add it again. ++Lar: t/c 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Centralized discussion is for proposals. Wikipedia:German de-adminship solution is marked as proposed but is clearly listed there. --SPUI (T - C) 05:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you arguing whether or not it is proposed or final? The difference between the two, is that the former indicates that the article (in this case) is being formed through a centralized idea based on a consensus, and the latter indicates that the article (in this case) has solid standing. The final version is not complete and will not be until the voting ends for all the parts. Therefore, it is still proposed, and since it is cut short and is incomplete, I can't even see how this can even be considered a done-deal. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I know this is proposed - I marked it as such. Lar removed it from {{cent}}, claiming that is not for proposals. --SPUI (T - C) 06:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(After edit conflict. I hate edit conflicts. Get me a decent wiki-engine, this one is broken.) The criticism in this case seems to be one of "venue-shopping". I agree that it's addressing a technically different area of concern, but since the fur's still flying at the first poll, perhaps let things lie there for a while before going into high gear on the "damage limitation exercise". Alai 06:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, after edit conflicts half the time I just give up and don't post. I wish there was some way you could get an auto conflict resolver where when two people comment in different places the wiki automatically fixes it. But anyway... yeah let's let this one lie until Part 3 or so. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, and for example pmwiki for one thing does exactly this, without problems. (Ironically enough I run a pm-powered wiki that sees so little use that this is never an issue, and meanwhile people are tearing their hair out by the dozen over these things here....) Even semi-automated ("I've tried to fix your ec, this look OK to you? fix by hand if not") would be something. Alai 06:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is inevitable that we will have a page documenting how roads should be named, but generally I think it should wait until that has been fully worked out. And while I appreciate the irony in SPUI not parenthetically disambiguating, this page should probably follow the precedent of the other sub-pages of Wikipedia:Naming conventions like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), and so forth. The title seems to imply more a 'manual of style' type guide than strictly a naming guide... which would also make sense if there are going to be significant issues beyond the names. If it's just how the names are linked to then I think that could probably be incorporated into a naming convention document. --CBD 07:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a manual of style-type page, not a naming convention, though I could see it merged into a naming convention. --SPUI (T - C) 07:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and it would probably be at Wikipedia:U.S. state highway naming conventions :P --SPUI (T - C) 07:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Would or should this page include every state's/territory's/district's decided convention (when part 2 is finished)? It would seem beneficial to compile all that here instead of all over Wikipedia at individual WikiProjects... if that wasn't the plan already. --TinMan 07:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should, this page should be a guide to all of US state highway writing, and that's definitely a part of it. --Rory096 16:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing that we need on this page is a good reason for our choice of principle 1 - something we can point people to when they ask why highways don't follow use common names and are not located at the place they are easiest to link to. I haven't seen one yet. --SPUI (T - C) 16:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that a significant number of people for some reason just can't stand parentheses in the title. The reason for choosing principle 1 is probably related to why we have city articles like Fukuoka, Fukuoka instead of Fukuoka (city). A lot of reasons are "for consistency" or "that's the current naming style" or "people might get confused if you don't include the containing place". --Polaron | Talk 16:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We include the containing place in both examples here. It basically boils down to "parentheses are ugly" plus a few other lightweight arguments that have their match on the other side. --SPUI (T - C) 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But the rigid format of Principle I was the one that was chosen. Let's try and make the most of it for now and work on the style guide and see how it goes. --Polaron | Talk 17:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just adding that almost all the articles for US cities also do not conform to WP:NC(CN) because of the comma convention so naming conventions that don't conform to common names are not unusual. I think the only way for people to follow common names more is to elevate that to a policy. --Polaron | Talk 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

City, State is a pretty common name - kind of like State Route vs. Route in some states - Route is more common but State Route is still somewhat common. --SPUI (T - C) 17:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to use the reasons listed at Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll#Problems with Principle II. --Rory096 17:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

None of which are good reasons. "We" need something to convince people not to come back later and argue this again. Is there such a thing? I haven't seen it. --SPUI (T - C) 17:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that'd be something like "Everyone is agreed that this convention is imperfect, but after numerous contentious debates, it's been accepted as the best we can do." Powers ^T 21:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "we need a good reason to explain this and I haven't seen one" just another form of "I don't like this idea and I am going to resist it at every turn in every way I can?" I think "we decided to do it this way" is a good enough reason. Or alternatively "after a long and contentious struggle over what is ultimately a pointless question, in which certain elemeents resisted at every turn, we decided to do it this way since there was no other choice" might be the way to go. But do we want to expose our dirty laundry that much? ++Lar: t/c 21:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I knew this would happen; the people who didn't win are pissed and the people who won are bragging. <sarcasm>Isn't this fun?</sarcasm> Now as for the good reason... I don't care if you make a list or not; all I know is that I don't have time to go searching for every argument. Wouldn't a link to WP:SRNC suffice? --TinMan 06:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be picky, we don't have to justify "why highways don't follow use common names", since we seem to have no idea at this point what the common names actually are, so this is only going to happen if the questioner comes armed with such evidence him/herself. (I certainly won't be voting for any "part two" options (SPUI-style or otherwise) unless there's actual evidence as to the common name.) City names in the US are a bad counterexample to NC(CN), because it appears to me to follow it perfectly well. Hoboken, New Jersey is, if not a "more complete name" as such, then at least a rather common reference to it. If someone can argue as much for "California State Route 12", or its various siblings, then (CN) is perfectly happy, and That Poll hasn't overridden it, it's merely exercised a systematic preference between its various clauses. Alai 01:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Too bad you can't "vote" for P2-type names. --SPUI (T - C) 04:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Yeah... too bad. </sarcasm>. As I said earlier, I would say "California State Route 12" so someone would know which state I was talking about... but I am an individual. Now if I could make a website and put that on there, then would I be credible? Or what about if I flew to California and added an extension to the sign? Heck, the California shields have "Califonria" written on them half the time; I just need to spray paint "State Route" under thate in small letters, right? Face it, nobody really knows what they're doing, but everyone thinks they do. Just make the best of it and quit with the attitude if you would please, all of ya. =) --TinMan 06:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Alai 22:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

POV in a style guide

This section:

"Note that most disambiguation is not done in the standard parenthetical manner; the only current exceptions are Kansas and Michigan. This is because of the state route naming conventions poll, which was seen as the resolution of a long-standing naming dispute. Despite the disputed lack of consensus by the traditional definition,[1] with only 59% in favor of this style, enough people agreed to accept this rather than a continued standoff."

ought to be struck in mhy view (along with the footnote) as it's highly POV, presenting a rather biased and disruptive view of why this sorry mess exists in the first place. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with this. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried to make it say "alleged lack of consensus" but was reverted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The "parenthetical manner" is perhaps "usual" but not "standard", per ArbCom ruling, and violating it not unusual enough to require commentary. Powers ^T 14:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There hasn't been much activity here

Hopefully that means people agree with this - since this is part of the naming conventions poll. Are there any objections, or should I upgrade it to a style guide once we get at least placeholder standards lists? --SPUI (T - C) 03:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is technically part 3 in the poll, so I would wait until it's all over so the judges can add the tag. --Rory096 02:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Names of highways for each individual state

Should we create a table listing the name(s) each state/territory uses? The correct usage of the name can then be referenced here. --physicq210 02:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. We can put all the little tweaks that each state has in that table. --TinMan 12:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I think there should be a table just listing everything: State Name, Article Title, Common Name, Infobox Name, Secondary Route Article Title, Seondary Route Common Name, Secondary Route Infobox Name, exceptions... etc. I don't know how wide that would be though. Maybe that would be too big to mess with. --TinMan 15:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a table as originally suggested, with links to each state's highway WP, where all of the secondary information you mentioned should be available. — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposals

Just a couple small proposals:

• On the table of state highway names, could we have a link to each state's list of state highways (if there is one), such as Ohio's?
• Could there be a standardised state highway infobox, or would this be impractical?

Not sure whether these ideas would be good, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to propose. Nyttend 00:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think including links to more info (list of highways, wikiproject for that state, et cetera) in the table is a good idea. For an infobox... there is already an {{Infobox road}} which is used on alot of articles. That could probably be tweaked if there is some additional info which is needed.

Once this page is finalized there should probably be a subection added to Wikipedia:Naming conventions with just a link to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(U.S._state_highways)#Article_titles_and_mainspace_naming. --CBD 12:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Namespace quirks

There are a few things that sort-of but not quite fit in the naming convention.

1. The defunct New England Interstate Routes have a P2-like naming convention. They are outside the scope of WP:SRNC, not being state routes, but with the move of state routes to P1, they will become an oddity.
2. Some of the preceding (8, 9, 10, 12, 26) do interact with SRNC, because state-level articles got merged into them. As a result, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire will have some stray P2 names, unless we recreate the state-specific articles at their P1 names.
3. Massachusetts Route 3A got split into two pieces, currently Route 3A (northeastern Massachusetts) and Route 3A (southeastern Massachusetts). I personally don't think we should have multiple articles for different pieces of a single state route, but there are some who disagree. If they stay split, they will need a naming convention (Massachusetts Route 3A (north) and Massachusetts Route 3A (south), I presume). There are also {{split}} tags on Massachusetts Route 1A (4 pieces) and Massachusetts Route 8A (2 pieces), although no split action has been taken on them.

Sam8 05:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

For the particular case of MA 3A, there is a "silent multiplex" between the two segments according to MassGIS data. These articles should probably be merged back. I believe the same is true for MA 1A. For MA 8A, the two segments are actually treated as distinct routes (with separate mile markers unlike 3A) and are referred to internally by MassHighway as Rt. 8A-U and Rt. 8A-L. These might be better as separate articles. --Polaron | Talk 05:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite said "silent concurrency", they are two different routes. The FHWA lists both I-76s, I-88s, etc like they are one route in their mileage tables, but they are different routes. --SPUI (T - C) 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If there's a concurrency and a single milepost system, then it's a single connected route, even if most people aren't aware that the connection exists. The interstates are separate routes because there's no connection between the two routes; the numbers were repeated solely because there was no other designation that fit inside the grid. -- NORTH ^talk 17:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

MassHighway considers Route 3A one continuous route from Plymouth to Tyngsborough. In addition to listing it that way in the Road Inventory File, they also use it as an example. "For example, the Southeast Expressway has five routes (I-93, US 1, Route 3, Route 1A, and Route 3A)."[2]--Sam8 16:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The New England routes should be moved to P1, since the NE articles are composed of state routes covered by WP:SRNC, at least that's my interpretation. --TMF ^{T - C} 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If it doesn't happen this time since we didn't vote on those then we can get it changed later. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's another issue: somebody merged Massachusetts Route 114A and Rhode Island Route 114A into a single article, Route 114A (Rhode Island-Massachusetts) last week. This is a P2-like name, and doesn't fit with the other articles. (It also created a whole bunch of double redirects, but I can fix those if we agree on the article name.)

We may want to think about having a guideline on the scope of articles. The current naming convention only works if article boundaries correspond to state boundaries.--Sam8 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota

Jonathunder just changed Minnesota's common name from State Highway X to Minnesota State Highway X based on Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2#Minnesota. However, that section implies that on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Minnesota State Highways, it was decided that this was the common name, when it was actually accepted there that only State Highway X should be bolded. This was also the form used on the vote until Jonathunder changed it. Thus I am changing Minnesota back to State Highway X. --SPUI (T - C) 18:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It was [established http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:State_route_naming_conventions_poll/Part2#Minnesota] in the previous round that Minnesota is not dropped from the bolded text because it is part of the common name, as the Minnesota project decided. Jonathunder 18:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the comments at the Minnesota project - they decided not to bold Minnesota. Part 2 only came up with "Minnesota State Highway X" because you changed it to "<Minnesota> State Highway X" after there were comments, and no one realized that until now. --SPUI (T - C) 18:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You have to put these sorts of things in perspective. If SPUI did something like that, he'd be blocked. Instead, though, we'll probably just wait around for replies like "I don't know what you're talking about" and that will be that. It's a dirty war, but it's the only one we've got, right guys? —freak(talk) 19:04, Sep. 25, 2006 (UTC)

SPUI, you were told on the MN project page "Minnesota State Highway X" is common use:

"Minnesota State Highway X" is common usage? --SPUI (T - C) 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes. --Rschen7754(talk - contribs) 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are some citations for this usage.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]Kablammo 02:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In Round 2, this was agreed to. Jonathunder 19:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No - two of the three comments were for <Minnesota> State Highway X. You then changed the title to make it seem like they were for Minnesota State Highway X. --SPUI (T - C) 22:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Kablamo did report the result of the Minnesota project accurately, with Minnesota bolded. When I made the title reflect what he had, in fact, said, since there was initially uncertainty about what the <> meant, I explicitly noted "the word Minnesota is not dropped" and "the proposal is exactly as Kablamo wrote". Minnesota had been bolded from the very beginning, because this is what the project agreed. Jonathunder 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Go back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Minnesota State Highways and read Kablammo's comments. He specifically bolded State Highway but not Minnesota. --SPUI (T - C) 22:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the edit where Kablamo began that section. Minnesota is included in the bolded text. It was for the entire duration of the poll. Jonathunder 22:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he thought he was saying what the page name would be - there was certainly no agreement for the common name being "Minnesota State Highway X" at the Wikiproject. --SPUI (T - C) 22:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you not read the comments I reproduced above from that very page? You asked if "Minnesota State Highway X" was common usage and you were told, "actually, yes". There was agreement. Kablamo gave tons of references for that being the common name. And now you are still arguing this. This is what makes people so crazy about this whole business. Please, leave the common name as we Minnesota editors have been telling you it is all along. Jonathunder 22:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Kablammo gave a lot of sources that say a lot of things - and he agreed to bolding State Highway X. Please stop armchair quarterbacking; it's disruptive. --SPUI (T - C) 22:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion keeping "Minnesota" is a good idea. There may be cases where it is helpful to avoid confusion where roads cross state lines. Appraiser 21:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude. We discussed all this. Read the project page of this - Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways). "Direct links using the article title can be used for situations where the context is not clear or for describing highways ending at state lines." --SPUI (T - C) 22:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is all this? This clearly shows that the WikiProject agreed Minnesota was in the name and shows they were exempted from the process. So, WTF is the deal? Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in support of what was decided at the State route naming conventions poll, which was Minnesota State Route X. Any deviation from that is muddling the process and is only causing grief. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It should be Minnesota State Highway X as indicated in Part2. Even if there was controversy over who said what and when, that means they get P1 anyway. Move on. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 04:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is that? it's the result of Jonathunder changing the agreed-upon convention after it was moved to the bottom. --SPUI (T - C) 04:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a bit shady. The link you provided also shows that before his edit, the exempted naming convention for MN was indicated both ways, so someone better straighten this out. The exemption box says <Minnesota> State Highway XX, but the comment above it says Minnesota State Highway XX, Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 05:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I should say the edit right before the one you linked to. Either way, I think SPUI's right in this case, it was listed under the <Minnesota> header and indicated that the exemption was <Minnesota>. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 05:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

<Minnesota> was NOT what we at the Minnesota project concluded, and my edit showed that. If I had been trying to be "shady" I would not have put a big note saying "Minnesota is not dropped" there. The Minnesota project has been saying all along, "Minnesota" is part of the common name. In every existing Minnesota article, "Minnesota" is bolded in the lead, and this has been a settled thing. Jonathunder 05:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the note, but editing it after it was moved to the ratification area is not a good move. It's like editing it after it was signed, which pretty much makes it invalid. Rather than editing it after the fact, a discussion might have (read: probably wouldn't have) been useful, instead of waiting for it to crop up at the last second, like it did. Whatever, I'm not running the poll, my state got exempted so I'm happy :P (16.5 more hours to go) Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 05:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"At the last second"? This was very early in the poll, when people were still asking, what do these "<>" mean. And I clarified by saying, here on this project, we agreed to *exactly* what Kablammo wrote when he listed this option, but the "<>" in the title were not reflecting what he wrote. Kablommo and Rschen7754 had both explicitly agreed "Minnesota" is part of the common name. See the comments above, in this discussion. Jonathunder 05:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you made the change at the last second. I know you made the change a few weeks ago, all I'm saying is you changed it after it was moved to the ratification area, which is the area reserved for states with no controversy or granted exemptions. If, when it was first added to the ratification area, it was entered as a typo, it needs to be clarified. If it was entered correctly as <Minnesota> and was noticed after the fact, it should have been discussed first in order to avoid a situation like this at the eleventh hour. I'm curious to see how the oversight admins are going to interpret this. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 06:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Really, to me, I don't care what the common name is as long as the Minnesota is not dropped from the article title, which it isn't. --Station Attendant 12:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There never was agreement that the word "Minnesota" be dropped either from the article titles or bold text. I did propose the latter as a compromise; not only was it not accepted, it was specifically rejected by the actions of the partisans of the parathentical form, and we were also incorrectly told that such usage was bad grammar, which it clearly is not. (I won't repeat the numerous citations here; they are available in the histories on the relevant pages.)

As no one acceded to my proposed compromise, the issue went to the dispute resolution process, and it was resolved, without any objection by those who now wish to raise it again. The issue therefore is settled and both the title and bolded text should read Minnesota State Highway x.

A comment: With few exceptions, county highways in Minnesota are numbered, not lettered. Most of the principal county highways are state aid highways. It is easy to confuse county state aid highways with state highways bearing the same numbers. See, e.g., County State Aid Highway 7 and Minnesota State Highway 7, both in Hutchinson, MN. While it may seem redundant to use the form "Minnesota State Highway x", it serves a purpose, and is in common usage in both popular and official publications, including press releases by MnDOT. Kablammo 14:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? Stop edit warring over this. Sheesh. Powers ^T 15:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing is about compromises - and this had the effect of hiding the change. Had I noticed it, I would have moved Minnesota back up and there would have been a discussion, like for other states, and we might have figured out what the common name is. --SPUI (T - C) 15:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand the controversy, but what I do know is that there's never any (good) excuse for edit warring. Fortunately, it seems to have stopped. Powers ^T 13:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Either way, if it's in dispute it becomes Minnesota State Highway X anyway, right? Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 17:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The dispute here is not between P1 and P2. The article title is definitely Minnesota State Highway X. The question is what common name we use for article text -- whether we include the state name or not. -- NORTH ^talk 16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Minnesota Controversy

Could someone summarise the above? what exactly is in controversy yet, and what are the alternatives? Is there any administrative action needed here? Someone popped by my talk page asking me to take a look and I have to confess I'm not exactly sure what the "sides" are... thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lar (talk • contribs) 13:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I (reluctantly) have had some involvement here, I'll make a try. Some months ago a number of highway articles were started by a user (who out of frustration with these disputes is no longer editing such articles). Then came controversy, including suggestions to rename such articles. Discussion ensued on a number of pages, including Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Minnesota State Highways, Talk:Minnesota State Highway 33, Talk:Minnesota State Highway 16, and [[10]]. On the first of these, the majority, and all Minnesota participants, voted to stick with the Minnesota State Highway x format.

