Template talk:Infobox road/MO/abbrev Interstate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I changed this back to I-num rather than Route I-num. The statement that MoDOT uses the latter is misleading: look at the hits on their website for I-70 and Route I-70. They occasionally use the latter, but not to any large degree. --NE2 10:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Every sign that MoDOT posts that refers to an interstate with text uses this form. It's also in the standards. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 15:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)- OK, so they do it on signs. They don't do it anywhere else. --NE2 00:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- We should use what is on the signs to the greatest extent possible. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not really... we would spell out "Freeway" on the above sign. --NE2 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's a matter of abbreviation and Wikipedia's MOS. Whenever we have a shield we include the text afterward for accessibility reasons, for instance. I don't agree we should contradict a state DOT's standards because they 'look silly'.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is also a matter of style - using a common abbreviation for the route, not blindly following the signs. WP:ELG says "a commonly-used abbreviation", which "Route I-70" is not. --NE2 01:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- [1] says that "Interstates shall be referenced with a capital I (ex. Route I-29)" and that "'Route' shall not be abbreviated". —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Silly or not, anyone traveling through MO or reading official materials from MO is going to see Route I-XX as so presented by Scott, I believe that Route I-XX is the proper usage in this case. Stratosphere (U T) 01:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Compare [2] and [3]: most official materials omit the "Route". --NE2 01:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- [4] They do? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your link relates only to signs. But signs are not the only official materials that MoDOT produces. --NE2 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're right. The Engineering Policy Guide is another official material. Here the EPG uses it four times. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see where you're going. Can you please complete your argument that somehow negates the fact that the majority of MoDOT references to I-70 omit the "Route"? --NE2 01:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you complete your argument that we should ignore what's actually put up on the signs? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because MoDOT does more than signs. WP:ELG says "a commonly-used abbreviation", not "the abbreviation used on signs". --NE2 01:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't find that relevant. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- What's not relevant? This is used in exit lists, which should follow WP:ELG. --NE2 01:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- That MoDOT does other things. Shall we factor in what their airport directory says? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why not? WP:ELG doesn't restrict us to the abbreviation signs use. --NE2 01:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- But Interstates can't fly. MoDOT does a lot of stuff. Not all of it is relevant to the topic at hand. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why not? WP:ELG doesn't restrict us to the abbreviation signs use. --NE2 01:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- That MoDOT does other things. Shall we factor in what their airport directory says? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- What's not relevant? This is used in exit lists, which should follow WP:ELG. --NE2 01:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't find that relevant. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because MoDOT does more than signs. WP:ELG says "a commonly-used abbreviation", not "the abbreviation used on signs". --NE2 01:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you complete your argument that we should ignore what's actually put up on the signs? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see where you're going. Can you please complete your argument that somehow negates the fact that the majority of MoDOT references to I-70 omit the "Route"? --NE2 01:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're right. The Engineering Policy Guide is another official material. Here the EPG uses it four times. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your link relates only to signs. But signs are not the only official materials that MoDOT produces. --NE2 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- [4] They do? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Compare [2] and [3]: most official materials omit the "Route". --NE2 01:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Silly or not, anyone traveling through MO or reading official materials from MO is going to see Route I-XX as so presented by Scott, I believe that Route I-XX is the proper usage in this case. Stratosphere (U T) 01:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- [1] says that "Interstates shall be referenced with a capital I (ex. Route I-29)" and that "'Route' shall not be abbreviated". —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is also a matter of style - using a common abbreviation for the route, not blindly following the signs. WP:ELG says "a commonly-used abbreviation", which "Route I-70" is not. --NE2 01:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's a matter of abbreviation and Wikipedia's MOS. Whenever we have a shield we include the text afterward for accessibility reasons, for instance. I don't agree we should contradict a state DOT's standards because they 'look silly'.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not really... we would spell out "Freeway" on the above sign. --NE2 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- We should use what is on the signs to the greatest extent possible. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Woah woah, slow down here. The question really should be, would "Route I-44" be ambiguous to a reader? Would that be Route I-44 as opposed to Route H-44? A normal reader might not know that. I'm not 100% certain of the official-ness of it, but is that like "IH-10" in Texas? Are we talking about using this in exit lists? Then it should be "Interstate 44", just like if there was only a shield, we'd not just put the shield, but also "Interstate 44". There are many instances in Virginia (official or not, I'm not sure) that use "Route XX" when referring to an Interstate highway (e.g. Junction Route 81 - 5 miles). Doesn't make it right and we shouldn't use it. --MPD T / C 01:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I really don't care about the exit list so much, but I think it should say this in the infobox. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose then for MN - TH XX should become MN XX, or for CA SR XX should become CA XX, etc... — master sonT - C 01:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? --NE2 02:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- The point is you are making a big deal about nothing. Each state has its way of identifying routes including Interstates (see TX for example) — master sonT - C 02:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- And this isn't the common abbreviation even inside MoDOT. --NE2 02:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- So what? — master sonT - C 02:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- So we shouldn't be saying "Route I-29 / Route I-35" in the exit lists. --NE2 02:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's probably just an instance of the website people not being on the same page as the people who do the actual work. You forget that DOTs are just another arm of a government bureaucracy and subject to the same follies. