User talk:Rschen7754/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
← Archive 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

All hell breaks loose

Oh, what a pain. SPUI moved a couple of pages in Washington, seeing what he could get away with, so I posted yet another notice about it. As usual, nobody wanted to do anything about it, so I reverted him. I guess that was the signal to get going again. I almost prefer it this way: maybe starting up the move wars again will rouse a few admins out of their torpor and negotiations would get started again. List of Washington State Routes did get page protected, finally; I guess that's progress.

I reverted every page in Washington. If you're planning on doing pages in other pages and want help, let me know. --phh (t/c) 03:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I've also reverted a few. He's back at it across as many states as he can. JohnnyBGood t c 23:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In addition, he's picking nitpicky edit battles regarding several Florida State Roads and the southern terminus of Interstate 75 (he's insisting on "near Miami" instead of the more appropriate (and more correct) "in Hialeah"). All of this has recently been transformed from a striding for the truth to a battle of egos, with SPUI reverting the addition of references and insisting on the misapplication of his favorite two (from a single, often self-contradictory source). B.Wind 03:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Go to the RFC and AN-I. For now I can only be on on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. My apologies. I'll move back what I can. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Let me show you an example of B.Wind's edits. State Road 500A is a short connection between US 441 (unsigned SR 500) and SR 19 in Tavares. That section used to be longer, and there are other former alignments. B.Wind is redirecting SR 500A to U.S. Route 192, which has some information on one of the former alignments. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 06:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"you need consensus before mass moving pages, sorry."

I love how you mass moved pages without consensus with this edit summary. I love it enough that I have reverted with the same summary. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 20:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

He's at it again...=

He's quietly moving all CA route pages. JohnnyBGood t c 20:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Little help here

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California State Highways. You know the arguments better then me. JohnnyBGood t c 20:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Put mildly the shit hit the perverbial fan. He went ahead and started moving the remaining half of CASRs that were at California State Route XX over to State Route XX (California). I countered by moving all of them back. He countered me on about half of them, I countered back on about half of those. Plus in the middle of it Nohat attacked CA 17 and put it back at Califoria State Highway 17. Plus SPUI and I have been going at it over Interstate 93 and Interstate 75. JohnnyBGood t c 23:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom

In the road naming dispute, you have been named in a disputant @ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration this is the required notification diff -- Tawker 00:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

User:SPUI is at it again on Utah

He changed the list for Utah for his State Route X (Utah) and Interstate 15 (Utah) scheme... Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 17:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And all the created state routes. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 17:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Aslo did the same for at least that i can see on Pennsylvania highway, PA Route 611. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 21:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been nice to him up until this point, but that's just moronic. Didn't he say so himself that we don't title articles using abbreviations? Maybe we should start moving the Washington State articles to SR 3 and the like? Ummm, no... -- Northenglish 03:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 You're just trying to confuse the issue. The names of the routes, as used by WSDOT, are State Route X, abbreviated SR X.
 We don't put pages at abbreviations - Interstate 90, not I-90. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:52, 
 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Proof of my previous comment found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Washington_State_Highways -- Northenglish 19:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Highway Moves

I'm a little cautious on doing this, but I started the WikiProject Virginia Highways yesterday, and our NCs state that the article is "Virginia State Highway X". Route 895 (Virginia) and Route 76 (Virginia) are a few of the articles that do not follow this NC. I found that much of the articles that follow this are in the Richmond area. Looking at the history, it was SPUI who moved those from Virginia State Highway 895, etc. There are other articles in the state, such as Virginia State Highway 86 (in the south of the state) and Virginia State Highway 28 and 267 that both follow our current convention. Seeing the controversy that is currently ensuing, I don't know what I should do about the vigilante articles. If I'm correct, it would seem that we are coming to an understanding that the NCs are by highway system, correct? I'm holding off on moving the other articles because I don't want it to be taken as an act of hostility and cause me to get banned or anything. But I do need some help because this whole situation is very confusing to me. So two questions:

1) Are we coming to a general agreement like the one I mentioned above?
2) If so, and I do move the articles in say, a week, will there be any repercussions to me for bringing them in line with the NCs of our WikiProject?

Thanks, --MPD01605 18:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

WA-16 Spur

Every record--both published by WSDOT, and every map I've seen that marks Purdy Drive as a numbered highway--lists it as 302 Spur. There is no 302 Spur in Allyn. 302 was rerouted north of Allyn a few years ago, but the old routing is no longer in the state highway system. -- Northenglish 22:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom

Do you know how much longer we're going to have to wait to get a ruling on this? JohnnyBGood t c 17:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Arbcom has accepted the RFA however for the wrong reason it appears. JohnnyBGood t c 00:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

HW NC's

Do we have any decisions on this? I have people asking me questions, creating new Virginia highway pages not in line with what we're currently trying to do, and I don't know what to tell them. Thanks, --MPD01605 (T / C) 21:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again...