Then came the discussion on nationwide naming conventions which you supervised. Discussion on Minnesota occurred between Sept 4 and 6, which ratified the above usage. Discussion raged on other states for many days thereafter but there was no challenge to the Minnesota usage set forth above. Now however some users apparently want to allow the title as ratified, but require that the bolded name in the introduction delete the attributive "Minnesota".

My viewpoint is that we should keep it, as it is consistent with local usage and helps distinguish both between Minnesota county and state highways, as well as between roads in Minnesota and similarly-numbered roads in adjacent states. Probably for those same reasons, it is used by MnDOT as well. [[11]] Kablammo 18:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

For "a user (who out of frustration with these disputes is no longer editing such articles)", read "Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)", who was reported to WP:AN/I here. Actually, as long as we're trying to get terminology correct, it should read "bad editor", not just "user". User:thewolfstar and User:SPUI can agree on this. Also, once a bad editor, always a bad editor.

It also appears that Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was trying to follow existing state highway article convention, even extending the whole mess to non-notable highways like Highway 280 and Highway 252. At least this vandal seems to be concentrating more on history now, but still, that particular well is tainted.

(edit conflict) From what I can gather it seems like there was considerable confusion with the 'Minnesota' part not being bolded when it was discussed on the Wikiproject suggesting to some that it was not meant for common inclusion and then it appearing as <Minnesota> on the nationwide poll before being changed to remove the brackets, et cetera. I don't think it is accurate to say that people are 're-arguing an issue they lost' so much as 'arguing that the results aren't what they thought they were because they got changed between the time they were reviewed and ratified'. Which is accurate and an unfortunate mix-up/oversight, but doesn't seem to have been deliberate 'subterfuge'. All that aside... it looks to me like there was a general agreement to always include the name rather than doing so only when needed to disambiguate. Not an overwhelming consensus, but on the links I looked at it seemed to be agreed to by most. This might have been more significantly challenged if people had noticed the change, but... does it seem likely that the result would have been different? I think we'd very likely have wound up where we are anyway - no? --CBD 18:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what i was looking for was a statement as to whether a ruling is needed here or not. I am tending to think that if one is, that it ought to be that "Minnesota" ought to be tacked on the front, and an apology given to those that were confused by the polling process, and let it go at that (which is what I think CBD is suggesting, more or less, too...) I think someone else beside myself (fixed) may have forgotten to sign too. ++Lar: t/c 20:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that a determination is needed, as there has been little editing or creation of new articles while this process has gone on. We need to end the controversy so that work can resume and continue. Thanks for your continued attention and guidance. Kablammo 20:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of editing or creating any more articles on Minnesota highways, or any other highways. It was troublesome enough for me to edit Interstate 335 (Minnesota) to correct the spelling of "Minneapolis" -- and the only reason I saw it in the first place was because I was checking Special:Newpages. I don't know who else is going to write or edit Minnesota highway articles, but it sure won't be me. --Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to re-open Part II voting for Minnesota (and of course Minnesota only). It's the "better safe than sorry" approach. There's no reason though, that this would delay implementation on the other 49 states. -- NORTH ^talk 17:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Uggh the homework overloaded so I haven't been on in two days. I believe that Minnesota should be included if the situation is as stated above (I haven't checked diffs yet) but it may be better to reopen that part or have admin decision. Elkman was a good editor. I believe he still is. He just got frustrated with the whole thing and took his anger out on the articles. If we give him time he probably will come back around. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Taking anger out on articles" is not compatible with "being a good editor". In any case, I don't have any plans to "come back around" to editing highway articles. If I do, that's on my list after finishing up all the entries on List of Registered Historic Places in Minnesota. That list is less controversial, and I've never been reported to WP:AN/I for bad edits on that list. Besides, entries like Rabideau CCC Camp, Hull-Rust-Mahoning Open Pit Iron Mine, Mountain Iron Mine, and the Oliver H. Kelley Homestead are much more in need of articles than Minnesota State Highway 222. Some subjects need more research than just a simple road map. I wouldn't even think about doing an article on MADEIRA (Schooner-Barge) Shipwreck until I've been there myself and taken photos. (I'd probably need a nitrox certification first, too.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to reopen Part II for Minnesota. Look at the contribution histories of those who didn't notice the move. There were dozens of edits after September 6 on Part II after the move was made. It is time for a decision, or more accurately, confirmation of a decision which was already made, in several places, without objection until after the fact.Kablammo 13:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's time for a decision, but I think the problem is that no one is clear on what the "decision which was already made" was. It's clear to me looking at WT:MNSH that the consensus there was to title the articles "Minnesota State Highway X" but boldface only "State Highway X" in the article text. Thus the naming convention should be <Minnesota> State Highway X. However, this was not what was listed when Minnesota was exempted from this poll. -- NORTH ^talk 16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

SPUI pointed it out earlier [12] that it was listed as <Minnesota> but was changed to Minnesota on the 6th of September after it was moved to the ratification section. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 17:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you really want to discard the finding of the Minnesota highway project, as confirmed here by every member who commented, that "Minnesota" is part of the common name, simply because very early in Round 2 people were unclear about what < and > were intended to mean. The folks whose votes were moved, as you assert, have all confirmed here they intended all along to mean what the text said, that "Minnesota" is not dropped. Now, Lar has looked at this and opined that we should respect the intent of the votes. In light of that, I'm going to make this page agree with the Minnesota project page that Minnesota is indeed part of the common name. If someone has a disagreement with that for substantive reasons, and not merely because they insist on taking an angle bracket over plain language, to take that to the state's highway page and start a discussion with the Minnesota editors. Jonathunder 01:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to agree to get this project moving forward. I can't believe one or two users are spending time and effort on whether or not the state name needs to be added to a road article. The most trivial of things, and they spend their efforts on this rather than improving the quality and content of other articles. Let's move on and accept the votes. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I support keeping it at Minnesota State Highway X. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 05:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I sent an e-mail to MNDOT to ask them what the official names of state highways in Minnesota are. This debate needs to be settled with something more credible than a Google test. I also asked them to give me an example of publications that refer to different state highway systems (for example, something from AASHTO). I will post the results when I hear back from them.

That still doesn't mean I'll be editing Minnesota highway articles under any name, of course. I still need to edit articles on the NRHP list first, such as MADEIRA (Schooner-Barge) Shipwreck, but given that I don't even know the name of the highway that goes between Duluth and Two Harbors and then on to Split Rock Lighthouse, I probably don't have a chance of finding the wreck in the first place. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

For the vote below, we should probably place an end date on it. I think that a week from now would be enough time for anyone interested to comment or vote. --TMF ^{T - C} 14:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote on Minnesota naming convention

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 support Minnesota State Highway X.

Instructions

What: To keep current naming conventions (for wikilinks, not article names) for the state of Minnesota: Minnesota State Highway X. Per discussion and resulution and consensus at Part II of the poll. This should solve any long-standing disputes that have occured: 1, 2, 3. Let's move on from this rather trivial naming nonsense and get to editing the articles for content. This is a quick vote to gather a tally of popular opinion, and any relevant discussion should be kept above since it is well covered there. No sense in duplicating it here.

Vote: Comments are allowed, to foster discussion. Remember that the 100 edit rule still applies, though.

Discussion: See above, and some below.

Support

1. Seicer (talk) (contribs)
2. Yeah, this is getting old. Kablammo provided many references to the "Minnesota State Highway" usage. The fuzziness on whether or not Minnesota is bolded seems to stem from the fact that they call the roads all kinds of things (State Highway X, Minnesota State Highway X, Minnesota X), but in the references, most of which are government sites, call them Minnesota State Highway X. I say leave them at Minnesota State Route Highway X as a logical comprimise and get this crap settled. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 17:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping you mean to leave them at Minnesota State Highway X? -- NORTH ^talk 17:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha, yeah. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 18:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean not just Route X? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

eh? Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 01:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Supporting just to get this garbage settled and to close out both WP:USSH and WP:SRNC. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As an additional comment, it was decreed that states in controversy should use P1 not only for article titles but for wikilinks as well (from my understanding), and Minnesota is clearly in controversy. --TMF ^{T - C} 14:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

4. --Station Attendant

5. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)

6. Consensus of the Minnesota project participants. Jonathunder 21:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

7. Per Consensus of the Minnesota project participants. This is my 3rd? 4th? vote on this issue. Can I get put on a notify list when I need to go out and vote on this issue again or something? I don't even know why this poll is open. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Becuase sadly, there were a few users who wanted to go back and do a total re-vote on the whole issue for Minnessota when the objective is to move forward. Looking at the results, I say its about time to do that. And who moved the date to Oct 8 when I wanted a quick poll? :P Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. NORTH ^talk Also, the no comments rule should not apply, since that was a rule for Part I voting, but not Part II. Thus my comment is that Minnesota was granted an exemption because it had already discussed at its project talk page. The consensus at WT:MNSH is to use <Minnesota> State Highway X

Comment. Where is the consensus at WT:MNSH? --myselfalso 16:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Every time formatting was mentioned (see the sections titled Move to "Highway X (Minnesota)" and WT:MNSH#More on terminology), the word Minnesota was not bolded in article text. -- NORTH ^talk 16:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's consensus. There was never a vote (and I'm not saying there has to be), but all I see are suggestions, and then no action taken to create a consensus. --myselfalso 17:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

All the more reason for us to be having this vote. There's certainly less consensus to bold the word Minnesota. -- NORTH ^talk 17:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. The news doesn't use "Minnesota State Highway X" at all. I do see them using "Highway X" and "Minnesota Highway X": [13][14] Thus I suggest "Minnesota Highway X", no brackets. This is also used by MNDOT,[15] more than "Minnesota State Highway X".[16] --SPUI (T - C) 19:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are we voting on this? I think maybe I missed something but i could be confused. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Because too many people in the above discussion can't get past themselves to move this project forward. A few (and you know who they are) want to push this back and go back and revote, wasting everyones time on something that has been decided upon. They won't be satisfied until they get their way. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is going on here? Why are we trying to manufacture controversy on a trivial matter? This matter is so ridiculous that I will not even bother giving my opinion on the subject. WP:LAME, anyone? ---- physicq210 03:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your insightful comments. They were much appreciated. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Was that sarcasm? --physicq210 04:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes :P I should add a ;) next time :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 12:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oy vey. Let me try to explain this as simply as possible. We're not revoting on Minnesota, because we never voted on Minnesota -- at least not for the full allotted time period. It was granted an exemption from Part II voting even though there was no consensus on the WikiProject talk page as to what the naming convention should be.

This has nothing to do with pushing the process back so that we get our way. (You'll note that there's no we involved here, as I'm diametrically opposed to SPUI on most issues.) On 49 out of 50 states, I would love nothing more than to see process pushed through as planned. In fact, given that the vote is currently 5-2, I propose we close this and I concede defeat on the issue. But I think it was extremely important that Minnesota go through this process properly, which it did not do during Part II.

Is it a trivial matter? Of course, much more so than the actual article title. But unlike the controversy I admittedly help manufacture regarding New Jersey, this one is very real. The convention with angle brackets around Minnesota was ratified (IMHO correctly) and was edited after the fact.

Is this WP:LAME? Of course. But I thought we'd already determined that this whole issue was. *wink* -- NORTH ^talk 08:07, 30 September 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.

I went bold and closed it. The October 8th deadline was added after well after the poll was created, even after I proposed it be closed even though I voted in opposition, and when the vote was 5-2. The vote is now 7-2, and I don't see anything changing anytime soon -- or anytime at all for that matter.

However I encourage Seicer to read my last comment above before he tries to claim for a third time that this happened "Because too many people in the above discussion can't get past themselves to move this project forward." -- NORTH ^talk 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with closing the poll early. I just added the deadline so that there would be some kind of timeframe for closing it, but like you said, the opinion of the majority of the interested parties is quite clear (stay with Minnesota State Highway X), so I have no problems with closing it. --TMF ^{T - C} 18:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to keep up with the project and realise that you did not have the majority approval needed to go forth with the senseless renaming that would have only confused those working on the project and led to more debate. I wanted a quick poll, but had no idea until just recently it was extended. As it stands, 7-2 is a clear consensus that what I suggested (like with the original proposal agreed upon by many) was what was right. Your argument against it is just spitting at the wind. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And how could we have proven that I didn't have the majority without voting? Or that you had majority? No one voted in Part II before it was exempted in favor of <Minnesota> State Highway X. And no one voted to change that exemption to without the brackets.

Yes, 7-2 is a clear consensus in favor of "without the brackets". Of course it is. That's why I closed it, even though it wasn't what I voted for. I still think that Minnesota shouldn't have been exempted, and always will. But now we've voted on it, so now it has gone through Part II of the process properly. Now that the process has actually happened, we can move forward. -- NORTH ^talk 00:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy between SRNC Part 2 and USSH?

In part two, it was determined that "West Virginia Route X" should be the article name and, due to the lack of angled brackets, it was also determined to be the common name. However, on USSH, the common name is given as "Route X". Am I missing something here or is this a discrepancy between SRNC and USSH? --TMF ^{T - C} 11:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I could have made a mistake when copying... I was tired that day... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 15:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I've made the fix. --TMF ^{T - C} 15:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Why

Maybe this thing should include an explanation of why we can't have articles under their common names, with the state in parentheses, as is the standard everywhere else on Wikipedia? Well I'd written more but I don't feel like enduring the wrath of rehashing something that's apparently been a flamewar for a long time. But to anyone outside of the group involved with this argument, what happened isn't very clear, that's my point. This MoS seems very odd and confusing to such people, which are the majority of Wikipedians. Something about why the naming conventions are the way they are should be written, so it makes sense to people. --W.marsh 18:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I understand and have been following this, even moving articles to the new naming convention, but do not understand why it is the chosen convention. --NE2 00:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Because many state highway articles were already named in the (now-)standard format (such as "New York State Route XXX"), it was felt by many voters that it would be best to have all of the state highway articles named that way, rather than have some at one format and some at another. Powers ^T 18:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I find that explanation to be pretty weak personally, since we had apparently had plenty of people willing to do the pagemoves and fix double redirects and tidy everything up. But if that's the reason all of this happened, it should at least be explained on the MoS page. --W.marsh 23:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite following where pagemoves come into it. The thing is that some articles would always be in the format now prescribed (i.e., "New York State Route XXX") simply because that's the name of the route. Thus, the only way to make the articles consistent while still disambiguating was to do as we've done. Whether that consistency was necessary was the major point of contention. Powers ^T 01:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, that's still not explained in hte MoS, and I'm kind of confused as to why consistancy for consistancy's sake was allowed to happen when it's so wildly inconsistant with what the rest of the project does with naming conventions. --W.marsh 22:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

When something has a name, the article on that thing is under that name. If two things have the same name, they are disambiguated with parentheses. If two names are just as good, the more common is used. These are easy for everyone to follow, which is why they are the standard. Making idiosyncratic rules for a particular subject matter is unenforcable, no matter how "binding" the participants think their vote is, if it doesn't make sense. Demi ^T/_C 18:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary of "the real rule" is, to be blunt, poppycock.

Any style or naming convention page is not a rule, but a guideline. That of course includes this page, but it also includes Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). A guideline is "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." This is reiterated more specifically at the top of WP:NC(CN) in big bold letters: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things."

The purpose of this poll was to create a reasonable exception to the guideline of common names so that the Wikipedia community could put months of edit and move warring behind us. -- NORTH ^talk 21:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't go so far as to call your assertion "poppycock", but you are incorrect that disambiguation is always done with parentheses, per ArbCom finding. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Use of parenthesis for disambiguation. Powers ^T 14:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Response from the Minnesota Department of Transportation

I submitted a question to the Minnesota Department of Transportation regarding the official naming of Minnesota highways. Here is the response from Jerry Baldwin, Library Director. (My original questions are in bold.)

---

The question you submitted to info@dot.state.mn.us was forwarded to Mn/DOT Library for a response.

1. Is the official name of a highway of the form "Minnesota State Highway x", "State Highway x", "Trunk Highway x", or something else?

I can find no document specifying what constitutes an "official name" in relation to numbered highways that constitute the state highway system. In almost all state documents the individual highways are referred to as "THx." The use of the designation "TH" or "Trunk Highway" began with the amendment to the Minnesota Constitution ( http://worldcat.org/oclc/8294090 ) that created the system of highways administered by the state, adopted in 1920, and has been used in subsequent legislation ( http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/161 ).

2. If the official name of a highway does not start with "Minnesota", is it acceptable to refer to highways as "Minnesota State Highway x" in a work like Wikipedia that is used within all 50 states, as well as outside the USA?

The use of the state name preceding a highway number is common practice, but is not designated as "official" or "acceptable" in relation to Minnesota highways. There might be legislation in other states that adopt "offical" designations.

3. Are there any good examples of publications, such as AASHTO documents, that refer to multiple state highway systems that could be used as a preference for this discussion?

AASHTO has issued, and from time to time updates a publication titled "United States Numbered Highways" ( http://worldcat.org/oclc/37586174 ). However, that policy document applies only to the designation and signing of the system of U.S and Interstate highways and provides for consistent numbering and signing of highways that cross state borders or are part of the Interstate highway system. Standards for the numbering and signing of highways wholly within any given state vary from state to state.

Please let me know if I can be of further help.

