Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part1

The following discussion is an archived 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.

The result of the proposal was closed to editors, seeking administrator opinions, community concensus to follow. Teke ^(talk) 02:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Part 1 1.1 Principle 1: [State name] [Road term] X 1.1.1 Discussion 1.2 Principle 2: Commonly-Used-Name X (State Name) 1.2.1 Discussion 1.3 Principle III: State by State 1.3.1 Discussion 1.4 Principle 0: The basics 1.4.1 Disagreement 1.4.2 Flaw in point 3 1.5 Voting 1.6 Termini problem 2 Part I Voting 2.1 Principle I: [State Name] [Commonly-used road term] XX 2.2 Principle II: [Commonly-used name] XX ([disambiguation - typically the state name - if necessary]) 2.3 Principle III: State by State 2.4 Admin discussion 2.5 Admin votes

Part 1

Here, we are voting on principle. That is the generic pattern for all the states.

Here is how it works: Arguments go under the Principle header. Discussion/rebuttals go under the Discussion header.

Voting takes place in the section below. Arguments and discussion only.

Discussion starts below:

Principle 1: [State name] [Road term] X

This format is already used by a number of WikiProjects, including (but not limited to) New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Maryland. The reason that "New York State" is used for the state name in NY is to disambiguate between New York State and New York City. --TMF ^{T - C} 17:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not true; we use "New York State Route X" because NYSDOT uses it. --SPUI (T - C) 17:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that NYSDOT uses the term is true as well; however, my explanation was necessary to appease others who would likely attempt to move articles to "New York Route X" if this principle is selected. --TMF ^{T - C} 17:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's also used by NYSDOT, but not as much. They use "NY Route X" and "NYS Route X" about equally. There's no reason we can't decide to use "New York Route X". --SPUI (T - C) 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The main issue I would have with using "New York Route X" would be the hassle of moving 500 or so pages based on a single word in the title. --TMF ^{T - C} 17:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TMF on this point. New York State calls itself "New York State" on any official documents, names, etc. (driver's licenses, um, excuse me, "Driver Licenses" for example) to disambiguate itself from "New York City." There are, as far as I know, no New York City Routes, but that's not the point. I believe, also, that the NYSDOT official names are actually "New York State Touring Route ###(L)" and "New York State Reference Route 9R#L," but if someone's willing to point me to a reference showing otherwise, I'll stand corrected. NYS calls itself, officially, "NYS," and so I'm pretty sure that a Wikipedia User referring to Route 347 would look up "New York State Route 347." --Tckma 19:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hassles should not come in the way of a popular concensus. --TinMan 19:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In any event, this isn't the place to discuss this; the conventions by state won't come until part 2. --TMF ^{T - C} 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(I've switched the parentheses with brackets in Principle 1 to prevent confusion with Principle 2.)' This format is the most likely version a visitor to Wikipedia would type in to find the correct article. It distinguishes from all other routes by placing the state name first. This format should also satisfy fans of the pipe trick, since [[Road Term x (State Name)]] could be redirected to this format: State Name Road Term x. Therefore, an editor could type [[Road Term (State Name)|]] and it would redirect to the correct article. --TinMan 19:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. To wit, Route 15 ( that's [[Route 15 (Illinois)|]] ) certainly does NOT redirect to Illinois Route 15. --Tckma 20:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's because in Illinois the routes are "Illinois Route X". That redirect isn't a bad idea though - I'm going to make it. --SPUI (T - C) 05:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

An editor could, but most won't know, and we'll end up with articles that use the state name when they shouldn't. --SPUI (T - C) 05:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What's so bad about them not using the pipe trick if all roads lead to the same place? --TinMan 19:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

One potential problem is that new editors tend to use the article title when making links. Also, many editors tend to fix redirects that aren't broken, preferring the direct link. If the article title is incorrect, that propagates the use of the incorrect name. --Polaron | Talk 20:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

From an inter-state perspective, this is the best way to name highways, as someone said in a past conversation that a resident from one state usually refers to a route from another by their state name first. It also sounds better when spoken out loud. --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>} 03:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

As far as I know, this convention is what most people, including me, have wanted. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 17:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's also not necessarily true. --SPUI (T - C) 17:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As do I. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto on that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