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What evidence shall we gather together? JohnnyBGood t c 18:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Please stop making articles worse. I will continue to revert, as my reversions improve the articles. --SPUI (T - C) 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop going against consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Stop going against common sense. --SPUI (T - C) 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Common sense means going with what people want. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
That's wrong and you know it. --SPUI (T - C) 23:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I wonder why that page isn't in the WP namespace. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice non sequitur. --SPUI (T - C) 23:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because Wikipedia explains a philosophy doesn't necessarily make it correct. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because you and a bunch of other misguided editors think your crap infobox is better doesn't make it so. --SPUI (T - C) 23:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
POV. Go and get consensus for ur infobox.--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
ur infobox sux lol --SPUI (T - C) 23:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Great. We're down to juvenile responses now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
no u started da shitty speling lol
Seriously, I don't get what you see in that infobox. It's bloated shit that you've gotten used to. --SPUI (T - C) 23:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
POV. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
<[me]> bloody hell, does anyone here think http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_Route_14_%28California%29&oldid=57439311 is better than http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_Route_14_%28California%29&oldid=57439685 ?
<spectie> [me], SPUIs infobox is better

Other outside views have been similar. --SPUI (T - C) 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was to modify routeboxca2, despite what SPUI would like to admit. -- Northenglish 23:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"The result of the groupthink was to modify routeboxca2, despite what SPUI would like to admit." Fixed for you. Oh, and I do agree that your misguided "debate" had a "result" to bloat the infoboxes. --SPUI (T - C) 00:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I like mine the best. So nyeh. </sarcasm> (I also believe in the concepts of "simpler is better" and "modularity", so YMMV) —Rob (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go

I notice on WP:WASH that you're listed as the "leader" of the project. IMHO, there's nothing in the WikiProject that requires a defined leader, but would you like me to take over this post for you? -- Northenglish 02:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a prob. Email me if there's probs. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Left Behind

I notice your edits to add "references" to some articles have placed a good citation reference in the associated template. Only thing is the template appears after the "references" tag in the articles so nothing appears. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board

Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board. Thanks. --Facto 05:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq and the War on Terrorism

Wikipedia:WOT has opened its straw poll, and is open to discussion. Rangeley 00:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes Part II

Looks like the war has gone global [1]JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways

The case has been closed and the final decisions published on above's link. -- Drini 16:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Outta here

The ArbCom has placed me under what I consider to be an unjust probation, so I am leaving Wikipedia until it is lifted. Take care, and thanks for your help fighting the good fight. —phh (t/c) 19:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's try this again

Please join the civil discussion on WT:WASH regarding naming conventions and the infobox so that we can get consensus and put this ugly mess behind us. -- NORTH talk 23:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good to have you back

JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

you might add your concerns

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:SPUI

--William Allen Simpson 17:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

MN

No idea, I just saw his main page saying he was leaving so I left a note. -Ravedave 18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Question about WP:AE#User:SPUI

I don't want to touch the California WikiProject with a 10-foot pole. That's where the whole mess started, and to be frank, it scares me. (You can apply this to infobox question you left on WT:WASH as well -- I would humbly recommend a shorter infobox, but I'm not part of that WikiProject, and won't participate in any discussions there.) Nevertheless, I do have a question about goings-on in the Golden State...

You said in WP:AE that SPUI's been changing over infoboxes again without consensus. Was this after ArbCom closed? And do you have diffs? I'd like to participate in that discussion once I get some information in line. -- NORTH talk 21:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


WP:WIH - Templates (Stubs)

I would like to ask if there was a reason to remove {{Wisconsin stub}} from the list? I put it on because I had hoped to maintain connection to WP:WPWI since this was also a parent. Or do you plan to propose a stub category for this project sometime in the future? I'm ok with what you did, I'm just curious about the reasoning behind it. Thanks. --master_sonLets talk 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ahh, see's the light. :) Well at the rate we're going there may be a stub for the highways by next month... Thankx :D --master_sonLets talk 03:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignored

Why do I have a feeling that we're slowly inching back to square one. SPUI getting his way and us getting blocked for pointing out he's violating policies? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Category:Wyoming State Highways to Category:Wyoming state highways