---

--Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Another reason to use parentheses

An expansion of the pipe trick was added a few days ago (thank you Ilmari Karonen). Its main purpose is to allow it to work with commas - [[Richmond, Virginia|]] becomes Richmond - but there's an interesting feature added: on a page disambiguated with parentheses or commas, you can use the pipe to automatically generate the disambiguation suffix. An example is best: Go to State Route 5 (Virginia) (currently a redirect). Click edit, and add [[|State Route 10]]. Hit preview, and notice what happens to the link - it becomes [[State Route 10 (Virginia)|State Route 10]]! This could be very useful, but only works when parenthetical (or comma-based) disambiguation is used. --NE2 20:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

We've decided upon P1 already... and we can pipe trick link to the redirects, right? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and we now have "new information". This is an even easier way to link - [[|State Route 10]] rather than [[State Route 10 (Virginia)|]] - but only works if the article titles themselves are piped. --NE2 20:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It does not really change anything. You can accomplish exactly the same thing with redirects. That's why we're switching the linking to pipe-tricked redirects. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem understand it then. Go to State Route 5 (Virginia), click edit, and preview an addition of [[|State Route 10]]. Do the same on Virginia State Route 5. --NE2 20:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Lazy typists are not a reason to demolish the current consensus or system. Remember, Wikipedia is written for the reader not the editor. State Route 5 is okay for everyone to type. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This makes not one bit of difference for the reader. --NE2 21:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In reality, we've just finished a nasty month of debates. If you start another debate or try to change the consensus, you're going to drive a lot of highway editors away from Wikipedia. Already we've lost so many. You;re going to make fast enemies if you continue bringing this up. And yes it does make a difference for the reader. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how it makes a difference for the reader. I have seen nothing. --NE2 21:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Dig in the WP:SRNC and talk archives for the reasons why we prefer P1. I don't feel a need or have the time to restate them here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

In the #Why section above, I see one reason - inter-system consistency. If there are other reasons, it would be in your interest to explain them to me and try to convince me, since, right now, your reasons are looking very weak. --NE2 21:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

We're not changing right now. I'm not deciding this, but I'm saying this because if you say one word about naming conventions to about 90% of the highway editors, they will be extremely annoyed. And who knows, maybe the software will change to work for our benefit? They fixed the San Diego, California links... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You think the developers will hard-code a list of U.S. states into the software, and which ones we have decided to eliminate the state name on? --NE2 21:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You never know... but more likely if we have [[|State Route 10]] then it will guess that since it is in the Virginia State Route 5 article the link should be [[Virginia State Route 10]] or [[State Route 10 (Virginia)]]. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely what is wrong with the reason of inter-system consistency? It may look weak to you, but it did not look weak to the majority of the people who voted a month ago, nor did it look weak to the people who voted for Principle II, but begrudgingly accepted the result of the poll. -- NORTH ^talk 21:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that the new shortcut doesn't even work in most cases. For instance, if I were to type in [[|Route 4]], it would just produce a link to Route 4, because there are a great many articles and/or redirects titled Route 4 (xxxx). -- NORTH ^talk 21:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it only works on other state highways of the same state. But that's where a large number of links will be coming from. --NE2 21:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

(realized my mistake before you responded) Okay, never mind, I didn't properly understand your example. Still, it doesn't make a bit of difference given that the pages are titled according to Priciple 1, and a tiny software change is not a reason to overturn months of polling and discussion. -- NORTH ^talk 21:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As I explained above, consensus can change, and we now have "new information". --NE2 21:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Rather, your reason to overturn everything is really weak. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not new information, it's new software. New information would be information on the official name of a road, etc., and we already have pretty much all the information we need to make an informed decision on this naming convention.

The pipe trick was discussed ad nauseum in the arbcom case, and the arbitrators and participants for the most part agreed that programming does not and should not determine policy. -- NORTH ^talk 21:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys are great. Thanks for showing me that Wikipedia, like other institutions, is afraid of change. --NE2 21:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This shows that you are missing the point. WP:AGF, please. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I am missing nothing. I came here with a reason we should use parenthetical disambiguation, and all you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and yell "We already decided this! Don't try to change it!" Your refusal to even try to convince me of your side shows me all I need to know. --NE2 21:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, your refusal to listen to our attempts to convince you is what tells us all we need to know. -- NORTH ^talk 21:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What attempts? All I see is refusal to consider change. You want to make enemies, you're on the right track. I thought we were supposed to work together on this project. --NE2 21:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I can say the same to you. You suddenly come to this page, bent on destroying a months' work that put an end to over nine months of fighting, you're going to make some enemies. I guarantee it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

How would moving the articles "destroy" anything? All linking, text, etc is going to stay exactly the same. The only thing that would change is the text under "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and the ability to use the pipe trick addition. --NE2 21:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

So if we changed Apple to the fruit that is red and sometimes green and was promoted by Johnny Appleseed it wouldn't make a big difference, right? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't make much of a difference. There would be no reason to do it though. --NE2 22:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a reason, actually. You want to move all the articles back to the "paranthetical disambiguation" format for us? --physicq210 22:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be willing to move Virginia back. I'm sure others would be willing to help in other states. --NE2 22:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Do you realize how many highway articles exist? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should it matter anyway where other states are? I'm willing to completely move Virginia. Inter-system consistency is a red herring; Kansas and Michigan don't follow the standard. --NE2 22:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And, as you so liberally threw it in our faces below, don't speculate if others will be willing to help. --physicq210 22:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why the heck did Freakofnurture create a proposed resolution called "the effect of an article title" at the workshop page? And it's true about the apple, right? Then explain to me why we can;t move it there. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this "the effect of an article title"; can you link me there? We could move apple, but there is absolutely no reason to. I have given reasons to move state highways. --NE2 22:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

So an article title does matter now doesn't it? Well I'll give a reason to move Apple. This new title gives much more information than the old one. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll give a reason not to move it: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." --NE2 22:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for giving us the same reason why not to move the state highway articles. Naming articles about state highways with differing standards for each state is definitely not "easy and second nature." --physicq210 22:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary: Using the pipe trick is easier. --NE2 22:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary: Redirects exist. --physicq210 22:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Back at you. Redirects are a neutral player here, not affecting one side or the other. --NE2 22:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If we can link to redirects, then why are you trying to change article titles? That is blowing the issue out of proportion. --physicq210 22:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't done it yet, please test out the new addition to the pipe trick for yourself. --NE2 22:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I can do so without your prodding, thank you very much. But a minor addition in software does not justify a blanket overturn of months of work nor subtly accusing other editors of obstructionism. --physicq210 22:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"and all you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and yell "We already decided this! Don't try to change it!"" Just as any other highway editor would do, whether they believe in P1 or P2. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why, then, did I almost single-handedly move Virginia to the new convention? Because I'm a masochist? No, it's because I believe intra-system (as opposed to inter-system) consistency is useful. --NE2 21:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

or alternatively, it is your refusal to demonstrate the necessity of such change that we are so adamantly against it. --physicq210 21:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that the only thing that actually changes is the title above "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", right? If you are using the guidelines here, nothing else will change in any way. --NE2 21:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I thought we were changing the language of the pages to Spanish. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

La la la. Keep your fingers deep in your ears some more, will you? --NE2 21:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for offering proof that you are resorting to ad hominem attacks instead of using facts and reason. --physicq210 21:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"No, I thought we were changing the language of the pages to Spanish." Great "facts and reason" here. --NE2 22:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You are still resorting to ad hominem attacks, which further bolsters my above contention. --physicq210 22:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Look. We're supposed to be working together here, not arguing over who started what. In five minutes I will remove this whole piece of the thread as pointless. --NE2 22:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You cannot edit or remove the comments of people. Just leave it be then, but if you remove comments, it will be treated as vandalism. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well what else would we think is going on? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You still have not demonstrated the need of such a change. --physicq210 21:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This addition to the pipe trick is a reason. How does changing the text from "Virginia State Route 277" to "State Route 277 (Virginia)" do anything bad? --NE2 21:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not a need for change. That is an excuse for change. A similar argument was brought up during the poll and was rejected. --physicq210 21:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

How could a similar argument have been brought up if this change was only added several days ago? --NE2 21:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Similar, not identical. --physicq210 22:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Which similar argument is this? --NE2 22:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The argument that led to this poll and guideline in the first place. --physicq210 22:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Have you mixed up the two meanings of the word "argument"? --NE2 22:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, because of your lack of clarification. Please correct that. Thank you. --physicq210 22:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You used the word first: "A similar argument was brought up during the poll and was rejected. --physicq210 21:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)" --NE2 22:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The pipe trick has always been the main point of P2 supporters. The scope of the pipe trick does little to change the effectiveness of that argument. -- NORTH ^talk 22:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It was effective enough for almost half the people involved in the poll. --NE2 22:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't effective enough for more than half involved in the poll. Your argument is moot. --physicq210 22:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think we're all aware of the WP:LAMEness of this entire poll. Nevertheless, here you are, still contesting it weeks after it closed.

You do realize that the only reason given for such a change is that it saves the typing of one word? (It allows us to type [[|State Route 10]] instead of [[State Route 10 (Virginia)|]].) If we had this option at the beginning of the poll, would that really have been even remotely close to being enough to chage the result? -- NORTH ^talk 22:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus can change; speculating about what could have been is useless. --NE2 22:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can change, but it has not, hence rendering your point moot. --physicq210 22:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that it hasn't? Was there even consensus in the first place here? --NE2 22:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that it has? Consensus here seems pretty much against you. And you are bringing up the discredited argument of "lack of consensus" that has been rejected by the poll participants, WP:ANI, and Arbcom. --physicq210 22:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but generally not within a span of three weeks, and generally not because of a change that saves us one word of typing. -- NORTH ^talk 22:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

NE2 has now blanked 3 comments out of this section. -- NORTH ^talk 22:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that was the result of an edit conflict. --NE2 22:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

NE2 did remove comments and they have been restored. NE2 has been warned, and any further such edits will lead to a block (through a third party at WP:AIV). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You may want to read that help page you linked to, since you're the only one who's losing content due to edit conflicts. -- NORTH ^talk 22:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay I think it's okay now. Northenglish, could you resign that last comment? NE2, if you remove that section again, you will be warned again. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- NORTH ^talk 22:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe that this issue has surfaced again. Here's my opinion about the pipe trick: who cares? Is it an integral part of the encyclopedia? No. Does it serve a reader any purpose? No. Does it serve an editor any purpose? Yes, if you're too lazy to type out a couple of extra words. Some "new advancement in technology" isn't enough to rehash literal months of tedious, idiotic and lame debating over something as stupid as the article title when we should be focusing on content instead (imagine how many more road-related articles would be good articles at least if we actually focused on content). It should be noted that the same user who introduced this comment has explicitly specified that he will not follow consensus when it comes to map creating. --TMF ^{T - C} 22:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Do discussions always deteriorate so quickly?

What's going on here? What happened to working together? --NE2 22:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You broke the restored sense of community. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If proposing a change is enough to do that, we've got problems. --NE2 22:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You chose to fight against a generally accepted consensus that put an end to nine months of fighting, ArbCom, RFC, mass move wars, users leaving, and plain crap. And you wonder why you're getting bad results and argument? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, I do wonder that. --NE2 22:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't help you then. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion needed

South Carolina Highway 277 needs to be deleted so South Carolina Route 277 can be moved there. --NE2 03:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Every route in Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina has now been moved, and all incoming links I could find have been fixed, thanks to the magic of AWB. --NE2 12:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

WV Routes

How did the decision to rename these specific routes come about? As you can see here, there was already consensus on a naming convention. I like that fact that the whole state route naming system has been settled at long last, I just fear that it got one wrong. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Found it, nevermind. I just wish that I had found it when it would have actually mattered, but it seems to be the best solution to get us back on track and out of this morass. Keep up the good work. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

dab articles

I have started to do some of these. Route 759 is a stub in the format that I have been using. I created this from common elements in several other dab pages. There are are lot of these pages still missing. Also, the default on the 'work lists' is to use Route nnn for dabs. Should all of the dab pages in the form List of highways numbered 520 be renamed so that the category only uses one form for the dab pages? Vegaswikian 19:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please link to the parenthetically-disambiguated form from the disambiguated pages, as I explained at the top of User talk:Myselfalso. With the naming, all the lower numbers are at List of highways numbered 520, which better describes the pages, so I've created them there. Obviously they need redirects (check "what links here" for a completion list). --NE2 19:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The disambiguation pages should point directly to the article title. State highway articles should never be displayed with the parentheses. The purpose of the redirect from the P2 name is to allow editors to display the link as State Route 520 in cases when the state is obvious (in other words, when ambiguity does not exist). The disambiguation page should display the disambiguated name, which we decided in this poll was Washington State Route 520. -- NORTH ^talk 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should the disambiguation page point directly to the article? Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping mentions that redirects are OK. As I explained to Myselfalso, it makes no difference to the reader, but ensures that an editor fixing incoming links will link correctly. --NE2 20:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Say what? We just had this long process to agree on the article titles. The dab articles should point directly to the article and not a redirect page. What part of this process am I missing? I also believe that the discussions also were to use the Route nnn as the dab. I don't recall anyone suggesting that we use a list of anything for this purpose. Vegaswikian 22:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think one concern is that editors who fix unqualified links such as Route 1 would look at the dab page, see the standardized article titles, and use those to fix links. In most cases, the links should be to those names using parentheses (for states that use them). Using the parenthesis form in the dab page would help editors who are unaware of WP:USSH use the proper linking style. --Polaron | Talk 22:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

When I do the dabs I try and look at the text. In some cases you just use the actual link in the text, in others you leave the text and add the link. I think for many editors that are not aware of the pipe trick, having that on the dab page would be more confusing and acually using the real article title in the text is the best solution. Vegaswikian 00:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the standard is to pipe the link: (link on the disambiguation page)|Route X. This is how semi-automated tools like popups handle it, and this is what I would do if I were unfamiliar with the topic. Even if I was familiar with the topic, I would have to check with this manual of style whenever fixing any link to see whether it should use parentheses or not. --NE2 01:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how we list the articles on disambiguation pages, the pages should be titled List of highways numbered X. The poll at WP:SRNC had nothing to do with or say about disambiguation pages; whereas Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#"List of highways numbered X" decided to name them as such. Titles like Route X, Highway X, State Route X, etc. should redirect to these lists. -- NORTH ^talk 01:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I think the discussions always talked about the dab being at 'Route nn' so that anyone who used that in an article would get the dab page. No one suggested that this would be a redirect that I recall. I did read Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#"List of highways numbered X" and it is not clear what that discussion decided since the last comment was support for 'Route nn' format. That discussion was also made before we decided on the naming convention for the routes and much of the discussion was based on a different form of road name. Given the involvement of one of the individuals that resulted in the consensus building exercise, I believe that the actions driven from that arb con voting process should be used. This process had more exposure then the one you mentioned. If needed, we can have a discussion here to resolve this. But given that all of the work lists have the dab at 'Route nn' I'd say the other decision was obsoleted by the newer vote. If it is not clear or needs to be changed that we probably need to discuss this here in light of the other changes. Vegaswikian 02:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways) also points to the work lists that show the dab at 'Route nn'. So given that is a guideline pointing to the work page, it would seem to say that 'Route nn' is the correct name to use for the dab. Vegaswikian 02:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What newer vote are you referring to?

Also, the completion lists that point to the Route xxx title were created long before the decision was made on WT:D to switch. Newer completion lists such as those for New Jersey and Oregon use the "list" name. -- NORTH ^talk 02:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

When I created the Virginia completion list, I used the "Route" name because the list I was copying from used it, and because not all "Route" pages have redirects from "List" titles. Inertia is a powerful thing. --NE2 02:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Inertia is a powerful thing, but it doesn't have to be. Heck, look at all the page moves we've done to impliment the results of this poll. All it takes is a couple more to finish the changeover to the "list" titles.

The reason I don't like using simply Route X is because very few of these roads are actually called "Route X". On and off Wikipedia, I've seen called a great many things: State Route 520, Washington State Route 520, Washington 520, occasionally Highway 520, but never ever simply Route 520. IMHO, it's wrong to title the page that when some of the articles listed on it are called Routes, some Highways, some State Roads, etc. -- NORTH ^talk 03:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I was just commenting on why the current situation exists. --NE2 03:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion... in lists and disambig pages it's okay to just directly link since the official name is either not needed or can be clarified in other ways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it's fine to link to the parenthetical redirect? If not, why not? --NE2 03:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes... but with either "California State Route x" or "State Route x". Not with "State Route x (California)". So I think that on the disambig pages, it's probably better to link directly since a state must stiull be specified. --'Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with my argument? Linking to "California State Route x" offers no benefit for the reader and is a disbenefit for editors. --NE2 04:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Prcblems with a link

User:SchuminWeb continues to change the link to State Route 267 in Fairfax Connector to Virginia State Highway 267, even after I pointed him to the linking section on this page. --NE2 12:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I left a message on your talk page without familiarizing myself with the situation. You're clearly right in this situation. -- NORTH ^talk 16:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding linking

Okay, I have a question, since unfortunately it's not quite explicit on the main page. It's clear that the title of an article is New Jersey Route X, and it's clear that in most cases in the article text it should be referred to as Route X... and it's clear that redirects from Route X (New Jersey) need to exist in order to aid in linking.

But here's my question. Is it actually required that we link to a page as [[Route 17 (New Jersey)|Route 17]] rather than [[New Jersey Route 17|Route 17]]? It shouldn't make one bit of difference, as both display identically as Route 17.

The reason I ask is because right now, Alansohn is slowly going through the New Jersey articles changing them to the full name (i.e. [17]), and NE2 is quickly going through and changing them to the redirect title (i.e. [18]), which leads to some problems since those two diffs are from the same article within three hours of each other.