While reasonable people may disagree, this is likely what your average Wikipedia user would type in to search for an article on a specific state highway. S/he is likely to realize that there can potentially be 52 different Route X's in the U.S. alone, and thus would probably type the state name first, unless, as has been said on the discussion page, there was some sort of crazy listcruft desires. Any regional language differences ("Route," "Highway," etc.) can be taken care of with redirects to the commonly used local name of the road. --Tckma 19:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the method I agree with. As I noted in the suggestion for the second principle, being from Michigan I know the highways are M-1, M-50, etc, but anyone from the other 49 states probably don't know that and would be more likely to search for [STATE ABBREV] state highway XX Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 04:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Stratosphere. M is an obvious abbreviation for Michigan, but it could also be Minnesota if you were'nt familiar with the style. Abbreviations should be spelled out. By the way, its possible the main reason they are called "M-x" is because there is an "M" on most Michigan route shields. North Carolina used to have "NC" on their shields. --TinMan 19:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

See my note below about Kansas and Michigan. —Scott5114↗ 06:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Will this discussion cover State Highway v state highway, or state route, when it comes to the category names? Vegaswikian 07:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you're getting into generic terms, which is a whole other animal with some people supporting capitalizing them and others not. I think we're better off saving that debate for another time.-Jeff ^(talk) 01:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I voted for this, since I've been pushing for a commonly used disambiguation technique for highways, I noticed that that is commonly done by putting the state name first. Again, we don't disambiguate towns using Town (State), but rater Town, State. If people usually disambiguate state highways by putting the state name first then this seems to be the best option.-Jeff ^(talk) 03:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself. If I, as a New Yorker, was a first-time Wikipedia visitor and I wanted to look up, say, Michigan Highway 40 (just as an example), I would literally type in "Michigan Highway 40". I expect that this is true in most cases, as to me, it simply makes sense to refer to an out-of-state route by placing the state name first, then the road type and finally the number. After all, I wouldn't refer to California State Route 20 as "State Route 20" while I'm standing in downtown Rochester. I would explicitly say "California State Route 20". --TMF ^{T - C} 03:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

What people might search for should not be the determining factor in titling an article. The actual name of the thing should determine the title. Searching should definitely be taken care of by redirects in any case. Also the town, state naming convention used mainly by US cities is improper because it gives the impression that the state name is part of the town/city name. --Polaron | Talk 04:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. Wikipedia:Use Common Names says:

When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?

--Tckma 19:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The only debate now is: What is the actual name of the thing? Some say this, some say that, and both sides have compelling evidence supporting their position. And WP:NAME also says this:

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.

The only problem is the ambiguity and the semantics of the wording of both the policy and the "actual thing," and the unseen difficulty of fulfilling this requirement. --physicq210 04:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If it were Wikipedia's policy to only use official names, I would agree with Polaron's comment above, but as we all know, this is not the case. Wilmington is a common name, but ambiguous, Wilmington, Delaware is also a common name, as that is how people usually disambiguate the city in Delaware known as Wilmington. In Wikipedia, we can disambiguate using parens, but if people are more used to seeing something disambiguated another way we should use that way, since we are allowed to use the more complete names option.-Jeff ^(talk) 04:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-standard disambiguation should only be used if the resulting name+disambiguation term combination is actually in significant use. There are many states that do not use the state name in what they call their roads and articles for roads in those states should not be forced to use an incorrect name. If the state name in front style is in significant use in a particular state, only then should the state name in front method of disambiguation be considered. --Polaron | Talk 04:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree on Tckma's comment. People are going to say and refer to a highway as either "Kentucky State Highway 33" or "Kentucky State Route 33" (the official term is Kentucky State Highway FYI). But then you look at Ohio, and how one user wanted ti jump to his own conclusion. So instead of something reasonable to Wikipedia's naming convention, you have State Route 55 (Ohio) instead of something more plausable, such as Ohio State Route 55 or Ohio State Highway 55. No one is going to refer to it as "State Route 55 Ohio" in real life... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Principle 2: Commonly-Used-Name X (State Name)

For each state, choose a common or commonly-used official name. For instance:

• Florida: State Road X
• Louisiana: Louisiana Highway X
• Massachusetts: Route X
• Michigan: M-X

Then, if necessary, apply standard disambiguation conventions by adding a qualifier in parentheses:

• State Road X (Florida)
• Louisiana Highway X
  • Other states that commonly use the state name in front are: IL, MD, MS, MT, NE, NH, NY, NC, ND, PA, VT. These will not need disambiguation info under this Principle.
• Route X (Massachusetts)
• M-X (Michigan highway)

--SPUI (T - C) 17:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

This is standard practice on Wikipedia, in part because it makes it easier to write articles. If you don't understand this, please read Wikipedia:pipe trick. One can type [[Route X (Massachusetts)|]] rather than [[Massachusetts Route X|Route X]]. Note that redirects should always be made using a completion list. The routes should also be included on disambiguation pages, which also have a completion list for coordinating redirects. This ensures that a reader is likely to find the article. --SPUI (T - C) 17:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

