Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania State Highways
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Project launch-Present |
Contents |
[edit] Naming conventions poll voting for Part 2
- Directions
- Please add your name using the format # '''Support''' ~~~ (three tildes) below the principle which you endorse. You cannot vote more than once but you can discuss.
- DO NOT change and/or otherwise edit votes that are not yours (except for those of confirmed abusive sockpuppets, to be nullified only by one of the six judging admins, and those who have not reached the 100-edit threshold, in which case anyone may strike out).
- Reminder
- Voting commences at 23:59, Sunday, September 3, 2006 (UTC).
- Voting ends 23:59, Tuesday, September 12, 2006 (UTC).
- The current time is 18:26, Monday December 11, 2006 (UTC).
The following is a transclusion from another page. Edits (like commenting and voting) are made by clicking the "edit" links to the right of the headings below. This will redirect you to the original page's edit box. You can't make edits to the section below by clicking the "edit this page" tab at the top of this page (you will only see the transclusion code). Your edits will be viewable here, the original page, and on the second page of the State Route Naming Conventions poll. |
- 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.
[edit] Template:Pennsylvania-State-Highway-stub
Unless there is any opposition, I am going to rename this template to pash-stub. I think that it's easier to use. --myselfalso 02:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nevermind. --myselfalso 02:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah the stub sorters get mad when you do that... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pennsylvania Route 66
It was brought to my attention today that an article for the Amos K. Hutchinson Bypass exists. However, the entire length of the road is part of Pennsylvania Route 66, and I have requested that both pages be merged into PA 66, as there's no need to have two articles on the same stretch of road. Please comment at Pennsylvania Route 66. Thanks. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Crackdown time
A HUGE amount of articles have been created lately that violate virtually every MoS on Wikipedia, whether it be the big one or WP:PASH. As you can see here, chronic violation of these policies will not be taken lightly. With that said, these articles are in dire need of cleanup, and all further articles are to abide by the project standards. Thank you. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mon/Fayette Expressway
Also, this article should be renamed to "Pennsylvania Route 43" to conform to the project guidelines. Thoughts? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have performed the move. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge and a split
A couple of proposals have arisen over the past couple of days:
- A proposal to merge U.S. Route 309 into Pennsylvania Route 309.
- A proposal to split a section on Pennsylvania Route 222 in the U.S. Route 222 article into its own article and eliminating the PA 222 → US 222 redirect.
Opinions on both proposals are welcome. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think I agree with both. While our content should not be biased towards the present, our organization should - otherwise State Route 37 (Virginia) would be a disambiguation page like State Route 44 (Virginia). Thus the 222 split makes a lot of sense, since they are now separate routes. (The same applies to Maryland Route 222, formerly part of US 222.) The case of 309 is equivalent to a renumbering in which the type rather than the number was changed, like State Route 64 (Virginia pre-1958) redirecting to State Route 63 (Virginia). --NE2 00:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shields
Shields are now complete for all past and present PA routes. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)