In theory, as long as the link displays correctly, neither one of them should be making these edits one way or the other per Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. But I'm curious to see if any of the other editors here have a different opinion. -- NORTH ^talk 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The important thing is probably what is displayed. We should still tell people who "fix" redirects not to do so as a matter of good general practice as long as the link displays properly. There should also be no need to revert back if such "fixing" has already been done, again as long as the link displays properly. --Polaron | Talk 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it useful to always use the parenthetical link style in Virginia, since I can easily find (using "what links here") any articles that use the direct link with the state name first, and thus may use that in text. This has made it easier to ensure that only text where the context is unclear uses the state name first. I did the same in other states as part of my AWB-assisted fixing for the same reason, to help editors in those states. --NE2 22:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, an edit of mine was reverted today for basically the same reason. I changed the text to be clear by using the article name and had my change reverted to one of those redirects resulting in what I believe was a poorly worded sentance. Changes to redirects or changing from one redirect to another should be banned as not needed and reflective of one persons opinion. If the article reads correctly and the link is to the right place, then it should be left alone. Yes, there will be exceptions and those should be made without using a tool like AWB. Vegaswikian 23:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I would agree with NE2 -- the context is clear, so the link should display as State Route 15, regardless of how it's actually linked. (For the benefit of other editors, the edits in question are: [19][20][21], but is a moot point since the section was removed.) The diffs I cited on U.S. Route 46 exhibit a case where an already piped link was changed from [[Route 94 (New Jersey)|Route 94]] to [[New Jersey Route 94|Route 94]] and back. -- NORTH ^talk 14:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As to the question at hand. Personally I believe that the link should be to the article without a redirect. However if the only 'problem' is that there is a redirect, then leave it alone since it is not a problem that needs fixing. My question is that as a part of the article renaming, would it be wrong to change all of the links to be directly to the article? I'm just asking about the link here and not the text being displayed. The text displayed should be driven by the context it is used in. So if the text Route 17 needed to be dispayed I could use the shortcut [[Route 17 (New Jersey)|]] Vegaswikian 23:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is useful to use the the parenthetical link when the editor is employing the pipe trick, but it is completely unnecessary to change to a parenthetical link when the editor has already manually entered the display text after the pipe. Valid links to the Principle 1 title of an article do not need to be changed to a Principle 2 link. To clarify: it is not necessary to change [[Ohio State Route 7|SR 7]] to [[State Route 7 (Ohio)|SR 7]]...nor is it preferred to do this (according to WP:SRNC) — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 11:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what WP:SRNC ever said on the matter, that's why I've brought the question here. (If you've got a link to a diff or a section header though, please enlighten me.) However, that is what WP:R says in the section I quoted above. -- NORTH ^talk 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you may be correct – it might not have said not do to that; however, following the logic that it's unnecessary to change links from redirects to directs, the converse is also true — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 21:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Introduction exclusions

Should the introduction be modified to exclude 'roads under the control of other agencies in the state'? We make it clear that this does not apply to US owned roads but not other local roads. Vegaswikian 19:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Another question regarding linking

This is on the verge of getting out of hand. I'm not sure we ever quite resolved my previous question -- whether it's necessary to change links that can use parenthetical disamiguation to do so. So I'm going to pose it again.

What does the community think of this edit?

I reverted it, because, well, to quote myself, how does that even remotely match WP:USSH? When the context is not clear -- which it isn't in a list -- the article title can be used. Alternatively, one can rephrase the sentence. (I'm paraphrasing the last paragraph of the Linking section of the project page there.) In other words, either "Massachusetts Route 128" or "Route 128 in Massachusetts" would be okay (the latter done using parentheses and pipe trick), but we shouldn't be displaying the link with parentheses, like Route 128 (Massachusetts).

The way I understand it, redirects using parentheses exist for editors' convenience when using the common name, not so that they can be used anywhere and everywhere. So am I understanding things correctly, or am I totally off base? -- NORTH ^talk 00:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page; its purpose is twofold. It points the reader to the appropriate article, and allows the editor to fix incoming links. To the reader, it makes no difference how we link. But to the editor, it makes the difference between what the editor will change the link to. If we use Massachusetts Route 128, the editor will change the link to that in violation of WP:USSH. We should not pipe the link on the disambiguation page; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping. --NE2 00:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation is that the actual artilce title should be used in this case since disambiguation is required and editors should be able to cut and paste the link to get to the article. So Massachusetts Route 128 should be the link. Vegaswikian 00:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

But the majority of places that the link would be cut and pasted would use the parentheses, per WP:USSH. Only in a case where the context is unclear would copy-pasting Massachusetts Route 128 be correct. --NE2 00:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the problem here the guideline wording that says to only use the State route name when writing an aritcle unless the disambiguated name is needed? If so, maybe the guideline should be tweeked to say that is the prefered form and the article name can be used at any time. For a guideline to say don't use the article name seems to be going against some policy. Vegaswikian 03:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem with the guideline; it is just unclear about disambiguation pages. I have given a good argument for using the parentheses; should I clarify the guideline, or is there dissent? --NE2 04:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In my reading of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Piping it says 'Piping means concealing the actual title of a linked article by replacing it with other text, typically to suppress parenthetical expressions.

Do not pipe...' it is clear that you should use the actual article title. I take this to mean not using redirected links. So if you want to make that clear it should be OK. Vegaswikian 05:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That section also clearly says that it's OK to use a redirect. --NE2 09:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there's no problem with the guideline. The article title is the disambiguated form -- just like Toms River, New Jersey is the disambiguated form for that article, and water (molecule) is the disambiguated form for that article. The disambiguated form should only be used when it's necessary to disambiguate.

Also, since "state name first" is the disambiguated form, that's the form that should be used on disambiguation pages. If other editors don't realize the state name is merely disambiguation, then that's unfortunate, and we can fix the incorrect link they make -- it's really not a big deal. The parenthetical redirects exist for our convenience for piped links; I don't really see any situation here where it's appropriate to actually display the parentheses. (Yes, I'm pulling the "parentheses are ugly" card.) In other words, NE2, yes, there's dissent, otherwise I wouldn't have reverted your edit and asked this question. I'd really like to actually reach a conclusion this time instead of letting the conversation die a quite death as we did last time. -- NORTH ^talk 08:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there actually a problem with my argument? --NE2 09:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your argument; I think a minor problem with it is that links to disambiguation pages in the roads project that need to be fixed are extremely rare. When they do exist, they're either in short sub-stubs written by inexperienced editors, or they're in articles that have nothing to do with roads. In the former case, the article needs more help than simply fixing the disambig link, so copy and pasting wouldn't be the correct fix anyway. The latter case resembles the example about the swamp given on the project page, where it's pretty much equally likely that the link can either read Florida State Road 50 or State Road 50. Also, if an editor is aware enough to fix a disambiguation link, then they should be aware enough to do it correctly. And if not, we can re-fix it for them.

Is there a problem with my argument? -- NORTH ^talk 21:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if the article has nothing to do with roads, it more than likely does provide context. Articles about towns, schools, malls, parks, and other local institutions may all contain links to the highways they are on. --NE2 21:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I still don't think that avoiding lazy copy-and-pasting is a valid enough reason for displaying the parenthetical link instead of the proper disambiguated form. For instance, take a gander at Marlboro, which lists all the various Marlboros as "City, State", even though in most uses, the page Marlboro Township, New Jersey, should be displayed without the state name. Even if an editor chooses to grab the P1 name of a disambiguation page, that doesn't stop them from correctly displaying the link as the disambiguated form. -- NORTH ^talk 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

However, the state name, when applied to locations with a comma, is always a disambiguation. This is not true about highways; in many highways the state is kept at the front. We should be helping editors rather than helping an aesthetic need to avoid redirects. --NE2 21:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Valid point, although IMHO my points still outweigh yours. Is anyone else willing to weigh in? -- NORTH ^talk 21:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Another concern... when neither P1 nor P2 is used as the visible link text, it should not matter what the actual link is. For example, the browse links... Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's my take on this issue: it doesn't matter what the actual link is as long as the correct text is displayed. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 13:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I've witnessed of bots and the like fixing links to disambiguation pages, the vast majority of the time they do it with a piped link anyway (which they're supposed to do according to WP:R: When repairing a link, use pipe syntax so that the link does not contain the new qualifier.). Thus, if they find a link like [[Route 17]], they'd probably grab the New Jersey Route 17 link off the disambiguation page, and change the problem link to [[New Jersey Route 17|Route 17]]. Link still displays properly (as Route 17), no harm, no foul. -- NORTH ^talk 22:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

However, that makes it harder for someone working on fixing improper usages of the text "New Jersey Route 17" to find those uses using "what links here" on New Jersey Route 17. --NE2 23:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, but most of that is already done. New Jersey Route 17 currently has 4 links coming directly into it from other articles: two from browseboxes, two from junction lists in infoboxes, all of which are piped as NJ 17. Thanks to your tireless efforts going through each of the states, those problems have already been solved. If someone makes an error in linking, that page is going to be on five different editors' watchlists and we can fix those when the time comes.

Not to mention, as I've already pointed out, that having to fix these links to disambiguation pages in the first place is extremely rare. -- NORTH ^talk 23:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not every addition of a new link will be to a page that was already fixed, since people writing articles about local places may link to the road it's on. If the article was at Route 17 (New Jersey), this wouldn't be a problem, but since it's at New Jersey Route 17, and people will link there without realizing how WP:USSH works, we should make it easy to find errors. --NE2 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's really a moot point though, because if you use "What links here" to find all the pages that link to New Jersey Route 17, you still have to check each link individually to make sure that it's not one of the cases where it is appropriate to link the name in full. -- NORTH ^talk 00:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

But there's less to check if we generally use the parentheses. --NE2 00:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Are there any cases where using the article name would really read wrong in the article? Vegaswikian 01:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's my understanding that USSH was formed because it would. --NE2 01:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

When would the current article names based on the USSH read wrong in an article? Vegaswikian 05:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of my question was a link such as CA-25. It follows neither P1 nor P2. Therefore, it should not matter whether it is [[California State Route 25|CA-25]] or [[State Route 25 (California)|CA-25]] or even just [[CA-25]] with a redirect. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

However, it does matter when someone is interested in cleaning up erroneous uses of the full article title. In this case, why not use a redirect at SR 25? --NE2 05:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the concern (or one of them) is the browse boxes, which don't use P1 or P2 in display form. And with your example, it would not matter because... if you're fixing CA-25 for example, you know CA-24 and CA-26 are from the browse box... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Anywhere that the context is clear: see [22] and [23] for two examples. --NE2 05:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Those examples read just fine. There is no confusion about anything in the article. Yes, there are shorter ways to include those links that would be shorter and be totally clear, especially the first. But that does not make the text in your examples wrong. Since the second one is mainly a dab page, or is that better described as a list, in that section, I'm not sure that using the article name here is wrong. Vegaswikian 06:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In both cases, the incorrect name for the highway is used. I would hope you don't write articles that way. --NE2 06:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I went through the first twenty "List of highways numbered X" to see exactly how major the problem we were discussing was. Not surprisingly, I only had to make 11 edits, an average of well under 1 per page, and only three of them "needed" to be done with parentheses. (Four were in infoboxes piped with an abbreviation, and the rest were states where P1=P2.)

My point? You're really making a big to-do over nothing. With a very small amount of work, we can still fix the disambiguation links properly, we can still list articles on disambiguation pages with the article title (which we should since that is how they are disambiguated), and if an editor outside the roads project fixes a link incorrecty, gosh darn it, we can fix those, too.

You keep saying that we should list them with parentheses for the benefit of the editor, but IMHO, you haven't really shown why it's important to do so. And this fails to account for the fact that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia and exists for the reader first; thus unnecessarily displaying the parentheses on disambiguation pages matters very little, but still a little. -- NORTH ^talk 21:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As much as possible, links should be made using the common name of the highway/route (with parentheses where needed). The use of incorrect names should be avoided. This was one of the major concerns of Principle II proponents since the use of the article title when making links is so pervasive that it tends to propagate the use of the incorrect name (for states that do not attach the state name). The only time that the state name could be in front when making links (for those states that do not usually put them in front) is when differentiating a numbered road in one state from a same numbered road in another state within the prose of an article. Everything else should use the correct name (using a redirect if needed). --Polaron | Talk 15:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Does "differentiating a numbered road in one state from a same numbered road in another state" include disambiguation pages? Why or why not? -- NORTH ^talk 21:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it technically is. But my point is, for states that typically do not use the state name in front, use the parenthetical disambiguation form whenever possible. Only use the state-name-in-front form in cases where the result of using the simple name would be confusing, awkward or cumbersome, e.g. when crossing state lines, or when talking about differences between the routes themselves. A disambiguation page is merely a list and has no prose. Using the correct name with the parenthetical disambiguation does not read awkwardly (there's no prose to read) and highlights what the correct nomenclature is. But if most people think the use of a roadgeek neologism in the disambiguation page poses an advantage for readers and/or editors, I'm not going to argue. --Polaron | Talk 17:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

One advantage it may pose to editors is when they click on a redlink to create a new article. I myself have been guilty of this once -- clicking a redlink for State Route 181 (Washington) and accidentally creating the article there instead of the proper title. Using the correct article title on disambiguation pages will help to minimize these mistakes, and IMHO using the wrong article title is a bigger mistake than linking improperly. -- NORTH ^talk 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You should be creating a redirect there anyway; if you create the article there you only have to move it and the redirect is formed. --NE2 21:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but other editors may not be aware that they've created an article at the incorrect title. -- NORTH ^talk 22:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not really a problem - it's a lot easier to fix than incorrect style. --NE2 22:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it any easier or harder to fix? You either move a page from one format to the other, or you fix a link. -- NORTH ^talk 22:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a lot easier to find pages that don't follow the naming convention by looking in the category. To find bad style, you have to use "what links here" on each article and individually check each link to the state-name-first style. --NE2 22:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but I don't really see it as nearly as big a problem as you make it out to be. -- NORTH ^talk 23:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Poll

This is not a decision-making poll, although its results can/should be taken into account should we decide to reach a conclusion in the near future. The purpose of this poll is solely to determine where community opinion lies at this moment, and to see if we're close to reaching a consensus. They're both simple yes-or-no questions, but feel free to include comments with your response. -- NORTH ^talk 17:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Question 1

Should "state name first" (Principle 2) links be allowed as long as they display correctly according to WP:USSH (for example, [[New Jersey Route 17|Route 17]])?

• Yes. Linking to a redirect is fine, but linking to the actual article title comes more naturally to some editors. As long as the link is piped, it shouldn't make a bit of difference. -- NORTH ^talk 17:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes and no; it should be acceptable to use them but also acceptable for others to change them. Not being able to change them makes it harder on editors. --NE2 18:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • My concern is that such would start an edit war. 0--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • How would it do that? USSH says that parenthetical links should not be changed, and there is no reason to do that. I have however given reasons to change to parenthetical links; any reversions would be pure stubbornness. --NE2 06:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

****And you say it won't start an edit war? [24]. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)M my bad, not quite. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes per Northenglish. I've also been advocating this position all along, and is also the method I use to comply with USSH whenever I work in a non-P1 (common name ≠ article name) state. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Yes as the internal wikicoding doesn't matter, the display only is what matters. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Yes. When is using the article name in a link wrong? It is up to the editor to control the text that is displayed in cases where the article name is not the best or proper choice. Those changes should be made to the text displayed and not to the underlying link. Vegaswikian 04:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Yes. Linking to the actual article instead of a redirect is always OK. There's also no need to change such a link to link to a redirect, (just like there's no need to "fix" redirects either). Powers ^T 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Yes and Comment. As long as it goes the same place, it's fine. Wikipedia says "don't fix links that aren't broken". And I should just as well bring this up here. The only issue I have with anything is when there's ambiguity among states. Like WV 55 and WV 9, even though it says it "ends at State Route 9 at the Virginia state line", it could still be confusing (some roads end at a road in their own state at a state line). Also in the infobox, where "SR XX" should be replaced with a state abbreviation if it connects to another state route. See North Carolina Highway 96 for an example of what I'm talking about. --MPD01605 (T / C) 21:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Question 2

Should links on disambiguation pages be displayed using parentheses (for example Route 128 (Massachusetts))?

• No. I don't buy the importance of the "What links here" logic, and as it's currently written, WP:USSH says "state name first" should be used, since context is not clear. Besides, parentheses are ugly. -- NORTH ^talk 17:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. Parentheses are always used on disambiguation pages. --NE2 18:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Parentheses are not always used on disambiguation pages. I gave an example above (Marlboro) where it's not. They are usually used on disambiguation pages when the disambiguated form (usually the article title) uses parentheses. In this case the disambiguated is "state name first". -- NORTH ^talk 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, "always" was the wrong word. "Use of parentheses on disambiguation pages is always OK" is a better way to put it. --NE2 22:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually a better way to state that might be, 'parentheses on disambiguation pages is OK when the parentheses are part of the article name.' Vegaswikian 04:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. It looks cleaner and makes more sense to provide a straight link via the disambiguation page than to use a parenthetical redirect. Plus, it ensures a consistent appearance (name then number) when it comes to state highway links on disambiguation pages. As for the "what links here" logic... I would call it a weak argument, but I don't see it as an argument at all. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• No as the parentheses serve no purpose on a disambiguation page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• No. The link on a dab page should generally be directly to the artcile so that an editor can do a copy and paste if a link leads them to the dab page. The article name always will display correctly in another article, all-be-it at times with more detail then required. Using a redirect makes assumptions about what alternate name is best and that is not what should be done since we don't know the answer. Vegaswikian 04:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• No. Putting the state names in front allows easy scanning of the disambiguation page. It's annoying for the reader to have to try to find the state name in a different place on each line. Powers ^T 16:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• No per User:Northenglish, User:Rschen7754, User:LtPowers, and User:TwinsMetsFan. Well said. --MPD01605 (T / C) 21:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• No per MPD01605. :) --TinMan 18:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion

So... what's left to discuss? Is there a need to change the project page at all to clarify the linking section? I think it's pretty clear that NE2 has been overruled on the displaying of parentheses on disambiguation pages, but I don't see any harm in changing links so long as they display properly. (Not that I see any help in it either.) Does anyone else have any final thoughts? -- NORTH ^talk 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Tennessee State Routes

The name used on the official Tennessee highway map is "Tennessee State Route". Why can't that be the common name instead of "State Route"? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying on the map, but if you search the TDOT website ([25]), virtually everywhere else they use simply "state route". (There are only seven results for "Tennessee State Route".) -- NORTH ^talk 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. If I was creating/editing a wiki to be used internally for the Tennessee DOT, I'd name the routes that. But this is a global wikipedia. People talk about Tennessee State Routes, or more simply Tennessee Routes. I don't understand using web-search term hit rates to determine the naming of articles. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 04:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you've misunderstood the meaning of WP:USSH. Although the common name was determined to be "State Route X", the naming convention for Tennessee articles is "Tennessee State Route X". As MPD said below, by having the state name in the title, it allows for other, more common names to be used in the article. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Tennessee State Route". Once it's established that the article in question is the Tennessee State Route, not Virginia State Route or North Carolina Highway, then using "State Route" or "Route" in the article is fine because it's established as the article. Only when it's ambiguous (like when it connects to another route and vice versa) do you have to re-establish to which state's route is being referred. Tennessee State Route repeated over and over and over and over again would be very redundant, too. Even State Route over and over again gets tiresome. --MPD (T / C) 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

District of Columbia Route

Sorry to bring up this again, but since there's only right now 1 District of Columbia route (DC 295) in the entire district still existent (and one from the past) and there is no wikiproject, I'll put my proposal here. Could the common name for D.C. routes be "DC x"? That's what it said on the old shields anyway (see District of Columbia Route 4). Typing that whole name out over and over again just doesn't seem right except for the title and such. I don't expect any criticism out of this. --TinMan 06:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Route 295 would be more appropriate for the common name, but DC 295 is fine for an abbreviation in junction lists.