SPUI, until you showed the link to pipe trick (and I used the trick here also!) I did not understand the purpose behind what you were doing. Perhaps this is certainly why people do not understand and we end up edit-warring - could it be because they don't know how to use Wikipedia? --master_son^{Lets talk} 22:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually we do understand how to use the Pipe trick, thank you very much. But we should not redo the whole system just so we can use the pipe trick. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

ok. Then we shouldn't with already existing ones. but new ones? Wisconsin was a possible example. very few articles written (about 10-15?) so it probably made some sense to convert the existing there, but where do we draw the line? --master_son^{Lets talk} 23:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the typical user will most likely type in Wisconsin Highway x rather than type in Highway x, realizing that there is more than one highway by that name. Besids, who, being a newcomer to Wikipedia, would realize taht the article was at the odd "Highway x (Wisconsin)? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Who would realize the article is at John Smith (English statesman)? Or Atlas (mythology)? We should strive to be correct. --SPUI (T - C) 05:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. We should be making these articles easy to locate for the average Wikipedia user, not those who are "roadgeeks" or who need to be very strict in terms of naming conventions. Let's make this easy for them people, and keep it with a name that is reasonable and something that phonetically sounds good. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the piipe trick was added AFTER Wikipedia started using parenthetical disambiguation. --SPUI (T - C) 05:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

While I respect the idea that the names should come from the official source (i.e. the state's particluar Dept of Transportation) I feel that in many situations, the average wikipedia user would have no idea of the local official name. For example, being from Michigan I am aware that the state highways are referred to as M-1, or M-50. But, if you were to ask someone from the other 49 states (maybe wisconsin, indiana, ohio excluded) they would have no clue that was the fact, unless they were a roadgeek. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

While I think we should definitely select a commonly used name, I don't think we should use this method of disambiguation. Yes, naming articles in this manner does make it easier on editors for typing because of the pipe trick mentioned above. However, we need to make Wikipedia search user-friendly, which may not necessarily be editor-friendly. As I've said before (on this project's talk page), I've been using this principle only because it appeared to be a standard precedent on the states I've been working. (As a side note, I believe that fact demonstrates that I'm willing to abide by whatever standards come out of this poll.) --Tckma 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? what's not user-friendly about that method? I think its both editor-friendly and user friendly in this sense. if one guesses based on experience, this will help them get to the correct location. I would think WIS 15, so I type it - but if we did not have a disambiguation or redirect, I'd get the edit page. with what we have now (there's a completion list on WP:WIH as well.) if I typed in or clicked on a WIS 15 link, it would take me to Highway 15 (Wisconsin).--master_son^{Lets talk} 22:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's only user-friendly if you throw in a bunch of redirects. If I'm looking for state highway, well, I'm fairly intelligent and I realize many states can have the same number highway. So I'll type "New Hampshire Route 101" rather than "Route 101" or "Route 101 (New Hampshire)." My point is this: In common speech the state's name comes first. Locally, the road is referred to as just "Route one-oh-one," or even just "one-oh-one." Sure, we need disambiguation -- If you're giving someone directions to Hampton Beach, you probably aren't going to talk about U.S. Highway 101 -- unless the person is really lost! One could conceivably imagine giving directions involving both Route 101 (New Hampshire) and Route 101 (Massachusetts), but they aren't the same road (neither crosses the state line). So in that case you would say "New Hampshire Route 101" and "Massachusetts Route 101" -- the state name always comes first. Ask yourself: What would Joe Average Wikipedian type in to get to an article? --Tckma 17:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