These are speedy since it is just a cap fix for the category name. What you do with the article names is a different issue. Would you please consider dropping your comment so that it can be kept as a speedy within the CfD criteria? Vegaswikian 22:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: My inordinate stupidity on MN-33

I know that SPUI is a hard person to deal with at times. I'm sorry, but this is not acceptable. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I know. I did it in a moment of stupidity and frustration. Go ahead and apply a block for a term as you see fit. --Elkman (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) 01:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


User:SPUI

After recent events on WT:NJSCR, I have added my comments to the most recent SPUI section on WP:AE. Any feedback you have would be appreciated, as well as perhaps backup in my current debate with SPUI on WT:NJSCR. -- NORTH talk 03:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have changed my mind and left Wikipedia. Good luck with all your future interactions. I have, by default, listed you as the leader once again of WP:WASH. -- NORTH talk 16:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the save man. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA!

Highways

Am I missing something here? If this is a disruptive user and you're an admin, why don't you block him, and, if he continues such behaviour, add increasingly longer blocks? Presumably he has no special exemption from good behaviour which other editors are expected to adhere to. Tyrenius 11:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Rschen was involved in the arbcom as well to block SPUI would probably be a conflict of interest. He's taken crap for blocking him before from other admins. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like SPUI has something against you again... sigh. He gets off of his block and goes in a tit-for-tat war based on your defination of the word "fix." Also, thanks Rschen7754 for removing SPUI's erroneous tags. They were unwarranted tags and based without discussion or merit. You only did the task that I was going to do (eventually) and had done only to two or three Ohio pages. I wonder if I had removed them all, if he would have pointed fingers at me. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Final state highway naming conventions debate

Rschen7754, your participation is welcome in the Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll. Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Re:Canada

I just got back from camping today sorry.HurricaneCraze32 22:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


While I was "out"

To answer some questions you posed to me on my talk page:

  1. I'm completely aware that this is unacceptable. I did it in a moment of frustration and I was willing to take the penalty for it. Actually, I know I'm still possibly facing the penalty for it.
  2. Nobody has hijacked my account. See this edit to Table Rock Lake. (It still needs a picture, but that'll come eventually.) Actually, if someone had hijacked my account, they probably would have made better edits.
  3. It wasn't a matter of asking or demanding a block -- it was the fact that I deserved a block for what I did. And for creating the MN-33 article in the first place (and with a provocative and wrong title, also done in a spirit of frustration).
  4. Speaking of frustration: If an editor is frustrated, it's their problem -- not the one doing the provocation. If I got frustrated, then it's my fault, not SPUI's. It's a problem I need to solve for myself -- and not with anyone else's help.
  5. The test2-n through test5-n messages on my talk page were perhaps not actually correct, but again, they were well-deserved. It also would have served as a reminder to any other admin that I've been warned several times about my bad behavior. It's just too bad that I didn't even get the arguments right to the test5-n template.
  6. Even if they're fake messages, I can't remove them from my talk page. It's considered vandalism to remove warnings from my talk page.
  7. Also, User:Ravedave rightly pointed out that I've been behaving like a child throughout this whole fiasco.
  8. I'm no longer on Wikipedia:WikiProject Minnesota State Highways. As a result, I don't think my participation in the state route naming poll would be relevant. Besides, the assertion "Highways are my area of expertise" pretty much renders my opinions moot.

Regards, --Elkman (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) 22:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Elkman's item on my talk page

Yes, this unfortunately is spreading worldwide. Thus... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC) I noticed that you added the previous sentence to Elkman's part on my talk page where he mentions his Pink fuzzy bunnies edit. What is spreading worldwide? --Station Attendant 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Highway Naming Debate

Thanks for inviting me, but i don't know what i would do on the debate. I have some suggestions, but i don't know who to bring them to or where to post them. User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 22:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Shall i edit or add one of the rules to include Provincial and Territorial route names, and county road names? User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 22:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I have already posted a blurb about disambiguation handling reality in the talk page. --master_sonLets talk 22:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I would like to get this sorted out and would be welcome to help, but I am a tad confused on what the line Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8 means. --Station Attendant 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't receive an invite, but I would be happy to input on this final debate. I appreciate you pulling this together and hopefully this mess will be put to rest! --TinMan 05:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Blocked