(In other words, I agree that the common name is not "District of Columbia Route X", but not "DC X" either.) -- NORTH ^talk 06:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whichever, I don't care. The routebox now says DC Route 4.--TinMan 06:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You can still use anything commonly in use (and DC 295 seems to qualify [26][27]) in subsequent uses; you really should just use the full name for the first use, so it's clear what you're referring to. I believe my use of "State Route" and "SR" in Virginia State Route 337 follows this guideline and fits what you are suggesting. Or, as Northenglish says, you can use "Route 295", or "DC Route 295", or any other commonly-used short form. --NE2 06:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, NE2, but if that's true, then what was the point of going through the poll to determine what the common name was? A well-written article needs to be consistent in what it calls its subject. For example, older articles on New Jersey highways often alternate randomly between calling them Route XX and NJ XX, but the bolded first mention (which was what caused much of the brouhaha on the WP:SRNC discussion) is always Route XX, matching WP:USSH.

In other words, yes, it's fine to use any commonly used term, but an editor doing major cleanup should change everything to match the WP:USSH-approved term. -- NORTH ^talk 06:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this page is a bit unclear on what can be used in the article proper. Here's my interpretation: the bolded text at the outset matches the common name word for word. From that point out, the appearance of links to other state routes should be the common name (NY 17 = New York State Route 17, NJ 17 = Route 17), and subsequent mentions of state routes that are not linked should be abbreviated (NY 17, NJ 17). Am I on the right track or way off? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should try to make abbreviations contained within the full common name: so in New Jersey we use Route XX rather than NJ XX (except in infoboxes, which are space-limited), but in Pennsylvania we can use PA XX, since the full name is Pennsylvania Route XX, and in Virginia we can shorten State Route XX to either Route XX or SR XX. This makes it easier on the reader, who may not connect Route XX with NJ XX. --NE2 06:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess NJ was a bad example (I don't edit there, so I have no idea how their abbreviation works). But yes, my point was the usage of abbreviations like NY (for New York State Route X), PA (for Pennsylvania Route X), or SR (for any state whose common name is State Route X or State Road X) in instances where a route is being referred to but not linked to. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that except for articles within the same route system. Can't an article about North Carolina Route 8 use a link like NC 4 in the article proper or no? (Hypothetically assuming the common name was "North Carolina Route 8") --TinMan 07:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't, personally. The ideal linking method for me would be like the one used in New York State Route 153. Links to other routes (Interstates, state routes, etc.) are in full, with abbreviations used for subsequent mentions of said linked route. The infobox and junction lists are fair game, though. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, sorry, it's hard to get inchwise in this discussion again with so many responses (4th edit conflict) :-P . I think I understand now. The bolded text can use the long name "District of Columbia Route xx" and an editor in the article proper can use any common term as long as it agrees with the WikiProject folks. The same should go for the territories as well and states with long common names, unless a shorter version has been chosen. Although, it would seem silly for a "cleanup editor" to change all the "DC 295"'s to "District of Columbia 295"'s. I'll withdraw my proposition to change the common name for DC. --TinMan 07:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The New Jersey Department of Transportation, when spelling out the name of a road, exclusively uses Route XX as opposed to New Jersey Route XX or some other term. However, when it's using an abbreviation (i.e. in the same context as I-XX or US XX), it exclusively uses NJ XX. The infoboxes were changed after a short discussion at WT:NJSCR#Abbreviations in infoboxes. -- NORTH ^talk 07:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I said that I think it's fine in the infobox. --NE2 08:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, I'm just clarifying in case there was any confusion. -- NORTH ^talk 08:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect needing deletion

I happened to come across a lone straggler. State Road 712 (Florida) needs to be moved to Florida State Road 712 over the redirect. If I don't get a response here, I'll take it to WP:RM. -- NORTH ^talk 20:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Done. I'll let you clean up any redirects that need work. Vegaswikian 20:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Double redirects fixed. Thank you. -- NORTH ^talk 20:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Fingers-of-Pyrex

Most of his recent edits have been to change articles to not follow this. I've told him several times to stop. --NE2 05:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've explained to him further about why he should follow the standard. If he continues to not go along with it, we may have to take further action and/or just go back and clean up the mistakes. --Triadian 05:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Warn him one more time, then block with a MOS block as per WP:USSH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I slapped a warning template for being a vandal on the talk page. Using these is generally better then user written ones since they are more formal and have a built in escalation of the tone. Any user can apply them. Vegaswikian 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Virginia historical routes

I came across a DAB link in this article: Virginia State Route 7. It points to a historical route, and the link given is State Route 7 (Virginia 1918-1923). This redirects to Virginia State Route 3, which also has a DAB on it with the link State Route 3 (Virginia 1918-1923). Shouldn't these redirects be moved to Virginia State Route 7 (1918-1923) and Virginia State Route 3 (1918-1923) per WP:USSH?

Others include:

• State Route 2 (Virginia 1918-1923) to Virginia State Route 2 (1918-1923)
• State Route 4 (Virginia 1918-1923) to Virginia State Route 4 (1918-1923)
• State Route 4 (Virginia 1933-1938) to Virginia State Route 4 (1933-1938)
• State Route 4 (Virginia 1940) to Virginia State Route 4 (1940)
• State Route 5 (Virginia 1918-1923) to Virginia State Route 5 (1918-1923)
• State Route 6 (Virginia 1918-1923) to Virginia State Route 6 (1918-1923)
• State Route 8 (Virginia 1918-1923) to Virginia State Route 8 (1918-1923)
• State Route 9 (Virginia 1933-1940) to Virginia State Route 9 (1933-1940)

And I'm not sure about this one: State Route 13 (Norfolk, Virginia)

--Son (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions or guidelines?

This page seems to be having a bit of an identity crisis. It calls itself "Manual of Style...", but the cat is "Wikipedia naming conventions", and it does in fact seem to be a set of naming conventions, that is, article title naming conventions. Is anyone opposed to an upgrade? Naming conventions are closer to policy than to guidelines. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Same here, but I just want to make sure there's no hoops to jump through to make this happen. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that there are no hoops to jump through, because anything that concerns the titles of articles has to be a naming convention. I'm going through every page that uses the Style template and reporting on what's happening to each page to WT:MOS later tonite, so I'm sure if anyone has a problem with what I'm doing, they'll let us know. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, because we've been screwed with stuff like this before... --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. As Crook Nixon said, I am not a dick. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is both a naming convention and a style guide for how to write the highway name. --NE2 11:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing it by reading quickly, the page covers what page name to use, how to handle redirects, and how to link to it. It says that the same name should be used in the text, but that's the name that appears in the title. This is probably why this page was put in "Wikipedia naming conventions". I assume the information is working well (I don't see evidence of complaints), and as long as it's working, it's a "naming convention", which is closer to being policy than a guideline. Is there any information on this page which should not be considered (close to) policy? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"How to link to it" includes stuff like writing "State Route 99" most of the time even though the article name is "California State Route 99". --NE2 12:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Whenever you get additional content that concerns style, language or formatting, I would support adding this page into the "Wikipedia style guidelines" cat. (Although my personal preference would be for you guys to have two pages if needed, one for style and one for naming conventions.) A sentence or two is not enough to consider this page a style manual. I don't see a need to change the page name; the cat at the bottom and the infobox at the top should be clear. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole "official name" column specifies what to call it in text. --NE2 13:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I was unconvinced until I got to my own state, North Carolina. You guys got that right: we always call Highway 62 "NC 62". This is not a naming convention, but it is a style convention, and you have enough of them. Okay, your choice: do you want to trust the readers to understand the difference between policy and style, or do you want to break it into two pages? If you want to keep it on one page, I really think we need a new infobox that explains the difference. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I just asked on WT:Manual of Style/Archive 100#Being clear about naming conventions vs style guidelines for wording for a new "dual" infobox. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

←Ah, I just found Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide/Compliance and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (exit lists) (I'm doing the sweep today on WhatLinksHere to Template:style-guidelines.) Now we've got enough material for (at least) two pages. I don't want to interfere with your wikiproject, which is chugging along just fine without any "help" from us style guidelines people, but is there any objection to being clear about which parts concern article titles, redirects and links (naming conventions/policy) and which parts concern article text (style guidelines)? Could you have separate pages for naming conventions vs. style guidelines? The only real judgment call on the 3 pages seems to be the table on this page; any way you want to handle that is fine. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota, North/South Dakotas

Thouhg on interstate-guide those states for state/neutral shields is shade in black the state-name-interstate shields is still common in some route numbers. Like I-94, 90 of Minnesota. They use both types of shields like Maryland do, so they can be use on article body only and as long as is avoid from routeboxes. --Freewayguy (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? This page has nothing to do with that. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Highway shields in text

I haven't seen this directly addressed in either the US highway manual of style or the icon section of the MOS: What is the consensus on use of highway shields within the body of a non-highway article? See Dover, New Hampshire#Geography for an example. My feeling is that the shields don't belong in plain prose sections, but I haven't found guidance one way or the other. --Ken Gallager (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. Roads project guidelines state not to use shield images in prose [28] although that city article is not technically under the scope of the U.S. Roads project. WP:MOSFLAG does say not to use them in prose when talking about flags of countries [29]. --Polaron | Talk 18:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What I was looking for. Thanks very much. --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviations of names

Recently with the Interstate 68 article's FA nomination process, there's been a discussion of how to refer to state routes in successive references in the text. (See WP:Featured_article_candidates/Interstate_68/archive3.) User:Rschen7754 has suggested that "Route xx" nomenclature be used, but this is inconsistent with how the states abbreviate the names themselves. WP:USSH doesn't seem to really cover this issue currently. WP:USRD/STDS seems to support using whatever abbreviation the state itself generally uses.

I'd like to suggest we create another column on the state listing table showing standard abbreviations to use for each state. This information could then be used across WP:USRD articles and in the infobox and Jct template consistently. Brian Powell (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This issue was recently brought up in a discussion at WT:USRD#USSH_violation_in_NJ. It seems that there is some indication (from users other than myself) that a listing of standard abbreviations/short forms would be helpful. --LJ (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw those comments over at WT:USRD#USSH_violation_in_NJ, too. It got sort of confusing (to me at least) what the course of action was at the end. Do we just want to set out an initial listing in WP:USSH and edit it from there? Brian Powell (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Before we actually put the short forms onto the guideline, we should probably create an initial listing here first. I'll work on this. --LJ (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so here is my attempt to get an initial list going for these. The "short form" column indicates a shortened form of the official name. In most cases, this is the one currently used in the {{jct}} template and in the browse portion of infoboxes. I have included notes where I've seen other nomenclature. Comments are encouraged, as the short form may need to be changed to match designations currently used by the state projects.

State/Territory/District	Official name	Short form	Notes
Alabama	State Route X	SR-X
Alaska	Alaska Route X	AK-X
American Samoa	American Samoa Highway X	ASX	American Samoa uses X with leading zero's, as in AS00X
Arizona	State Route X	SR X
Arkansas	Highway X	Hwy. X
California	State Route X	SR X
Colorado	State Highway X	SH X
Connecticut	Route X	Route X
Delaware	Delaware Route X	DE X
District of Columbia	District of Columbia Route X	DC X
Florida	State Road X	SR X
Georgia	State Route X	SR X
Guam	Guam Highway X	GH-X	inconsistent; some places use "Highway X"
Hawaii	Route X	Route X
Idaho	State Highway X	SH-X
Illinois	Illinois Route X	IL X	Some prose and the list page indicates use of "ILL X"
Indiana	State Road X	SR X
Iowa	Iowa Highway X	IA X
Kansas	K-X	K-X
Kentucky	Kentucky Route X	KY X
Louisiana	Louisiana Highway X	LA X
Maine	State Route X	SR X
Maryland	Maryland Route X	MD X
Massachusetts	Route X	Route X
Michigan	M-X	M-X
Minnesota	Minnesota State Highway X	TH X	"MN X" often used in other instances, such as non-{{jct}} lines of infobox and some prose
Mississippi	Mississippi Highway X	MS X
Missouri	Route X	Route X
Montana	Montana Highway X	MT X
Nebraska	Nebraska Highway X	N-X	"NE X" used in many non-{{jct}} infobox uses
Nevada	State Route X	SR X
New Hampshire	New Hampshire Route X	NH X	"Route X" used in some instances
New Jersey	Route X	Route X	Recently changed from "NJ X" via discussion at WT:USRD
New Mexico	State Road X	NM X
New York	New York State Route X	NY X
North Carolina	NC X	NC X
North Dakota	North Dakota Highway X	ND X
Northern Mariana Islands	Northern Mariana Islands Highway X	?
Ohio	State Route X	SR X
Oklahoma	State Highway X	SH-X	"OK-X" noted on many articles in lead, but "SH-X" is predominant usage
Oregon	Oregon Route X	OR X
Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania Route X	PA X
Pennsylvania Quadrant	State Route XXXX	SR X
Puerto Rico	PR-X	Highway X	Inconsistent; jct uses "Highway X", infobox links use "PR X"
Rhode Island	Route X	Route X
South Carolina	South Carolina Highway X	SC X
South Dakota	Highway X	SD X
Tennessee	State Route X	SR-X	Some prose usage as "SR X"
Texas	State Highway X	SH X	Other types: "Loop X", "Spur X", "FM X", "RM X"
Utah	State Route X	SR-X
U.S. Virgin Islands	U.S. Virgin Islands Highway X	Highway X
Vermont	Vermont Route X	VT X
Virginia	State Route X	SR X
Washington	State Route X	SR X
West Virginia	West Virginia Route X	WV X
Wisconsin	Highway X	WIS X	"Highway X", "STH X", "WIS X" called out in lead of articles; "WIS X" used in templates, "STH X" often used in prose
Wyoming	Wyoming Highway X	WYO X

--LJ (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate that establishing the common "short forms" of these names is not meant to usurp established naming conventions, but rather document and standardize the existing abbreviations used to achieve uniformity across articles of a given type. --LJ (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say Iowa is a short enough state name that it doesn't need to be abbreviated. Plus, Iowa DOT uses IA and Iowa interchangeably. --Fredddie™ 08:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

For the other states around where I live, here is what I know about what they call their roads. In Maryland (which is one of the states along I-68), "MD x" is used in the HLR (such as here) as well as other MDSHA documents (such as this newsletter for the construction of an interchange). Therefore, I would say "MD x" would probably be acceptable for Maryland routes. In Delaware, various abbreviations are used by DelDOT. In the Traffic Count and Mileage Report, the header for state routes uses "DE RT x" while the tables list them as "DEL x". This page on a construction project refers to state routes as "State Road x", "Route x", and "SR x". Clearly, it appears Delaware is inconsistent in what they call their state routes, and they don't seem to use "DE x" as we currently use. In Pennsylvania, "PA x" can be seen in use for state routes in documents such as this map showing the truncation of PA 82 whereas quadrant routes are called "SR x". From this glance, it appears the abbreviations for Pennsylvania are correct. Dough4872 (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait, is this intended for use in tables, or in prose? In prose, excessive abbreviation is often detrimental, and I would think using just "Highway XX" or "Route XX" (depending on state) would be sufficient. Powers ^T 17:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If this is in prose, then this will be a long discussion. For example, Virginia only sometimes uses "State Route X" in common speaking and written language, preferring to use "Route X"[30][31][32]. "US" would most likely be okay since that's fairly common, especially since we have the same number US and state routes. --MPD ^{T / C} 17:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had originally intended for it to be all encompassing, to standardize table/infobox links as well as shortened form in prose. The issue on Interstate 68's FA nomination above is what prompted me to make the list. (Now I'm starting to think I've bitten off more than I can chew...)

I agree that excessive abbreviation is detrimental, and shouldn't be used exclusively in prose. In writing Nevada articles, I often switch between "State Route X" and "SR X" in an effort to avoid repetition (although Nevada DOT doesn't use "Route X", so I don't either). I would concur that using a shortened form of the official name ("Route X" or "Highway X") should be an allowable alternative in prose, depending upon each state's usage. --LJ (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see this be a standard list for the infoboxes. For prose, I think at the very least these forms should be considered acceptable uses. Personally, I think that having to formalize a list of all acceptable reference styles seems overly formalistic but the FA for I-68 seems to be forcing it. I'd be perfectly happy to just say that any "mainstream" style is OK as long as we are consistent with local usage and within the article. Brian Powell (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as we're still allowed to use constructions like "... intersects Routes 53 and 107 less than five miles east ..." I'm fine with the proposal. =) Powers ^T 22:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If "Route xx" is in common usage in an area, that seems OK. Admittedly, I've never been a fan of that style myself. I prefer to specify what type of route it is myself. Brian Powell (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm presuming that the type of route has been specified already, perhaps multiple times and reading "Massachusetts" or "Mississippi" over and over again is starting to get tiresome. =) Powers ^T 14:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this grammatical construct, as long as the full "official" term has been used previously in the prose. --LJ (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

North Carolina

According to this MoS, North Carolina highways are officially "NC X", but the articles are named "North Carolina Highway X" Shouldn't it be one or the other? If it should be "NC X", should the articles be named in the style of Kansas and Michigan — NC X (North Carolina highway)? --Fredddie™ 18:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I am NOT trying to restart the "fun" that was SRNC. I'm mostly seeking clarification. --Fredddie™ 18:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your logic seems sound on this. I wonder how this escaped the provisions of SRNC for so long... --LJ (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there sources for this? --Rschen7754 22:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1. The State Transportation map (14MB) calls them State Routes
2. The Primary Routes map] calls them NC Highways
3. The NCDOT truck restrictions lists their abbreviation as NC X and lists secondary roads as SR X.