By putting something like "Route 4" as the first words of an article will just open a can of worms. What's next? "Highway 52 (United States)"? "Route 95 (Interstate)"? I've never seen a road sign with parentheses on it... and I believe that road signs should be the #1 thing we consider since that's what people read when they travel, that's where common names usually come from, and that's how resident's addresses usually read. I might live on Virginia Highway 8, but not Highway 8 (Virginia). Who would ever type "Highway 8 (Virginia)" in a search unless they are familiar with Wikipedia? I understand that no matter what a person types in a search, we can redirect to it. Yet, I feel the articles should have titles that a user can relate to. All the editor tricks and strange formats editors want to use can be redirects to a format that reads like a road sign or an address, like I suggested in Principle 1. EDITOR < USER. --TinMan 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The parenthetical term is a disambiguation. It is not part of the article name. As long as expected search queries are redirected to the correct article, then it shouldn't be a problems. Some people just seem to dislike this disambiguation method (for whatever reason) even though it is used by many encyclopedias (print and online). --Polaron | Talk 20:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thing I think I should add: This format assumes that the routes are known (using the term "highway" as an example) as "Highway x" in their respective states, wherein the each state's articles would need to be diambiguated to differentiate between the multiple "Highway x"'s in the county. However, in my state, and I dare say in most states, the road is never known as "Highway x", except in informal speech, but instead (using North Carolina as an example), "N.C. Highway x", "North Carolina Highway x", "NC x", or some variant of that. The state name or state abbreviation is never left out in any formal or semi-formal format. Michigan I assume is the same way with its "M-x". The "M" is still there, therefore a parentheses disambiguation shouldn't be used here... the abbreviation may have to be spelled out. Now, in places like Massachusetts, the routes may just be commonly known as "Route x" with no reference to the state. In those cases, I believe this Principle 2 is best suited. If that is the case, we're going to have a big uniformity problem. I don't know for sure if that is true though. I've noticed SPUI argue that "Route x" is the true name of the road someplace, but I can't remember where. --TinMan 05:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Kansas and Michigan have special dab problems -- in Kansas at least, both the common and official name is "K-X" (as in K-32). However there's a lot of other things that are K-X (I'm sure you can imagine the problems with K-9 meaning either or a canine). Same for Michigan - there are even problems with other highways named M-X, as the motorway system in Great Britain also uses that convention. So these two states need special attention. Principal 2 definitely works better for these highways than Principal 1, as Principal 1 would require the names to be at "Kansas State Highway 32" (which is neither correct nor commonly used, at least from my experience) or "Kansas K-32" or something else clumsy like that.—Scott5114↗ 07:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If the official state name was "Boring Route x" would you use that for the article name? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If Boring is the state, yes. If Boring is a class, I'd use Boring Route X (State). --SPUI (T - C) 11:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because it is the official name does not mean we have to use it. For example, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In either case the state abbreviaiton would have to be spelled out. That's a given. It's just a question of whehter you want the state name in the front or the back of the title...or have the state stated twice for some strange reason. In the copy (details) of the article, I assume you can call it "K-x" all you want; same with "M-x". K obviously stands for Kansas and M obvoiously stands for Michigan in those states. Also, even in abbreviated form, the state name or a state abbreviation is always existent and in the front. --TinMan 20:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's worry about getting the disambiguation for the other 48 states first and then we can come back to Kansas and Michigan when it's time to decide schemes for individual states. (Not sure, but does Nebraska use N-X?) —Scott5114↗ 21:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I support using common names, but as long as we are using common names, we should also be using a common disambiguation techniques as well. For example, Wilmington is an ambiguous name for an article. So how do we disambiguate? There is the parentheses option (Wilmington (Delaware), Wilmington (North Carolina) etc.), but that's not the technique commonly used to disambiguate town names, thus we have the article titles: Wilmington, Delaware and Wilmington, North Carolina. So before we decide that we should be disambiguating with parentheses, we should back up and see if there is another way to go about doing it for that state. In Maryland, we call our state routes simply "Route X", but when we want to disambiguate from other states' state routes we say "Maryland Route X". So to someone from Maryland at least, the title Maryland Route 2 makes more sense than Route 2 (Maryland) since the former uses a more familiar style of disambiguation. I'm not nessesarily saying that we should put the state name first, if people in Lalaland, for example, call thier routes "State Highway X" and disambiguate by saying "State Highway X of Lalaland" then we should go with that convention.-Jeff ^(talk) 04:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Those town names aren't just what we call them though, those are the full names of the town. When we have two people of the same name, we use parentheses, not "Politician John Smith" and "Actor John Smith." That's because "Politician John Smith" isn't their real name. While people in real life might say "Alabama State Route X," they can't say parentheses, so they might also say "Actor John Smith." Here, though, we can use parentheses because our content is text, so we have the ability to disambiguate something like "John Smith (actor)" or "State Route X (Alabama)." Also remember that when people don't have to disambiguate by state, say, if they were just inside Alabama and there was only one road that people would think of when they said "State Route X," they would just say "State Route X," not "Alabama State Route X," because that's the real name. --Rory096 21:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A note to those who say "This is how we do disambiguation on Wikipedia" -- that's not really an accurate statement when made absolutely. There are, in fact, multiple methods of disambiguation on Wikipedia, and parentheticals is only one. It may be the most common, by virtue of the fact that it is the most adaptable, but it seems incorrect to me to just say "This is how it's done". Powers ^T 14:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and was just about to mention this myself. Let me just add that according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), we should "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things", so "Route 2" indeed conflicts with other things named Route 2, but "Maryland Route 2" does not, so therefore the aforementioned statement would favor the second convention.-Jeff ^(talk) 16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