You have been blocked for 31 hours for making disruptive edits across multiple articles in violation of your probation. For my full comments on the issue, see the relevant section on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Ral315 (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you have any questions on the block, please post them here or e-mail me. Ral315 (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Just sent you an email. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If for some reason this page is on your watchlist... basically I changed the boldface text to the title of the article, and adjusted a few links so that most of them were not redirects (since most of the pages are at "California State Route"). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that; however, you made other changes that reflect your own preference, including this, where you piped a link for no apparent reason. Until the poll is over, I would advise to leave things as-is; redirects don't hurt at all. Ral315 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Cleanup of West Virginia State Highways

I cleaned up the West Virginia State Highways, to which my work summary can be seen in the talk page. Hope your break isn't too long :( Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. I've been so busy dealing with all of this ArbCom and naming crud that I haven't been doing much article editing. :( But hopefully it will be over soon. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

{{Washington State Highway WikiProject}} tags

I'm not quite sure what happened with the tags on the talk pages. Some pages have them, and some don't. Some of the pages were caught up in the mass move, and some weren't. Oh, well. Sam8 21:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


If possible

Hi,

I'm trying to stay out of the whole debate and stuff now because 1. it's gotten too political and 2. i don't think anything is going to work at this point (although I like to contribute little bits of evidence/information/opinions every so often in the disucssions). With that, I'd like to ask you to keep a couple things in mind:

If possible, please try to not stick to the 'old' conventions as the 'correct' convention. I'm saying this because it was my fault that the two focal points of the current debate are raging on right now. I more or less created both the naming conventions for CA and WA -- with [2] edit, I basically set the naming convention for WA by deciding that all the red links on that page would go to WA SR X (although two or three other articles already existed when i created that list, I think i also moved a few to match the WA S.R. X convention). I did that mistakenly believing that the official name was "Washington SR X," when now i stand corrected that it is not.

The same thing goes for CA also -- as I posted in the talk page on the little poll you have going on (which i was not alerted to the presence of and had to find myself), the oft-quoted clause on the project page that " " was also created by me [3]. I'm sure I moved several pages myself to CA SR X to match the policy i wrote myself too. The context for that change was to argue with Nohat about CA 17's naming, and I just jumped over to the WP page, added on the convention, and then quoted that myself as why CA 17 should be at CA SR 17 and not CA SH 17.

Finally, please keep in mind that the CA SR X convention was made by both SPUI and I back in the day when there were only two or three other CA SR articles; both of us believed that this was the correct naming convention. I'm in favour of "updating," if you will, the naming convetion because I realised what I created before was incorrect.

Thus, I hope you will realise that the "old" way was in no way the "correct" way and view both the proposals and the existing on level terms.

Thank you and I hope your efforts will come to fruitition. I apologise that my work has resulted in this way, but back in those days (before you came), there were very very few highway articles and only very very few people working on them, so those decisions seem to be innocuous and totally up to the few people working on the articles. atanamir 21:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is requested

Please assist in [4]. SPUI is up to his old tricks, by reverting numerous pages and undoing the work of myself and others. Thanks. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Another proposal for your poll

Since I don't know if I'm allowed to compose a new proposal in that poll of yours (you seem to be doing most of the edits), I'd like to offer you my proposal, if you'd be nice enough to post it up for me:

Official DOT-given Name X (State Name)

The article itself will be located at the official name given by the DOT. If the Official name leads to ambiguities, e.g. leaves out the name of the state in question, it will be disambiguated after the article title using parentheical disambiguation. Ther will be redirects to this article at all the common names people would generally call the route in question by. For example:

  • State Route 85 (California) - the article itself
    • Redirects:
      • California 85
      • California State Highway 85
      • California Highway 85
      • California Route 85
      • California State Route 85
      • CA 85
      • CA/SR 85
      • etc... depending on what is common in the locale
    • Disamb pages:
      • Highway 85
      • Route 85
      • State Route 85

Although one may bring up the idea that this is against the common names policy, this method will ensure the most proper naming scheme. Weathered readers of wikipedia naturally realise that parenthesis are simply disambiguation elements if they occur at the end of an article title; people know that the title of the magazine is called "Time," not Time (magazine), where the actual article is located. The Apollo Program, as it is commonly called, is located at Project Apollo -- its official name too. An unexpected advantage to this naming scheme is that people are not misguided in that they will know what the official name is. Although everyone calls it USPS, few people believe this is the official name; everyone knows it's the United States Postal Service (which happens to be where the article is located). By knowing both common and official names, readers will increase knowlege of the subject at hand, and will also aid in their research on other sites (by giving them a greater vocabulary of which to structure their search queries). Furthermore, the concept of a common name is also very locale-based, and while the people in the state may call it Highway 85 or (less common) California State Highway 85, a reader from another state (such as Florida), would probably try to search for the highway under what he/she knows the local state highways as -- such as California State Road 85. If all the articles are at their proper DOT-given names, it will help to further educate the reader.