Unfortunately, this tells us nothing. --Fredddie™ 03:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

While not an exact science, a Google Trends search shows North Carolina Highway or NC Highway is the more popular terminology.--Fredddie™ 03:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge road junction lists into this?

Since WP:Manual of Style (road junction lists) appears to be exclusively about US road junction lists, I see no reason it should not be merged with this page. Are there any objections? Tony (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not. RJL is used in Canada as well. It's intended for use in every country; due to some disputes about minor aspects of the format, the UK is not using it at this time, but we might discuss it with them again in the future. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with such a merger. This guideline was created out of the ashes of WP:SRNC, the State Route Naming Convention. SRNC was mandated by ArbCom back before I was actively editing. Anything to do with changing the results of SRNC is very taboo, which would mean that merging the two style guidelines together would effectively freeze changes to RJL, which was being revised to be an international standard. The fact remains that a few vocal editors in the UK have had objections to MOS:RJL, and when that simmers down, there is a compromise to be proposed to resolve the last vestiges of that dispute. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As an addendum, this (USSH) is more naming convention than MoS and could be demote out of the MoS. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The junction list guideline is US centric due to its origins. However, I've seen many attempts to internationalize it, with mixed results. Point being, any lack of internationalization hasn't been for lack of trying. However, this guideline (which is really more of a naming convention) really doesn't belong in the Manual of Style, as it truly only applies to the U.S. Roads wikiproject. That this is part of the MoS is more of an artifact of the arbcom decision. I would prefer to demote this guideline out of the MoS to a WP:USRD guideline and keep working on the junctions list until we have something that works for everybody. Looking at the discussions we're close, there's only a couple of points that need to be resolved.Dave (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

To buttress what Dave's said above, RJL is much less US-centric than before. Please don't hijack the progress that's been made, and is almost complete. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

RJL is currently used in many countries. See User:Rschen7754/World for example. --Rschen7754 05:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A further note from the RJL talk page archives, the revision of the only UKRD FA when passed followed the then-current version of RJL at the time it passed, it was taken to FARC, and followed the style guide. The list was only changed to the UKRD format at a later time. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It all seems very complicated. I don't see why all things to do with roads, highways, junctions, road bridges, can't be in a single MoS subpage. Our aim is to simplify the page structure of the sprawling MoS that is so daunting for editors to use. Tony (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

We've already said that USSH (aka this guideline) need not be part of the MoS. RJL is a style guide meant to provide a standardized format for road junction lists in a single place. The other things that impact road/highway articles are really just general provisions of the MoS (use of bold face, italics, how to format numbers and measurements, the usage of icon images, etc.) and need not be repeated in the MoS. We have project pages that spell out how the MoS applies to road/highway articles in our projects, and only RJL is road-specific. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

How about this page be renamed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways), a name it probably should have carried all along? Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony, we're in agreement on that. The question is merge the two, or just get rid of one. I'm arguing get rid of one. Dave (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm at a distance to these topics, but all the same want to forge ahead with the larger rationalisation program. Tell me, is it the road junctions lists MoS you are suggesting should be deleted? Are you suggesting that it should become a section here? (I'd be very pleased with that: it makes a lot of sense.) But why is this framed only WRT highways? Why not roads? And why, if UK or Irish or Australian editors subsequently decide they need most of the text here but with a few local guidelines—can't there be scope for them to add their own sections? In other words, I'm suggesting that "US" not be in the page title, but be the very first section. Tony (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Mini straw poll

Option 1- Merge the two road specific parts of the Manual of style (the U.S. Highway naming scheme at WP:USSH and the junctions guide at WP:RJL) into a single guideline

Option 2- Remove the U.S. Highway naming scheme at WP:USSH from the Manual of Style and transfer it back to the WP:USRD project. Keep WP:RJL for now, pending resolution (or lack of) for the last few items being objected to by the UK Roads wikiproject.

• Support - Dave (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support as second choice - provided that it carries the same level of ArbCom-given enforceability. --Rschen7754 05:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Option 3 - Make this a naming convention under WP:NC.

• Support as first choice. --Rschen7754 05:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I just don't know enough about this topic, but I can't see why, if this is to remain part of the MoS, it should be expanded in potential scope (i.e., it's title, to start with) to include all countries and all roads, not just highways. It's rather short; so is road junction lists. While both are almost entirely about US roads, is the project not better served by bringing road editors from everywhere together? What is wrong with structuring the new MoS subpage on roads into subsections (US highways could be one; US road junction lists could be another). Then guidelines for other countries would be more forthcoming, with these ones as models. Please think big picture.

BTW, I see talk of highway rest areas at the road junctions lists talk page. Again, why is it all fragmented? Tony (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony1, did you read my comments about how road articles are no different from other articles? Most of the content of an article on a road is covered by the rest of the MoS already. There are MoS sections related to article structure, lead sections, infoboxes, the correct usage of text formatting, etc. The only thing that a roads article would have that isn't going to be covered is the junction list. That's it.

This page is not a style guide. It's a naming convention, the results of which settled an ArbCom case related to page-move wars over the thousands of US highway articles. This page should NOT be in the MoS, as it is a naming convention, end of story.

As for your proposal about dividing a subpage into sections based on country, I say that is useless. There's nothing so fundamentally different about a road in the US from a road in India or the UK that requires such a division. That method of organization would fragment the same or similar information on the page into sections. Like I've said before, and I will say again, the only subject on which a roads article needs a specific style guide is the junction list. The rest of the article should be following the rest of the MoS, like any other kind of article. Are you telling me that all subject areas of Wikipedia need subject-specific MoS pages, even if those pages duplicate the guidelines on how to format text, graphics, infoboxes and the like? We are thinking big picture here, just that there's nothing else needed to craft a good article on a roadway that isn't in other sections of the MoS already.

One last comment concerning the rest areas question over at WT:RJL. That's actually already covered by the guideline. The US project just doesn't add that piece of information to junction lists, even though the guideline discusses and allows it. That new editor is really asking for a change in practice, which was settled by consensus long ago by the project, not a change in the style guide itself. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, we're removing WP:USSH from the MOS. You've resolved your "duplication" concerns and poor organization concerns this way. What more do you want? --Rschen7754 03:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if this is to be removed from the MoS, I'd be happier not to see the road-junction-list MoS remain—it is so narrow and localised and short. Is there some way it, too, can be merged with whatever this page becomes? Tony (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

PS It is a little more than just a naming convention, isn't it? Tony (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

... no, because then it wouldn't be in MOS? --Rschen7754 03:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that this page was written years ago in response to a directive fro ArbCom. The person that suggested it become part of the MoS probably did so under the impression that such a label would give it more weight. Now it's 2010, and we're re-evaluating things. This page shouldn't be in the MoS because it's really a naming convention. The fact that other stuff got put in here, yeah there's some stuff on page moves, redirects and links. That's a result of the origins of this from the ArbCom case. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Page move

I've boldy moved the page and edited it out of the MoS. I've commented out much of the comment below the list of naming conventions. Most of that isn't relevant to this page as a naming convention, and they should be moved to appropriate pages under the USRD project. One final consideration should be that as written, this page excludes the Interstates and US Highway systems. I think it would be a good idea to incorporate those naming schemes into the chart. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We lost the Interstate/US Highway naming conventions when those project pages were merged into USRD a while back. -- LJ ↗ 15:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I created the table for the Interstates and US Highways. Let me know if I missed anything. I also moved the commented content over to WP:USRD/STDS since that was the most appropriate location for it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

US Route vs. US Highway

The following is a closed 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.

Status quo was sustained by the discussion. Imzadi 1979 → 18:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, a long time ago, all of the articles on components of the United States Numbered Highway System were moved to US Route # (in X) because AASHTO uses that nomenclature now, even though the system is named otherwise. Maybe that's an oversimplification, but when the table was moved here, in moving it out of the MOS (where it never really belonged) to make it a part of the NC, it was never amended to reflect reality. Some states are "Highway states" and others are "Route states". I'd like to propose one minor change, and possibly one larger change.

1. For state-detail articles in "Highway states", the "US Highway #" nomenclature is perfectly acceptable, as "US Route #" is "foreign sounding" to natives of that state. It's essentially an infra-national variation on WP:TIES/WP:ENGVAR. This guideline would be updated to list "U.S. Highway" as an acceptable alternate nomenclature. Parent articles would be updated to list "U.S. Highway #" as an alternate name as needed.
2. For state-detail articles in "Highway states", the articles could be moved from "U.S. Route # in X" to "U.S. Highway # in X", preserving the former name as a redirect, and the prose would be updated to reflect that fact. "Route states" and the parent articles would be unaffected except to list the "U.S. Highway #" as an alternate name as needed in the parent article.

In all honesty, the two words are interchangeable in terms of meaning, but not in terms of usage. Just as UK articles will call them "motorways" and North American articles "freeways", the local vernacular to each state should be followed in state-detail articles. The national-detail articles should reflect both usages as necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 03:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Inconsistent naming system, makes things really difficult to deal with. --Rschen7754 07:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose which, allowing vernacular differences in the text (#1) or moving the article titles themselves (#2)? Imzadi 1979 → 07:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Number 2. --Rschen7754 07:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• I am okay with "highway" states such as MI using "highway" in the lead and for hatnotes for state detail US route pages; however, the article titles should be kept consistent with other articles by using "route". Dough4872 15:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comments 1. I think that all U.S. and Interstate articles should maintain the consistent "route", even if they only cover a single state which might use "highway" locally, since the overall subject remains part of a national system. 2. I don't follow the logic of the English dialect argument. American DOTs all use American English; it's what words that they choose that makes the difference. For example, it's not like the dialect changes from Michigan to Indiana or Wisconsin (quite the opposite for the latter, of course); it's whatever the respective DOT has chosen to describe its road infrastructure components. It is more in the line of "freeway" vs. "expressway". Mapsax (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • There is a technical difference between a freeway and an expressway, so even if the name of a roadway is "Foo Expressway", we'd still call it a freeway in the text. Taking your argument further, we'd rename them all "State Route X" in text for consistency, which is wrong as in Indiana they are "State Road #", in Wisconsin they're "State Trunk Highway #" or "Highway #", etc. We recognize that there is no one, "right" English as we allow for the regional variations in terms of spelling and vocabulary on the national level (and sub-national in the case of the UK with British vs. Oxford English), it only makes sense to allow for the vocabulary variations inside the US. American English is not homogeneous in terms of vocabulary/vernacular. The dialect does change between Michigan and Wisconsin. Michigan is a "pop" state by and large, but Wisconsin is a "soda" state. I don't hear Wisconsinites, or "Trolls", using the word "eh" like the Yoopers. P.S. As much as we like to equate them, there is a fundamental difference between the United States Numbered Highway System and the Interstate Highway System. The former is a voluntary creation of the states, regulated through AASHTO which is powerless to compel changes or prevent changes for which it doesn't approve. The latter is federally regulated and in a numerical and routing context, federally controlled. Imzadi 1979 → 22:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• I approve of #1 (allowing vernacular differences in text) and oppose #2 (moving article titles). In lieu of #2, I propose, if this has not been done already, creating redirects from "U.S. Highway X in State" to "U.S. Route X in State" so anyone searching using the term "U.S. Highway" gets redirected to the correct article. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment What constitutes a "route state" versus a "highway state"? I know there's certain parts of the Upper Midwest where we don't exactly pronounce the word "route" in the way that's considered correct, but I'd hardly think the term itself is "foreign." --Sable232 (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It has nothing to do with pronunciation, but everything to do with how the state DOTs name their roadways. MDOT here in Michigan calls them "US Highway #", and Mn/DOT uses "USTH #" (US Trunk Highway) in their logs. It follows the SR vs. SH practices in a state. Imzadi 1979 → 01:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with the emerging consensus here even though Texas is a "highway state" as demonstrated here. Otherwise, Texas is never a "pop state"; instead it's either a "coke state" among Anglo residents where all soft drinks regardless of brand are generically called "cokes" and a "soda state" among Hispanic residents even when speaking English. Fortguy (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• I thought #1 ("Route" vs. "Highway" in text) was already in place for those states that use the "highway" nomenclature...I support this idea where it is needed. I oppose #2, as I don't believe an inconsistent naming structure would really help in other ways. -- LJ ↗ 01:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not officially listed here, and an editor has changed an article twice citing this NC as the reason for the change. That is why I proposed adding it concretely into the NC that #1 is acceptable if not preferred. Imzadi 1979 → 02:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that #1, the true point of my proposal, has consensus, and it's already reflected in the page. See footnote #2 under the "Interstate and U.S. Routes" section on the page. That footnote has been in the guideline since this edit in April 2010. Imzadi 1979 → 18:44, 25 September 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.

Regarding style of U.S. Route pages and subpages

This is essentially a continuation of the above conversation, an explanation of the background that led to the discussion and clarification of my comments, and my relevant suggestions.

I made an edit to the U.S. Route 27 in Michigan page (see the History page, 2010-09-21) to add text to the body, and decided to change the hatnote to match the actual title of the target page since I was already editing the article (I know that redirects are OK, so I probably wouldn't have done anything had I not already been editing); this was reverted with the reasoning of keeping wording consistent with the article ("highway").

This is where the relevance to the above is: I then changed all the instances of "highway" to "route" in the article, because, even though Michigan is a "highway" state, the article is still about a U.S. Route, and logically should contain the same prose as the related overall article about US-27. My opinion is that all such articles related to the two U.S. national systems with independent numbering (Interstates and United States Numbered Highways; the National Highway System is essentially an overlay and not relevant), even if isolated to a single state, should maintain the style of the highway systems as a whole, regardless of the nomenclature that the isolated states use, with the exception to references to state highways/routes which happen to cross or overlap the subject route. Mapsax (talk) 06:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You've expressed your opinion, as have others. The guideline, as updated from April, and sustained by the consensus above, does not agree with you. Sorry. Imzadi 1979 → 07:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The consensus above applies to the general nomenclature, not the specific instance that I clarified. If the consensus for that remains the same, so be it, but I wanted to separate the two principles. (I would have simply added another comment to the above discussion, but it was already closed.) Mapsax (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See footnote #2 under the second section, which states: "The official AASHTO route logs and documents refer to these highways as "U.S. Route X". However, the term "U.S. Highway X" is used by many states DOTs, and may be used in article prose where this nomenclature is prevalent." (emphasis added) The prose includes all of the text in the article. Imzadi 1979 → 01:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the basis for the footnote? It seems counter to the purpose of style guides, which is to make things uniform. Mapsax (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a style guide, it is a naming convention, to describe the correct way to name articles. Since it was previously included in the Manual of Style, many editors refer to "WP:USSH" to style matters, even though USSH has not been in the MOS for months. Style guides do make things uniform, but there will be exceptions. You can't make everything the same when they aren't. Imzadi 1979 → 02:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

When the prose is talking specifically about a particular US numbered route in a non-abbreviated form (i.e. "U.S. Route 95", "US Highway 27", etc.), the preference is to use whichever nomenclature is prevalent in that state. This does not mean that the word "highway" by itself can only be used in states where 'highway' is the preferred nomenclature--the same goes for "route". -- LJ ↗ 18:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

For Michigan, rather than repeat the abbreviated name (I-75, US 23 or M-28) every time I need to mention the roadway, I mix up the terms "highway", "trunkline", "roadway". "road" and even "route", although I do tend to use "route" to refer to the path or the alignment of the the road more than the road itself. Guess what, that's fine. Imzadi 1979 → 19:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

For New Jersey routes, I think if the title of all NJ state routes begin with the state name, than the name used in the articles should too, to keep consistency. It just looks neater, in my opinion. MikeM2011 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason we use "Route X" because that is what NJDOT uses as opposed to "New Jersey Route X". Dough4872 02:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

RFC on coordinates in highway articles

There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 01:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Conventions are incomplete

A convention is needed for primary interstate highways that have another route with the same number (such as I-84) and auxiliary interstates that pass through multiple states, but nonetheless have another route with the same number (such as I-275). I would like to apply the existing auxiliary duplicated number convention to primary interstates as well, however there has been debate about this (without clear consensus) at Talk:Interstate 88 (east). Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 19:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC on moving page names for Interstate highway numbers designated in multiple, disconnected locations

Consensus is apparently in favor of performing these moves and having this convention wherever this issue arises for Interstates. While reasons for supporting (and objecting) were generally subjective, I believe it has been adequately demonstrated that this new nomenclature is likely to be clearer for readers. -- tariqabjotu 03:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

A set of page moves regarding Interstate highway numbers designated in multiple, disconnected places was discussed for about one week with no proper consensus. The page moves proposed were:

• Interstate 76 (east) → Interstate 76 (Ohio–New Jersey)
• Interstate 76 (west) → Interstate 76 (Colorado–Nebraska)
• Interstate 84 (east) → Interstate 84 (Pennsylvania–Massachusetts)
• Interstate 84 (west) → Interstate 84 (Oregon–Utah)
• Interstate 86 (east) → Interstate 86 (Pennsylvania–New York)
• Interstate 86 (west) → Interstate 86 (Idaho)
• Interstate 88 (east) → Interstate 88 (New York)
• Interstate 88 (west) → Interstate 88 (Illinois)

Should these pages be moved to the titles listed above?