But we should not use a disambiguation method that creates names that are almost never used. There are some states that almost never use the state name in front such as Massachusetts. With the parenthetical method, it is clear that the term in parentheses is not part of the name. With the state name in front, it would give the impression that the state name is part of the road name. --Polaron | Talk 17:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's my impression that putting the state name first is the most common way to disambiguate route names. If it can be argued that neither the general public nor media, etc. of a certain state uses this method, then that can be argued in that state's debate in the individual state polls, and that state can be an exception to the "use statename first" principle.-Jeff ^(talk) 18:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the way we disambiguate on Wikipedia. We don't have The TV series 24 as a title, do we? And what's with not allowing comments? Voting is evil, so we should at least lessen that by discussing it! (In a different section doesn't count, a poll should be for consensus-gathering, not vote-counting.) -- Rory096

Saying "This is the way we disambiguate on Wikipedia" is a bit misleading. It may be the most common method, but it's far from the only way. After all, we use Rochester, New York instead of "Rochester (New York)", Syracuse, Italy instead of "Syracuse (the original)", Mary, mother of Jesus instead of "Mary (person)", Blessed Virgin Mary instead of "Mary (holy figure)", The Madonna instead of "Madonna (title)", Roman Catholic Church instead of "Catholic Church (Roman)" or even "Church (Roman Catholic)", Black Pete instead of "Pete (Disney)", Brighton, Monroe County, New York instead of "Brighton (Monroe County), New York", Child pornography instead of "Pornography (children)", Chocolate chip cookie instead of "Cookie (chocolate chip)", Disney's Nine Old Men instead of "Nine Old Men (Disney)", Human feces instead of "Feces (human)", and Vulvovaginal health instead of "Health (vulvovaginal)". Powers ^T 13:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

With one or two exceptions, most of the examples here are commonly called by what their article titles are. For state highways, the main contention is that the state name in front would result in names that are very rarely or never used in some states. --Polaron | Talk 13:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

But the names commonly used within the state are almost all ambiguous (I think maybe Kansas and Michigan might be the only ones that aren't) in an extra-state context. We have to go by what names are used in situations where the name is ambiguous because Wikipedia is one of those situations. Powers ^T 16:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Look up a bit to where I posted something that was actually supposed to be responded to. By the way, most of those are full names of things, not articles that needed to be disambiguated (Cookie (chocolate chip)? That's not an official name, nor is it a common name. It's not even disambiguated.), and with the last two, those uses are explicitly forbidden (along with Feces/human) because the article is just as much a subpage of human as it is of feces. --Rory096 16:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There are multiple kinds of cookies. Often, if only chocolate-chip cookies are available, someone will just say "cookie" (as in "would you like this cookie?") rather than saying what kind of cookies they are every time (as in "would you like this chocolate chip cookie?"). We disambiguate "cookie" with "chocolate chip" when we want to specify what kind of cookie we're talking about. Similarly, people within a state have little need to prepend their state name to route numbers; sometimes they don't even bother with "Route" or "Highway" and just say "Take 153 to 15 and turn left." But when there's some confusion, they add disambiguation until there's no confusion. When people speak of highways and there's no clear assumption of which state is being referenced, people prepend the state name; it's only natural. Powers ^T 16:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm mystified -- or I would be mystified, were this not Wikipedia, perhaps more accurately -- why this is even being argued with. This principle, as I understand it, would require us to determine the common term in each case, and then to disambiguate, if still necessary. (It's possibly overkill to mandate the style of disambuation, but I suppose that's the point we're at, especially as the debate is systematically conducted in "this is what we've decided we want" or "this is the 'correct name'" terms, rather than by way of commonality.) Thus, if "California Route 1" is the common term, we use that. If it's some other term, we then may need to disambiguate. (Personally I wouldn't care a hoot if it were "State Route 1, California", rather than "State Route 1 (California)", say.) Principle #1 OTOH, ignores commonality and mandates state-name-first regardless of such, then adds a token "use the common term" in the middle. As I'm not at all convinced that reasonable attempts to determine the common name have been exhausted (to put it mildly), I find this very bass-ackwards: if compelling evidence of what the common name is turns up after the adoption of such a principle, it's supposedly ruled out by P#1. (Not much evidence currently other than "what would people type into their search engine", which seems to have no evidential validity beyond "what I type into my search engine/think others should type". A more reasonable test would be usage in news media, as I've repeatedly suggested. So let's perform a gedankenexperiment, imagining that such research has actually been carried out...) It also requires that we "disambiguate" by state name, even if the name is actually unique, which would be competitive in its counter-intuitiveness with the tortuously artificial stuff the (names and titles) and (cardinals) guideline-wranglers (if not to say manglers) have come up with. Alai 04:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