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- So your argument is that the signage people are somehow above the bureaucracy? That's ridiculous. --NE2 02:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- So is your argument that what the rest of MoDOT does is somehow relevant to this. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is relevant, per WP:ELG. Otherwise we'd have no way to determine what to use in states that always use shields. --NE2 02:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Disagreement noted. Now are there any objections backed up by reasoning? --NE2 02:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I gave you all my reasons above. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Disagreement noted. Now are there any objections backed up by reasoning? --NE2 02:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is relevant, per WP:ELG. Otherwise we'd have no way to determine what to use in states that always use shields. --NE2 02:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- So is your argument that what the rest of MoDOT does is somehow relevant to this. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- So your argument is that the signage people are somehow above the bureaucracy? That's ridiculous. --NE2 02:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's probably just an instance of the website people not being on the same page as the people who do the actual work. You forget that DOTs are just another arm of a government bureaucracy and subject to the same follies. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- So we shouldn't be saying "Route I-29 / Route I-35" in the exit lists. --NE2 02:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- So what? — master sonT - C 02:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- And this isn't the common abbreviation even inside MoDOT. --NE2 02:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- The point is you are making a big deal about nothing. Each state has its way of identifying routes including Interstates (see TX for example) — master sonT - C 02:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? --NE2 02:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- If Template:Infobox road/browse weren't protected I'd hack something up. --NE2 02:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Simple answer here. In Michigan, it's M-28, never State Route/State Highway 28. In Texas, it's IH-10, not I-10 in official usage. In Missouri, it's Route I-44. Scott has given you an abundant wealth of official state DOT sources that show that is how it is done in MO. In essence, this is a MO thing and while it looks weird, IT'S ROUTE I-44 there, period. Under our federal system of government, each state is free to do somethings they way they want, as screwed up as it might sound to some people, and we're going to respect that. My vote is to leave well enough alone and leave it at Route I-44. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you look at [5] and [6] and then determine which one MoDOT actually uses? --NE2 03:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's a bad search. The first would catch all Route I-70 and just I-70, while the second would only catch Route I-70. Also, it fails to consider that Route I-29 may be used, etc. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think I didn't realize that? Subtract 16 from 935 and the first gives you 919, which is still much greater than 16. --NE2 03:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's a bad search. The first would catch all Route I-70 and just I-70, while the second would only catch Route I-70. Also, it fails to consider that Route I-29 may be used, etc. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you look at [5] and [6] and then determine which one MoDOT actually uses? --NE2 03:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Simple answer here. In Michigan, it's M-28, never State Route/State Highway 28. In Texas, it's IH-10, not I-10 in official usage. In Missouri, it's Route I-44. Scott has given you an abundant wealth of official state DOT sources that show that is how it is done in MO. In essence, this is a MO thing and while it looks weird, IT'S ROUTE I-44 there, period. Under our federal system of government, each state is free to do somethings they way they want, as screwed up as it might sound to some people, and we're going to respect that. My vote is to leave well enough alone and leave it at Route I-44. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose then for MN - TH XX should become MN XX, or for CA SR XX should become CA XX, etc... — master sonT - C 01:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, should Template:Infobox road/TX/abbrev Interstate use IH rather than I-? --NE2 03:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with NE2, we should use I-XX, regardless of what is officially used, we should use the common usage. We don't use IH-XX on Texas articles. Keep in mind these articles aren't just for readers in Missouri. --Holderca1 talk 03:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- So by your logic, you'd support making Michigan switch to SR-28? I wouldn't support that since 1) the designation is M-28, no SR, SH, etc and 2) the "M" is on the shields (except BGSs). I support following the state-level usages in state-level articles when they deviate from national norms. So I-44 in Interstate 44, but Route I-44 in Interstate 44 (Missouri). And as for M-28, it's always M-28, even when a "national" level article references it. Maybe even the unwieldy state highway M-28, but the M is part of the number. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? I didn't say anything about Michigan highways. --Holderca1 talk 03:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- On the basis of outside reader's seeing these articles, I'd have to agree with Holderca1 and NE2. The No Big Deal thing I spoke of earlier goes both ways — master sonT - C 03:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? I didn't say anything about Michigan highways. --Holderca1 talk 03:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I had an argument with Vishwin long ago on this issue on IRC. Vishwin was for "Route US XX", and I (and I believe TMF) was for "US XX". At the time we agreed on the simpler US XX, but I don't remember the rationale as to why, or when it was changed back (or why it was changed back). The funny thing is, at the time Texas used their IH convention, and I kinda assumed they still did.
I think there is a subtle difference between the two situations. If you bear with a weird metaphor with me for a second, pretend the abbreviation I-35 is like a horse. Then IH 35 would be like a zebra -- not quite a horse, but not all that different either. Route I-35, however, is a whole different animal, the elephant in the room, and any other cliché you'd care to think of. The Michigan examples aren't really even remotely relevant. We all acknowledge that every state highway system is different. Highways in New Jersey are abbreviated NJ 36 even though the official name is Route 36. In Washington, it's SR 36. In Idaho, it's SH-36.
But while each system is different, there's always consistency within the system. To me, I-35 will always be I-35, whether it's in Missouri, or Texas, or one of the many states that uses the "normal" designation. As NE2 pointed out, MoDOT frequently does refer to it as simply I-35. This is similar to Washington, where you would not be incorrect to refer to Interstate 5 as SR 5, or New Jersey, where everything is technically just a "Route". However, rarely outside of WSDOT (and in fact, only in specific instances inside of WSDOT) would you see the term SR 5 used, and with the exception of US 1 and 9, New Jersey locals always differentiate between state highways and US and Interstates.
Basically, it's an Interstate highway, therefore it's I-35. MoDOT may refer to it differently occasionally, but a global encyclopedia shouldn't. -- NORTH talk 14:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