This RfC will be open for ten days before a close will be requested. TCN7JM 03:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I added a couple more that were implied on I-88's page but not included here. –Fredddie™ 04:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Derp, my bad. TCN7JM 04:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Question: Would this proposed move have any negative effect on how WP:USRD uses various templates that link to standardized article titles (i.e. {{jct}}, {{infobox road}}, etc.? Forgive my ignorance, but would the proposed moves require recoding of the templates (which are already complex) or would the resulting article redirects be sufficient? I wouldn't want this to cause any technical problems. -- LJ ↗ 07:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No. Jct already links "Interstate nn (state)", so fixing the redirects is the only thing to do. Infobox road would not not be affected at all. Maybe the browse links but nothing major. –Fredddie™ 11:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. THat's kinda what I thought but wanted to be sure. -- LJ ↗ 07:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Question: Before the RfC expires, shouldn't there be an announcement on the effected pages themselves so that readers can chime in if they want? It might help provide a broader base of input into the survey. Dbroer (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support page moves - The current article titles seem to violate WP:PRECISE in that they don't unambiguously define the scope of the article. "(east)" and "(west)" could be confused for the different directions the highway travels by a reader that isn't a roadgeek, and the more precise titles are more helpful. TCN7JM 03:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nothing was wrong with the original titles. They clearly showed the eastern and western versions of the interstate relative to each other. The title with the state names are long and clunky. Also, by only having the state that it terminates in (like Interstate 84 (Pennsylvania-Massachusetts)), it seems to imply that the interstate only runs through those two states and not any others in between. Dough4872 03:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  I can't agree with your last comment. Using common sense, one would realize that Pennsylvania does not border Massachusetts and cannot only run through those two states. TCN7JM 03:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  See WP:IDONTLIKEIT –Fredddie™ 17:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  That, as well as the dash representing the word "to" kind of invalidate that reasoning. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)*:::That, as well as the dash representing the word "to" kind of invalidate that reasoning. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Not every reader is going to have a full sense of geography, especially an English reader from a foreign country. However, they would have a sense of the eastern U.S. or western U.S. Dbroer (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose moves. Current DAB parentheticals are short and easy to understand. No need to add more letters as the added letters do not add any meaning that would not be obvious from reading the articles in question. West/East works just fine.--Jayron32 03:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Jayron: the parenthetical titles are (mostly) shorter and are definitely easier to read, especially for the casual reader. Also, for us editors, they are easier to utilize for editing purposes. Wouldn't it affect the servers, too (extra characters=extra processing)? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  By that logic, this article in it's current state should be a Featured Article. –Fredddie™ 05:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  I don't understand what you meant by that. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

  As you said, shorter articles are better for the server. –Fredddie™ 16:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support At least for a lot of these, it's hard to tell that the one in the Midwest is the "west" or "east" one. --Rschen7754 05:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:PRECISE and WP:COMMONSENSE. The use of the specific state location in the page title is a much better identifier than the generalized non-specific terms of "East" or "West". State locations provide the reader with immediate unambiguous identification and less confusion about the page they are searching for. I see no adequate reason for the continued use of ambiguous titles. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You do make a valid point, but the "east/west" titles are simpler. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Simpler" is nice, but I think it becomes irrelevant when it sacrifices each of the other qualities expected of an article title: the Precise, Recognizable and Natural definers that the reader would look for. As to your other comment above, we should keep in mind that titles are not created to make it easy for us few editors, but rather for the benefit of the readers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support, I would like to reiterate (copy and paste) several responses I made at the original discussion to arguments against the move, plus some more:

• It would require moving other pages. (I moved those that could and tagged the others in about 15 minutes.)
• It would "add more confusion than it solves" (how?)
• The current titles are not ambiguous (They are. CactusWriter and myself have explained this two different ways in the original discussion)
• But we could use hatnotes (either they are ambiguous or they're not. See WP:NAMB)
• People are not confused (How do you know? I was confused.)

• lol...so one person determines that everyone else is confused? Dbroer (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• His reasoning is that because he was confused, others could be as well. That comment was definitely ill-advised. TCN7JM 16:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• By the same token since others are not confused there could be others as well. It's a specious argument either way. The fact that people are voting on both sides indicates that some are not confused and others are confused. It wasn't anything personal but it is funny to use ones own reasoning as the basis of how everyone interprets the verbage. Dbroer (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not the only one. See 98.110.125.66's comment below. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 22:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• The new titles are "clunky" (Clunky is better than ambiguous. Anyway, what is "clunky" is entirely subjective.)
• People will use the disambiguation pages (No; they will type in "Interstate XX" and look at the search suggestions)
• Current titles are simpler (so what?) Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 01:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

An addition to my above comments: In the original discussion, I also mentioned that 3-digit Interstates that are used in only two instances (I-610, I-220, I-277 to name a few) still use the state-naming convention (e.g. Interstate 277 (North Carolina) instead of Interstate 277 (east)). I think that this should apply to 2-digits as well; if it is decided otherwise, I think the aforementioned 3-digits should take on the east/west nomenclature. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 21:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support The length of the word(s) in the parenthesis is a minor desire in comparison to clarity and unambiguous definition. From the perspective of many people, both instances of an interstate may lie east or west of them. Therefore, it makes sense that we follow the form that in all contexts is definitive rather than ambiguous. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see how we can establish whether people are confused by the title or not. I don't find the titles in current use to be ambiguous, which is entirely as subjective as stating what is or is not clunky. Maintaining the status quo is proper. --hmich176 04:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support As a random user who is not a highway geek and just ran across this page accidentally, I first assumed that east and west referred to the direction of travel. In common usage, "route 88 east" refers to the eastbound lanes of route 88, not the eastern section of the whole highway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.125.66 (talk • contribs)
• Oppose There has not been a clear case shown that most users are confused by using East or West in title which seems to be the premise of why the article was moved. Therefore the articles should remain where they were. There is nothing wrong with using ordinal compass points for direction. It's common parlance to say "east coast" or "west coast" or even "east of the Mississippi" or "west of the Mississippi" when referring to the western or eastern parts of the county. Using states creates unnecessarily long titles or adds to confusion by making the reader have to know which state the highway exists in. Also, I believe that even if the articles are moving, there should be consensus on the naming convention. Are we going to list every state that an interstate passes? Do we modify east & west to eastern & western? There needs to be discussion around that aspect of the move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbroer (talk • contribs)

  One must wonder how the use of cardinal directions will serve when detailed articles exist for interstates split into more than two segments? I-69 springs to mind. Relativity to the geographically broad audience is also imperative, including providing disambiguation to non-US residents who have no concept of what may be the east or west segment of an interstate. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  Please see my comment above - you're perfectly correct in that we need to consider the non-U.S. audience. While they may not know that I-84 goes through New York on its way from Pennsylvania to Connecticut, they would probably have an easier time understanding I-84 in the east from I-84 in the West. Not everyone knows U.S. geography well but I would bet that they know the east coast from the west coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbroer (talk • contribs)

  Well, yes. But what about the case of Interstate 88, where the western segment of the route is in Illinois, which is closer to the east coast than to the west coast? TCN7JM 01:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  I really think we need to think about all readers and maximize understanding. Like I said, I don't think that a case to change what was already in place has been made. There's always going to be exceptions to every rule but we should try to find consensus that works for the majority of cases. Dbroer (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  If you want to maximize understanding, then we should change to the more specific names. "east" and "west" are not automatically assumed to mean "east coast" and "west coast". TCN7JM 16:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - I'm not convinced that this naming issue is that big of a deal, and I would like to see a simpler solution (ie "eastern" and "western") that might quell the concern. That doesn't mean I couldn't be swayed to the opposite view. -- LJ ↗ 07:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC) See response to comment below. -- LJ ↗ 07:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  If there has to be change, I would agree with this change but I'm opposed to making any change.Dbroer (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Eastern and western would be only slightly better than the current titles. It would have all the same problems, except that their could be less confusion with cardinal directions (eastbound/westbound). Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 16:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've mentioned this before but I really think that using state names leads to more confusion than dividing the country up, especially for the geographically challenged. A foreigner would have a better sense of eastern and western portions of the country than saying Pennsylvania - Massachusetts in the case of I-84. Dbroer (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Interstate 88 (Illinois) is not in the western part of the country. At all. For the sake of the geographically challenged, would you suggest that we change it to Interstate 88 (Midwest)? –Fredddie™ 20:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Western segment" would work equally as well. Just sayin'... -- LJ ↗ 05:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Midwest doesn't really mean much outside of the U.S. but Central would.

• Support. Being the one who proposed these names in the I-88 discussion, naturally I am for it. –Fredddie™ 04:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought I would explain my position in a little more depth than simply being the one who proposed the names. Currently the east–west disambiguators are not specified on WP:USSH. However, we do have a specification for auxiliary interstates in "Interstate X (State)" Without mentioning or suggesting auxiliary interstates, can someone please explain to me how exactly Interstate 380 (west), Interstate 380 (central), and Interstate 380 (east) are different than Interstate 84 (west) and Interstate 84 (east)? It makes no sense to have a codified rule for Thing B and and not for Thing A when Things A and B look the same. THAT is why I support moving to the state-specific names. –Fredddie™ 21:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

My point exactly! Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 22:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thing A (3-digit Interstates) and Thing B (disjointed 2-digit Interstates) are not the same. You can have many more of Thing A, which needs more standardized disambiguation--directional indicators naturally break down with 7+ separate instances of I-295 for example. Multiple instances of Thing A do not imply that the multiple Thing A's should be connected, due to their nature. The nature of Thing B implies to the layman that it is one seamless highway when it really comes in two distinct sections--those portions can be logically described in geographic relationship to one another. This distinction seems to be, IMO, how the naming may have originally come about and why there is currently a difference. -- LJ ↗ 05:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You can have many more 3-digit Interstates than you can have disjointed 2-digit Interstates, but in all honesty, why should that make any difference? The 3-digit Interstates can also be described in geographic relation to each other. If we want to be this inconsistent with our naming practices, why not just change all instances of a 3-digit Interstate number only being used twice to Interstate 490 (east) and Interstate 490 (west), for example? There is almost no difference. TCN7JM 16:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

And does the "layman" care about the distinction between 2-d and 3-d interstates? In some cases, it is merely technical (if we look at the extremes, I-476 is about 7.5 times longer than I-97. Also, WP:NCDAB, an editing guideline, favors contextual (e.g. Illinois") over adjectival (e.g. "west") disambiguation (see its parenthetical disambiguation section). Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 02:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying to find any discussion on the east/west disambiguators from the SRNC era (which if any drawn out discussion would have taken place it would have been then) and I can't find any. It seems to be "How It's Always Been™". –Fredddie™ 22:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not convinced that by the argument that the disjointed 2DIs and 3DIs should be considered the same for comparative purposes, because they are distinctly different types of pieces in the greater whole. It would not make anywhere near the same amount of sense to put directional disambiguators to two or three 3DIs as it does for disjointed 2DIs. TCN7JM's point would further the inconsistency, and I would agree that such a solution would be nonsensical. However, there are two things that do sway my opinion now: (1) The reference to WP:NCDAB, which favors the context-based approach, which I had not considered, and (2) Freddie's assertion that there never was any discussion (or at least there is none archived) on the east/west disambiguators, which actually surprises me.

With that said, I am changing my opinion to Support. I'd prefer a simpler solution as stated previously, but I'll go with what policy dictates and the growing consensus, given the surprising lack of prior dialog on the matter. I would suggest that the naming convention make it clear exactly how the state disambiguators are determined--i.e. use of ultimate termini for that particular segment of the mainline. (Actually, something similar should probably also be spelled out for the few cases of special U.S. Routes spanning more than one location.) -- LJ ↗ 07:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I would support anything but using the terminus states because it is not fully clear to all readers, especially outside the U.S. and even some in the U.S. which states an Interstate travels through. I don't see why a regional system could not be used - Eastern, Central, Western, Northern or Southern - If an interstate spans multiple regions, leave it at the higher level (national). I'd also support adding segment to wording. Dbroer (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make here. If using a definitive term - the geographical entit(y/ies) between which the article covers - as opposed to an ambiguous term - cardinal directions or positions in context to the entire country or to the other articles covering a particular interstate designation - to identify the topic of the article, you make the location precise to all readers. To an average (non-roadgeek) reader from the US, the states are an immediate indicator of the location of the segment covered by an article. To an average reader outside the US, the states certainly provide greater precision indicating the location of the segment than a generalized region or a direction in context to the other article on that interstate designation. Assume for a moment that I'm travelling to Illinois, knowing absolutely nothing of the US, and plan to use Interstate 88 to get to my destination. When I visit the Interstate 88 dab, the two entries are disambiguated using the states, and I know which article I need from the linked title alone. However, if the dab merely used east or west to identify the two articles, with no other context, I'd be stumped. Likewise, when I type "Interstate 88" into the side search, the entries I'm served provide no indication as to what is covered; only the fact that there is an eastern and western segment covered. Further, much as you believe that there is no confusion in the current setup, I believe there is no confusion in "Pennsylvania-Massachusetts", the dash implying "Pennsylvania to Massachusetts, inclusive". It would be odd to think - were I to be seeking info on I-84 in New York - that the PA-MA article doesn't cover the segment in New York, especially if the other option was Oregon-Utah. Also, what of two segments in the same geographical region (no idea if such an example exists)? Finally, simply adding "segment" seems redundant and further invalidates the "shorter is better" argument presented earlier. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Let me try and put it in context with a foreign country. You may or may not know this foreign countries states but it's a similar context. Let's say that the German Autobahn numbers ran across the country and one of them was divided and you were going to be traveling through the Rhineland and you see two articles on Autobahn 81. One is 81 (Saarland-Hesse) and the other is 81 (Saxony-Mecklenburg). Which would you choose? Now suppose that you know you are flying into Frankfort and traveling south and you see an article titled 81 (Northern) or 81 (Southern), which is easier to figure out which is more relevant? Dbroer (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• That's a good example to bring up as I'm 100% unfamiliar with Germany. To be honest, in both cases I'd need to consult a map of Germany. However, in one case I can just bring up a map with the various states and see where Frankfort is among them. In the other case (with north and south), I need to locate both sections of A-81 so that I know which one is relevant to my needs. Frankfort is more-or-less in the centre of Germany; both sections may be south of or north of the city, and I can't determine that without checking both articles or finding both segments on a map. Generalization doesn't help me. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The naming convention for different same-numbered two-digit Interstates should be consistent with the naming convention for different same-numbered three-digit Interstates.  VC  00:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per not westbound, less ambiguous, three-digit interstates convention, Illinois is not in the west. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support- Per RfC, more detailed. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment- Those that oppose this have shown no examples of guidelines, policies, or essays that support their views. The current names are inconsistent due G6 deletion denials for those where redirects needed to be deleted to perform the move. In my opinion, there is consensus in support. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 19:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Can an uninvolved admin bring down the curtain on this RfC?  VC  19:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I requested the RfC be closed at WP:AN/RFC.  VC  21:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I provided a clear example above using German Autobahns as an example. While not exactly the same because Autobahn numbers do not cross the country, they are similar in that each country has states and in using the German state names I was able to show that someone not familiar with the state names will not know which segments contain the state that they are looking for. I maintain that english readers outside of the U.S. will not know that New York or Connecticut are contained in the I-84 (Pennsylvania-Massachusetts) article which is why I suggested Eastern, Western, Northern or Southern for the naming convention. That being said, I realize that I am in the minority and accept the groups opinion. Dbroer (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You did provide a clear example using German Autobahns. Floydian did such a great job arguing in favor of specific place names that no one else saw the need to comment.  VC  01:01, 22 July 2013 (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.

Disambiguation follow-up

In light of the above RFC, there are a few issues left to be discussed and resolved:

1. We should insert some kind of disambiguation guideline into WP:USSH
2. What about Interstate 275 (Ohio–Indiana–Kentucky)?
3. US 2 has a split similar to the discussed interstates; do we split the article and disambiguate similarly?
4. What about state highways (such as Minnesota State Highway 62) that are disambiguated by direction?

I'll split them out for separate consideration below. –Fredddie™ 20:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed guideline

Resolved

 – Added. –Fredddie™ 01:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the actual guideline is in table form, I tried to keep it brief. I think there should be an example column, but I won't argue if consensus is against one.

Subtype	Current title	Proposed title	Examples
Primary	Interstate X	Interstate X Interstate X (State)	Interstate 5 Interstate 88 (Illinois) Interstate 84 (Oregon–Utah)

Not everyone knows what an en dash is. Footnote should read as below:

The state name must be added where the route number is repeated in multiple locations. If the segments cover multiple states, use only the terminal state names separated by an en dash (–). In these cases, "Interstate X" should be used as a disambiguation page.

Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 01:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This may be implied in the discussion, but if we end up using cities for beltways, we would need to explicitly specify the subset of Interstates to which this guideline applies.  VC  17:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This is pretty stale. I'm going to add it to the guideline unless there is opposition. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 00:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

ETP full guideline proposal

FYI

 – The guideline above was added without additions proposed below from the sandbox page.

I added to the guidelines at User:Listroiderbob/sandbox/USSH, which I am releasing under WP:Edit this proposal. It incorporates Fredddie's proposed guideline above as well as several additions I synthesized out of parts of the PA 97 and MN 62 discussions below. Note the addition of a fourth column to the state highway section; and several additions/changes in footnotes. I left out anything about a US 2-type split because a split of US 2 or US 422 seems unlikely in the short term, and consensus has not come close to being established. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 04:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose—I'm starting to think that we're preparing for every possible contingency here, bogging down a simple guideline with lots of exceptions and possibilities for the edge cases. The Michigan examples for further disambiguation are wrong based on what we've already got: M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan) or M-56 (1919–1957 Michigan highway). Omission of the state name is an issue since unlike the other states, Michigan's highways aren't prefixed with the state name. Further, in many cases, we're more likely to need to disambiguate by years, not locations.