So, if, say, Californians started calling their state routes "Cruising Routes" and Wikipedia named the articles accordingly, you wouldn't want to see "California" in the title anywhere? Powers ^T 16:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If they "started calling" them that to the point where that was the common name, sure. If it's commonly used, but unclear (though I'm not sure how such a combination would arise), parenthical disambiguation at least makes explicit what's part of the (common) name, and what's been added for context. Here's a useful context to put the "common name" question in: if the NYT is writing an article about a number of California state routes, how would it refer to them? Likewise, see the discussion below about Michigan and Kansas: do we really want to see "Kansas K-32", or "Kansas State Route K-12", etc, having an article text explaining this means "Kansas Kansas route #32"? And what if the common name is "California 1" (which certainly seems to be how the signage goes), this principle appears to rule that out as lacking a "Commonly-used road term". Alai 06:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Here, the NYT uses "State Route 14" because the context -- being California -- is clear. (It's difficult to find good examples because the archives are locked up tight.) In Wikipedia, the context is not clear, and the most natural method of disambiguation in this case seems to me to be to put the state name first. And if the common name is "California 1", then the "commonly-used road term" would either be the next best thing, or "nothing"; no problem there. Powers ^T 19:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the context be clear in Wikipedia? The majority of references to a state highway are likely to be directly related to that state (e.g., other state roads, communities, places, etc.). For those cases where the context is not clear, the links may need to be piped or the sentences rephrased to make the context clear. What is the problem? Why should the article for some state roads be forced to adopt artificial and incorrect names simply to accommodate a chance of poor writing in a relatively small percentage of articles that link to them? older ≠ wiser 20:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm not talking about how an article is linked. We have redirects to permit road articles to be linked in whatever way is most clear. I'm talking about article titles, where "State Route 95" is obviously not unambiguous (and thus, the context not clear). All I'm saying is that the article titles ought to be disambiguated with the state name in front rather than using parentheses where necessary. Powers ^T 22:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should the article titles be disambiguated with the state name in front rather than using parentheses? I'm afraid I don't see that as a logical conclusion from your comments that I responded to. You provided a link to a NYT article as some sort of evidence -- the only mention in that article that is in any way analogous to Wikipedia are the in-line references (which would be linked in Wikipedia). Is anyone suggesting that an article title should be "State Route 95"? As far as titles go, "Maryland State Route 95" is no more or less ambiguous than "State Route 95 (Maryland)" older ≠ wiser 00:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

While that may be true, if someone was writing any article, they are more like to write something like Foo1 State Route 11 becomes Foo2 State Highway 22 at the state line. Using the form from principal 2 means that you would need to link and then override the displayed text for it to read naturally or depend on a redirect to get to the correct artcile. Vegaswikian 01:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