Summary

  • Pros
    • Resolves multiple common names by offering one definitive name
    • Educates reader about official name; greater search vocabulary when researching elsewhere
    • A structured and consistent system that can be applied to all states
    • Easier cross-locale searching
  • Cons
    • Arguably doesn't follow the Common Names guideline.
    • A lot of work to create the common names redirects and disambiguation pages
    • The naming scheme that more or less started this whole schpeal

Further Examples

Examples of Proposed Scheme

If a fictional state, Zoogot, has DOT-assigned state highways called Zoogot Motorway X, articles will be like:

  • Zoogot Motorway 10 -- article
    • Zoogot 10 -- a common name as 10 is called in the municipality of Rootom in Zoogot.
    • M-10 -- there is another motorway called M-10 in the other state of Gaazok, so this will be a disambiguation page.
    • Zoogot M-10 -- a common name as it is called in the city of P'Xalz in Zoogot.

Another state, Wazlak, has routes officially designated as Roadway X:

  • Roadway 10 (Wazlak) -- article
    • Wazlak Roadway 10 -- common name because people call it this in the citiy of Z'Xknmir.
    • Wazlak 10 -- another common name
    • etc.

End

Anyways, those are the basic tenets to my proposal. You can look it over and give suggestions if you want. atanamir 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

common names

Like I said in the proposal, many people may call it california state route 1, but at the same time, many poeple call it many other things too -- if you lived in Florida and lived your whole life calling the local state highways as Florida State Road 50, you'd probably call theo nes in california 'state roads' as well. There's just too mnay variables when you come to common names. People visiting CA from england would probably call them Motorway X. Because of this variety from person-to-person, I think it'd be better to have it at the common name. Thus, when epople read about it, they don't get misguided that the official name is "California State Route 50" when it's just simply "state route 50" -- the one in the US State of California. That's the reason why I put stuff like USPS and Apollo Programme - if the articles on wikipedia were actually at USPS for the US Postal Service and Apollo Program -- there will be the users who don't know anything about the subject, come to wikipedia to read about it, and walk away believing that the Apollo Program is really called the Apollo Program by NASA when it's really called Project Apollo; same thing with USPS vs. United States Postal Service. (I know the USPS thing is a stretch because of natural human deduction, but i was using it to illustrate the example.) For a better one that is relevant to me, the other day I thought it was called the Book of Revelations when I was discussing it with my friend. I came to wikipedia to check really quick, and just glancing at the article title i saaw it was the book of Revelaion (not plural). If it was at Book of Revelations (a LOT of people call it that), I would probably keep on thinking it's called the book of revelations. Again, this is just my opinion on the method that an encylopedia should operate. atanamir 21:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • PS -- do you have any suggestions for the proposal before I post it? Changes/improvements? If you don't I'll forward my proposal to SPUI and see what he has to say about it too. I'm trying to get input from both sides. I'll keep thinking about the disambiguation method and try to find an in-between for both sides. atanamir 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Well, I was hoping it'd be a starting point where you would edit some of it and back and forth; but whatever. I won't post this proposal, then. I guess there's numerous examples of both ways all over wikipedia right now. atanamir 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Current Mac project collaboration

The current WP:MAC collaboration is Apple II family. Please devote some time to improve this article to featured status. — Wackymacs 13:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Road dealey

Ok, so, since there were so many discussions going on everywhere, in a nutshell, what's going on with the road NC's? We're having the talk over at Virginia Highways project on the talk page, and I'm hesitant to do anything until I see the consensus from the vote if we have to wait, or if I should argue this out right now or later. This whole thing's a total SNAFU, isn't it? Anyway, my blood pressure's up through the roof due to this, it's time for some relaxation. Hope your "vacation" is going well. --MPD01605 (T / C) 00:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ohio State Highway WikiProject

Hello, I’ve proposed some changes to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio State Highways – please see the discussion on the talk page. I realize you're on a break right now, and you may not have time to even participate upon your return, but I didn't want to leave you out. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Regards, Homefryes 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Highway naming poll

Heya, I was under the impression, per the discussion, that Michigan (and Kansas) would be special considerations for format. I'd like your input on this since, while I support Principle I, I think the way it is applied to Michigan routes (potentially Kansas) is insufficient. Maybe I'm just SOL on this one. Stratosphere (T/C) 23:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/s/c/User_talk%7ERschen7754_Archive_6_6967.html"