The entire last column could be totally removed with one simple paragraph under the table: "If disambiguation by geographic location is needed, append '(X County/Borough/Parish)' or '(Y–Z counties/boroughs/parishes)' as needed. If disambiguation by time period is needed, append '(XXXX–YYYY)' as needed. For Kansas and Michigan, integrate the disambiguation terms as appropriate into '(Kansas/Michigan highway)'." Imzadi 1979 → 04:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, Puerto Rico is subdivided into "municipalities" that serve the function of counties in 48 states, DC can be divided into quadrants, so I think we could even just specify "by county, or equivalent" in the note. Imzadi 1979 → 04:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not totally opposed to converting the last column to prose. However, it is more complex for Michigan and Kansas, and, as you say, Puerto Rico. I would also advocate moving M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan) to M-28 Business (Marquette County) (Seriously, is there an Ishpeming and Negaunee anywhere other than Michigan?) and M-28 Business (Newberry, Michigan) to M-28 Business (Luce County). I support maintaining all existing conventions for historical routes. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 13:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's the problem with your comment to "fix" the name of the business route here: M-28 Business (Marquette, Michigan), which was also in Marquette County. (Both BUS M-28s in the county were also BUS US 41s at various times, so by-city disambiguation is necessary.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Besides, business routes are typically associated with one or two cities, not with the county. They exist to serve a specific downtown or other business district. Michigan isn't afraid to designate separate ones (Alma and St. Louis for US 127, both in Gratiot County; Cadillac and Manton, both for US 131 in Wexford County), and we already specify that business routes for Interstates use "(City, State)", even Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada–Wendover, Utah). Imzadi 1979 → 04:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the other Marquette County BUS M-28 is a redirect, I propose changing the redirect to point to M-28 Business (Marquette County), which would consist of the current Ishpeming-Negaunee article with information about the M-28 Business that is now US 41 Business merged (or at least added) into it. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 14:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No. We should not merge two Featured Articles on two separate highways into one article. Business routes are associated with the cities they serve, not the counties where they are located. Until you drop this "county-only" disambiguation stance, I will vehemently oppose any further changes to the guideline. Imzadi 1979 → 18:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not propose a complete merge of the articles, just of the info in the US 41 article that concerns its former designation as BUS M-28. We should not be unduly concerned with consistency because this is a very small subset of articles we are talking about, and we should use whatever is most concise. That being said, this would be a different issue if both of the Marquette County routes had their own articles, let alone still existed. I say a hatnote is placed on new M-28 Business (Marquette County) with a link to the related BUS US 41 article, considering both highways are in the same area. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 20:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Both articles mention both designations, already. Imzadi 1979 → 20:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

But not in hatnotes. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 21:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

But hatnotes aren't really supposed to be used like that, based oh how I understand the guidelines. Imzadi 1979 → 23:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I suppose Wikipedia:Hatnote#Ambiguous_term_that_redirects_to_an_unambiguously_named_article might apply in some fashion. Otherwise, WP:IAR. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 00:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Except that no ambiguous term redirects there. Imzadi 1979 → 00:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada–Wendover, Utah) is a ridiculous title. It should be moved to Interstate 80 Business (Wendover Boulevard) or at the very least Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover–Wendover). State names should not be included when there is no good reason to include them. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 22:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Except that US place names get the state name added except for a few cases. Imzadi 1979 → 23:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't like that, but don't care enough to argue over it, so I prefer Interstate 80 Business (Wendover Boulevard). Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 00:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Except that we've disambiguated such things based on location, and in the case of business routes, because they are associated with specific cities, they're disambiguated by city. That title does not need to change. Imzadi 1979 → 00:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not commenting extensively on this especially as I'm about to go on vacation, and with my limited Wikimedia time I'll be focusing on other matters. But I am concerned that this guideline is starting to prescribe every single possible name for a road; we should be making USSH more generalized rather than specific. --Rschen7754 00:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I-275

Stale

 – Neither I-275 nor I-495 were moved. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 20:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned this originally on Talk:Interstate 88 (New York), where I proposed:

• Interstate 275 (Ohio–Indiana–Kentucky) → Interstate 275 (Cincinnati)
• Interstate 275 (Ohio–Indiana–Kentucky) could be deleted as an unlikely search term

For beltways, like I-275 here, I propose we allow the beltway city or road name as the disambiguator when the standard state name(s) would be unwieldy. Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway) already falls under this usage. –Fredddie™

• I can support this. The city name is much easier to use. TCN7JM 20:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• I propose Interstate 275 (Cincinnati area) or maybe Intertsate 275 (Cincinnati Bypass) (is By-Pass correct? I don't know) or Interstate 275 (Greater Cincinnati). Obviously it doesn't just go through Cincinnati. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 03:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

  I thought about that (Cincinnati beltway) would have been my choice, but I like Cincinnati for brevity's sake. –Fredddie™ 03:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Since nobody disagrees (yet?) that this interstate serves Cincinnati, I think Interstate 275 (Cincinnati) is the ideal title. The freeway may venture into outlying suburbs that are independent from Cincinnati proper, or lay entirely within them, but it was built for the purpose of reducing traffic congestion in Cincinnati, not Sharonville or Covington. Likewise, Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway) should be adjusted: Are we going to use the name of the beltway, or the metropolitan area that it serves? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

  I'd be willing to bet that not all beltways surrounding major cities are named. I think the city name is the best option. TCN7JM 06:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

  With I-495, I'd say the "Capital Beltway" name is used just as much if not more than "I-495" so I actually like that one as is. –Fredddie™ 11:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say keep the state names as with all other 3di articles. If we changed I-275 to include the city names, we would have to change the other beltways as well for consistency. This would lead to a mess among the 3di articles in which some would have city names and others would have state names. Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway) can remain an exception since the Capital Beltway name is notable. Dough4872 00:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• As unwieldy as Interstate 275 (Ohio–Indiana–Kentucky) is, I agree that it's better to have the state names than the city name. The average bloke here is probably aware of Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky as being U.S. states, but couldn't point to where Cincinnati was on a map, let alone heard of it. Even with my knowledge of U.S. geography I wasn't really aware how close Cincinnati was to Indiana.

With that said, I would rather have the Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway) article title changed to the current Interstate 495 (Maryland-Virginia) redirect – yes, I am aware that a sliver of the road is in D.C. proper, but that's more or less inconsequential to the road's function. In addition, it would lessen confusion: I remember thinking "which capital?" the first time I came across the article considering there's 51-plus of them in the US. This would help to keep things consistent all around. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Regardless of how many capitals there are there are only two Capital Beltways: one around Harrisburg and one around DC. The DC one is established as the primary topic (as it most likely should be). Therefore I see no reason to state two different names for the same highway since Capital Beltway is also a common name. I propose moving Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway) to Capital Beltway (there is already a hatnote for the PA one).

As for 275, I agree that consistency is important but three state names is over the line (in my opinion) and not particularly consistent anyway. If the Capital Beltway were to be properly disambiguated with state names (which I don't support) its title would be Interstate 495 (Maryland–Virginia–District of Columbia). Clunky as hell. I am therefore sticking to my proposal of Interstate 275 (Cincinnati area). Someone that doesn't know where Cincinnati is will probably not be looking up a highway that runs solely through Cincinnati and its suburbs. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 22:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am in favor of using states as disambiguators to maintain consistency. I agree with not including District of Columbia for the Capital Beltway.  VC  17:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• I would also be okay with moving Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway) to Interstate 495 (Maryland–Virginia) to keep consistent with the other 3di articles, with Capital Beltway redirecting there. If we were to leave it at its current title, argument could be made to move Interstate 695 (Maryland) to Interstate 695 (Baltimore Beltway), which is not a good idea as I described above. Dough4872 02:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

US 2

Stale

 – Article was not split. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 16:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The article states in the lead that the two segments were always intended to be non-contiguous, so if we decide they should be split into two articles, I propose:

• U.S. Route 2 → U.S. Route 2 (Washington–Michigan) and U.S. Route 2 (New York–Maine)
• US 2 would be come a dab page

Should we split the main US 2 article into two? –Fredddie™ 20:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• If we split all the articles for Interstates that were never contiguous, I don't see why we shouldn't do the same for US 2. TCN7JM 20:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• But US 2 could be seen differently because the two segments were planned simultaneously. Then again, that's kind of a technicality. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 01:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• When US-2 is split, it should follow this scheme... But does the current article justify or require splitting at this time? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

  It's definitely long enough, and each segment of the route has enough info to support its own article, in my eyes. TCN7JM 06:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no point in splitting US 2, one article is fine covering the road. If we split US 2, we mind as well split U.S. Route 422 which also has two segments for consistency. Dough4872 00:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would be happy with the splits as described above. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And speaking of U.S. Route 422, I'll add that below. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with splitting US 2 as described above.  VC  17:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Other highways

Please add any other relevant articles.

MN 62

Resolved

 – Articles were moved. –Fredddie™ 22:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have a couple ideas for MN 62. –Fredddie™ 20:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  1. Location DABs
     • Minnesota State Highway 62 (west) → Minnesota State Highway 62 (Fulda–Windom)
     • Minnesota State Highway 62 (east) → Minnesota State Highway 62 (Hennepin County) or Minnesota State Highway 62 (Crosstown Highway)
  2. Renaming MN 62 (east) in the Twin Cities
     • Minnesota State Highway 62 (west) → Minnesota State Highway 62 (since it's the older of the two routes)
     • Minnesota State Highway 62 (east) → Minnesota State Highway 62 (Crosstown Highway) or Crosstown Highway
     • Minnesota State Highway 62 → Minnesota State Highway 62 (disambiguation)
  • I propose that:
    • Minnesota State Highway 62 (west) →Minnesota State Highway 62 (Murray–Cottonwood counties). I see how some might not like this; (Fulda–Windom) would be the next best thing.
    • Minnesota State Highway 62 (east) →Crosstown Highway with a hatnote linking to the Crosstown Expressway dab page.Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 21:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

      (edit conflict × 4) The county thing just looks awkward. I support using "(Fulda–Windom)". TCN7JM 22:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

      • For the Crosstown Highway, I propose using Minnesota State Highway 62 (Eden Prairie–Minneapolis) to make it consistent with Minnesota State Highway 62 (Fulda–Windom).  VC  17:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
      • There is a similar scenario with Pennnsylvania Route 97 where the two articles are titled using county names: Pennsylvania Route 97 (Adams County) and Pennsylvania Route 97 (Erie County). Dough4872 02:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Seeing as the Interstates use the next level down (i.e. states) for differentiation, I think the state highways, where segmented, should use counties as they are the next level down. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
          • I started a discussion for Pennsylvania Route 97 below.  VC  17:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• If we are not to use directions like "west" and "east" for MN 62 (which is the way consensus seems to be heading), I say that we use counties as that is the next governing unit down from the state. Therefore the titles should be Minnesota State Highway 62 (Murray–Cottonwood counties) and Minnesota State Highway 62 (Hennepin County). Dough4872 02:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Counties probably make sense for the vast majority of states, but I think perhaps it might be best to allow each state to select whether counties or cities make more sense for any given state. There are some states (mostly in the Northeast) where counties are not usually relevant, and it might be better to use cities in those locations. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• I imagine Minnesota is a state where counties would make more sense. Dough4872 02:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed. TCN7JM 05:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support using county names. TCN7JM 05:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support using county names for MN 62. While county names are probably best in this case, this may not be true all the time. For example, with US 422, probably more people have heard of Cleveland than Cuyahoga County. As a rule of thumb, I think county names should be used when the endpoints are in rural areas (especially in states where county names are used frequently) and city names should be used when at least one endpoint is a widely-known city. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 03:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

US 10

Resolved

 – Status quo kept. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 00:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

is also relevant (arguably) to the US 2 section above. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 21:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the two segments are connected by a ferry across Lake Michigan, I think this one is actually one route. –Fredddie™ 22:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

That would also make an awkward combination of "U.S. Route 10 (North Dakota–Wisconsin)" and "U.S. Route 10 in Michigan" as the two "national" articles. Given the ferry connection, this should remain one article on the national level. Imzadi 1979 → 23:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Fredddie and Imzadi1979 that US 10 should remain one article since the ferry connection makes it a continuous route. The same would go for U.S. Route 9 which also includes a ferry on its route. Dough4872 00:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like U.S. Route 9. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Route 422

Stale

 – US 422 was not split. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 16:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

would be relevant to the US 2-based split (as highlighted by Dough4872). -DyluckTRocket (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• I am ambivalent about splitting US 422. I lean toward splitting because it would make more sense to administratively treat them as two highways. The eastern US 422 was originally built as US 120, and became US 422 after 6 years. However, I am not clear if there were ever plans to connect the segments. If there were plans, that would be justification to not split. How PennDOT treats the separate segments should also play a role in deciding whether to split. This is unlike US 2 in that the two portions of US 2 are separated by several states.
• As for how to split them, here is one proposal: U.S. Route 422 (Cleveland, Ohio–Ebensburg, Pennsylvania) and U.S. Route 422 (Hershey–King of Prussia, Pennsylvania).  VC  17:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• It makes sense to split this article because all the prose sections, save the lead, are already divided between the eastern and western half. When split, I propose the following options:
  1. U.S. Route 422 (Cuyahoga–Cambria counties) and U.S. Route 422 (Dauphin–Montgomery counties)
  2. U.S. Route 422 (Cleveland–Ebensburg) and U.S. Route 422 (Hershey–King of Prussia) Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 22:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
     • Something in me is saying we should just do "(Ohio-Pennsylvania)" and "(Pennsylvania)", but that isn't really that unambiguous. TCN7JM 23:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - US 422 was intentionally created with a gap that is filled by way of US 22 and US 322 across the mountains of Pennsylvania. The only reason the gap exists is to reduce miles of concurrencies. Dough4872 02:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  I would also like to note that the mileposts on the part of US 422 in eastern Pennsylvania are a continuation from the portion of US 422 in western Pennsylvania. Dough4872 02:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  Are these assertions supported in the article? If not, can you point to sources that support your claims?  VC  03:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  Here is an image of a milemarker on westbound US 422 approaching the Oaks interchange a few miles west of the eastern terminus at King of Prussia that has 187 and some tenths of a mile. This location is well less than 187 miles from the western terminus of the eastern segment at Hershey. The location of the milepost is about 77 miles from Hershey. This combined with a distance of about 113 miles from the Ohio border to the eastern terminus of the western segment in Ebensburg gives the rough mileage on the milepost. Dough4872 03:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  The mileposts make a decent argument, but only get us part of the way there. Can you support the assertion that "US 422 was intentionally created with a gap that is filled by way of US 22 and US 322 across the mountains of Pennsylvania. The only reason the gap exists is to reduce miles of concurrencies."?  VC  19:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  I cannot find a published source saying that, but common sense would say that there is a gap to avoid long concurrencies with US 22 and US 322 or to avoid building a new road across the mountains. US 22 and US 322 are concurrent for several miles west of Harrisburg and adding US 422 to that routing would lead to more confusion and sign clutter. It is also important to note that Pennsylvania Route 29, which was once a continuous route, was split into two segments in the 1960s to reduce several long concurrencies. Dough4872 00:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  Instead of using common sense, which is not a reliable source, here is an FHWA publication that sheds some light on the matter. This article is actually included as one of the references in the US 422 article. Based on this, what do you all think?  VC  00:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  In addition to sharing the same mileposts, it appears both segments of US 422 were named the Benjamin Franklin Highway, with the Benjamin Franklin Highway crossing the mountains along US 22 and US 322. The eastern segment was originally US 120 but the number was changed to provide a route number associated with the Benjamin Franklin Highway. The only reason US 422 was left discontinuous across the mountains was to prevent a discontinuity in US 22 as it was viewed undesirable to have both routes cross the mountains. Therefore, the best option is to keep US 422 as one article since they both have a common history as part as the Benjamin Franklin Highway in addition to continuous mileposts. Dough4872 01:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose in respect of the new information that has come to light in the above thread. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Route 97

Stale

 – No changes currently. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 00:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The present situation for PA 97 is to split by county:

Pennsylvania Route 97 (Adams County)

Pennsylvania Route 97 (Erie County)

Here is how it would look with cities instead of counties:

Pennsylvania Route 97 (Littlestown–Gettysburg)

Pennsylvania Route 97 (Union City–Erie)

The county format is a little bit shorter, but the city format has the advantage of each PA 97 containing at least one well-known city.  VC  17:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose to change. Under your reasoning, we would move Interstate 88 (Illinois) to Interstate 88 (East Moline–Hillside). Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 21:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  My reasoning has nothing to do with your incorrect assumption that I want to take national this proposal for only one route name.  VC  23:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  It was just an example, you could apply to any duplicated 2DI. I just think it is more concise to use a single location than two locations separated by an en dash, when possible, regardless of whether it is perceived to be "well-known." Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 01:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support TCN7JM 23:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The counties look cleaner than the cities. Dough4872 02:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• If nothing else, I like the idea of creating redirects from the city dabs. I don't know where those two counties are without looking, but I can approximate the cities fairly well. –Fredddie™ 05:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• The cities are well-known, apparently. News to me on the other side of the planet. I've only heard of Gettysburg because apparently there was some battle near there and Lincoln gave a very short but famous speech there afterwards. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. The cities add unnecessary length to the title while not making it much clearer. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 03:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think Dyluck's comment does not mean what you think it means. –Fredddie™ 04:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support I support using cities for beltways and for state highway termini. Beltways and most 3DI's are for specific metropolitan areas with a core city. Also, if we are going to be consistent with the naming convention of interstates spanning several states using the beginning and the end states, we should be consistent and use the beginning and end points for state highways. It needs to be consistent. Dbroer (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Closing this thread

It seems these discussions have gone stale or got out of hand. I propose we close them all and stay with the status quo. –Fredddie™ 01:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. Any specific sub-proposals that are good can be done through requested moves on the specific articles' talk pages. At most, we can add a short three-sentence paragraph to the bottom of the guideline to deal with disambiguation by geographic location or chronology. Imzadi 1979 → 01:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• I also support this. TCN7JM 01:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support with exception. The discussion about I-80 Business (kind of about business routes in general) should be preserved and/or continued on the appropriate talk page(s) (though the discussion in the same section about M-28 really was going nowhere). MN 62 more-or-less has consensus to move to county names. It should thereforenot maintain the status quo, and instead the discussion should be closed and the articles moved. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 03:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  I moved the MN 62s. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 20:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  I think the moves were a bad idea. I don't necessarily disagree with the "consensus" above, but I think a new discussion should have been started on one of the MN 62 articles. –Fredddie™ 00:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  Agreed. There doesn't seem to be an overall consensus to make any further changes to the guideline page, so really, the fallback is to start individual RMs on the effected articles' talk pages so that those potentially interested editors who don't watch this page can participate. Imzadi 1979 → 01:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

  I disagree per WP:BRD. No explicit opposition was shown. Whoever opposes it will speak up now. I don't need to start a discussion for something that isn't controversial. Listroiderbob^talk_edits^more 04:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)