But wouldn't in-state linking be more common than termini? The possibility of needing to attach the state name in some cases shouldn't be the guiding principle for naming articles. If a state does not normally append the state name in front, we shouldn't title the articles for that state's highways that way. --Polaron | Talk 01:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I was just about to reiterate my point from above. No matter what the naming convention, there will be circumstances in which there will need to be piped links or careful phrasing used to make the context clear. Should we choose titles based on the relatively less common instances, such as routes continuing in another state, or based on the more common names used in the state, which presumably would have relatively more instances of usage with in-state articles? older ≠ wiser 02:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The NYT is just a frinstance, feel free to read as "any serious news outlet" (though preferably not exclusively Californian ones, for obvious reasons). In Wikipedia, the practice is to place something at its common name, not at "its common name plus sufficient context to immediately tell what's being described" (which is the purpose of the first sentence of the article), and to insist on the latter would lead to some pretty tortuous article titles. Disambiguation isn't for context, it's for not having two things in the same place. "The next best thing" would seem to me to be a potentially considerable problem (though I suppose necessarily better than the-next-best-thing-but one), for the reasons I outlined, and "nothing" could be deemed to be inconsistent with this principle, if applied too literally. (I'd favour not applying it at all, obviously, due to its copious potential to vary in any and every respect from the common name, to the point of obviating any attempt to determining what the common name is.) Alai 02:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't make heads nor tails out of what your saying here or what your position is regarding a naming convention for roads. You wrote: In Wikipedia, the practice is to place something at its common name, not at "it's common name plus sufficient context to immediately tell what's being described" And who is saying this? My position is that the roads should be at the common name according to usage in that state rather than at some contrived name. Additional information may be required for disambiguation and secondarily for consistency, not necessarily to provide context (although that may be a happy coincidence). older ≠ wiser 12:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That appears to me to be LtPower's position (or rhetorical point, at least); it was his earlier comment I was responding to, as the indentation was intended to indicate. It also seems to be implicit in Principle 2, given its formula for starting with the state name regardless of either need for disambiguation, or for what the common name actually is. Alai 00:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I think I confused your and LtPower's comments. older ≠ wiser 01:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Alai 02:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but I can't follow this discussion. =) Here's a summary of my point. Given a) that most state route article titles need disambiguation (because "State Route XX" would result in name conflicts), b) that a good number of states do actually put the name of the state in front in official usage, even though state residents rarely use it, c) that proper use of redirects means any given article title does not make it harder or easier to link in another article, and d) that putting the state name in front is a natural method of disambiguation in speech ... then it seems to me that the most consistent and user-friendly way to name articles is with the state name in front, even if disambiguation isn't strictly needed. I acknowledge that Kansas and Michigan are unique cases that might need further discussion, but I don't wish to hold up consensus on the other 48 while we do so. =) Powers ^T 13:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I sort of agree, kinda, I guess. :) Point by point a) I agree. b) Indicates to me that if there is documented evidence that a state commonly uses the state name in front in official communications, then that would be good evidence that that should be the case with the titles for those states where that is the case. c) maybe so, but some people don't like that redirected from message and obsessively churn articles merely to remove links through redirects. d) Is where I'm least in agreement. Speech and the Titles of Wikipedia articles are not an oranges to oranges comparison. In fact, I think usage in speech would correspond more strongly with how links are expressed within articles rather than how titles should be named. That is, if the state name is not an intrinsic part of the common name, but is used to disambiguate when necessary in certain contexts, that would correspond with using piped links or rewording the mentions in articles as needed according to the context. I still think that the titles should begin with the common name and that additional information, if necessary for disambiguation primarily and consistency secondarily, should come after the common name. Of course, like I've said elsewhere on this page, I really don't care all that strongly how the road articles for other states are titled, aside from the general principal of not wanting to set a bad precedent. Just don't suggest that we go back to naming Michigan articles anything like "Michigan State Highway XX" older ≠ wiser 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

a) is obviously correct. However, that most states' form of names (and indeed most actual roads) need to be disambiguated does not argue for a form being adopted even where disambiguation is not required, it's used anyway. On point b), I would like to remind you both that the criterion isn't what's "official", but what's common. If it's officially "Route 1", or "State Route 1", or whatever else, but it's commonly referred to as "<state> State Route 1", "<state> 1", etc, we should use the latter. (And vice versa.) See my earlier comment about what usage is the best test for the domain of commonness. On c): if most articles end up written such that they link to the redirect, it's an excellent sign that the redirect is where the article should be. The exception that proves the rule we don't have to worry about. As to d), I have to entirely disagree with LtPowers, and largely concur with Bkonrad. There's no wikipedia guideline that says "put things at the most natural name that isn't ambiguous". Firstly, what's "natural" should be construed in terms of what's common. I can think of several ways of making explicit "y'know, the Californian one". Firstly, what we're concerned with here isn't speech, it's formal written usage; and secondly, what I or anyone else think is "natural" is simply personal preference. What's actually used in other comparable works is a much more objective test, and happily enough, one that happens to correspond to our guidelines on the matter. Lastly, the practice isn't to preclude common names that happen to be ambiguous, or to disambiguate in the most commonly-used manner, but to determine a common name, and then to disambiguate as needed. If two names are roughly comparably commonly used, then it makes sense to go with the less ambiguous and more precise one, certainly. That doesn't mean it's appropriate to choose a far less commonly used name just on the ambiguity basis. (Obviously all of the above would be more uselessly discussed in the context of actual data about commonality, rather than above hypothicated conditionals.) Alai 01:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree. Where I mentioned "official" usage, I was thinking of it as a shorthand for common written usage in relatively high quality print sources, and hence having somewhat greater weight than colloquial usage. I think I may differ somewhat in that consistency is a valid consideration. If most (say 80% to 90%) of the items of a particular type are ambiguous and require disambiguation, I think it is reasonable to pre-emptively disambiguate all of the similar items. This only to make it easy to remember the general rule for items of that type. Sure, redirects could work for the minority of cases, but I think it looks ugly in a category to have most of the items in one form and just a few in some other form. older ≠ wiser 01:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree about weighting and/or filtering according to formality (and to a degree knowledgeability) of the source. Common usage shouldn't reasonably be construed to mean what any-old-website, or what the guy at the service station called it when you asked for directions; we have to title things, and refer to them, with regard to encyclopaedic tone. You have a point about "particular types", but extending this to "types of types" is I think taking this too far. That is, if 90% of Minnesota SRs (or whatever they're called), then putting all the MN roads in a partocular form seems sensible. However, doing so on a cross-state basis seems a much more dubious practice. Alai 02:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree about state-by-state vs. cross-state consistency. older ≠ wiser 12:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"I think it looks ugly in a category to have most of the items in one form and just a few in some other form." That's kinda the crux of my argument. That's why I think it's best to have the state name in front. Some states do it as part of the official name; other states don't but need the state name somewhere for disambiguation purposes; might as well put them in front as well for consistency. As Bkonrad said, "This only to make it easy to remember the general rule for items of that type." Powers ^T 23:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I also agree with Alai. That is, there are very few cases in which you'd have state highways from multiple states in the same category, so this argument does not provide any support for placing the state name in front for all. older ≠ wiser 00:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I believe the statement continues to hold true beyond categories to other contexts as well. Powers ^T 01:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Those being? Alai 02:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

