Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2/PA
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- If anyone has any ideas that is in line with Principle I, [State Name] [Road Term] XX feel free to add them.
[edit] Convention 1: Pennsylvania Route x
- This is the convention used for Pennsylvania routes. See WP:PASH. Also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pennsylvania_State_Highways/Archive_01#Naming Convention for debate about naming convention.
- Support. I see no reason to change it from what has been established at PASH. --myselfalso
- Support - fits P1 and P2. --SPUI (T - C) 05:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support – agree w/ User:Myselfalso — Homefryes Say•Do 07:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support per Myselfalso. --TMF T - C 16:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support per others. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support if that's what the project decided, and it follows both principles, no need to change it.-Jeff (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Can we consider this convention ratified? This was previously discussed at WP:PASH, and there seems (I can't stress that enough) to be a general consensus. --myselfalso 02:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Then you can go ahead and request exemption. --physicq210 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Here's just an idea I had: why not vote on an exemption and kill two birds with one stone. If you ask for an exemption, then we have to decide if that's really what the state wants; a poll here would settle any confusion. Would this work for all? You could put up notices on the talk pages of those who have already voted to let them know that exemption is an option. It's just a suggestion. --TinMan 04:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think what Myselfalso wants is not an exemption (which sounds like we're trying to bypass the standardized convention, which is certainly not the case) but more of a "speedy close", if you will, like what happened with Minnesota, since this convention has already been discussed, is already in place and would require no page moves or anything of the like. --TMF T - C 06:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, a "speedy close" is a more appropriate term to be used here. So, is anyone opposed to a "speedy close" for this vote? --myselfalso 11:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- It should be exempted... you didn't have to even put this up for discussion, just point to the discussion and request exemption. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, a "speedy close" is a more appropriate term to be used here. So, is anyone opposed to a "speedy close" for this vote? --myselfalso 11:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think what Myselfalso wants is not an exemption (which sounds like we're trying to bypass the standardized convention, which is certainly not the case) but more of a "speedy close", if you will, like what happened with Minnesota, since this convention has already been discussed, is already in place and would require no page moves or anything of the like. --TMF T - C 06:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Here's just an idea I had: why not vote on an exemption and kill two birds with one stone. If you ask for an exemption, then we have to decide if that's really what the state wants; a poll here would settle any confusion. Would this work for all? You could put up notices on the talk pages of those who have already voted to let them know that exemption is an option. It's just a suggestion. --TinMan 04:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Then you can go ahead and request exemption. --physicq210 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Exempted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Convention 2: Pennsylvania State Route x
- This is the former convention used in the early days of WP:PASH.