General browsing via junction lists. User is looking at, say, Pennsylvania Route 5, navigates to New York State Route 5, then to New York State Route 19, then to Pennsylvania Route 449, etc. Putting the state name first in all cases gives a more unified "feel" to all of the state highway pages. Powers ^T 12:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit like SPUI's argument, run in reverse... Isn't the more usual context for list of SRs likely to be within-state, where repetition of the state name is likely to be redundant, and stylistically undesirable? And the same rejoinder would apply, to wit, link to a redirect, or use a piped link. Categories are the only context that's not workable. Alai 02:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Principle III: State by State

Principle III, decide on a state by state basis. Neither naming convention is 100% correct for all 50 states as a whole, neither is it 100% correct for each state individually as has been evidenced in discussions engaged in long before I lost interest in this whole mess. This should be discussed at a centralized spot for each state (ie: a wikiproject or if none exists the list of routes/highways for that state) and a consensus should be reached for each state on their own. Gateman1997 02:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't want to throw cold water on this, but this was a tried and failed proposition. Good idea though, although I'm not supporting this for realistic reasons. Call it Realpolitik. --physicq210 02:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it's not realistic to assume that anyone involved with this disaster would want to engage in a discussion and follow wikipedia policy at this point... but then the world can be a very sad place indeed. I'm off to write some articles about non state highways and lighthouses, but keep me appraised if anyone wants to be mature and discuss this matter rather then vote to a non binding stalemate. Gateman1997 02:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, all I can say right now is: welcome to the (hopefully temporarily) polarized world. --physicq210 02:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This principle is pretty much the current status quo. A valid choice that should probably have been included from the beginning. --Polaron | Talk 02:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree. The current status quo, at least back in April when I last was involved (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that one side insists that all states should be named (State) State Route X and the other says all routes should be State Route X (State)? Is that where it stands today? Because if that's the status quo that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that a consensus on what each state's highways should be named be made individually at each state and then applied. This hasn't been done to my knowledge beyond some RFM's which are hardly consensus building discussions. Gateman1997 02:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

State by state is pretty much what is happening right now with each WikiProject deciding the naming convention for their state. WA and CA, where the most debate has been are probably the only ones that haven't come to consensus (yet). --Polaron | Talk 02:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case (and that's where I remember it standing), why are we now voting on a non binding poll that supposes it speaks for all states? Why not discuss this at the two states that need discussion and come to a consensus. Gateman1997 03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if those projects exhibited the capability to resolve this issue themselves. Time has proven that they lack the ability to do so, resulting in this. --TMF ^{T - C} 03:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Then bring those two states to the community as a whole in an RFC or two. That's what it's there for. If the rest are running smoothly then so be it, why should we attempt to preempt consensus? Gateman1997

If I understand the history right, the problem is that they already went to RFC a while ago, and that led to the ArbCom case that basically forced this poll to take place. --TMF ^{T - C} 06:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the RFC was a behavioral one against one of the users and the Arbcom widened the net to many of the parties involved. Also the arbcom demanded they come to a consensus, not a vote. An RFC on the topic of road names itself has yet to be called by any parties involved or otherwise. Gateman1997 07:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Principle 0: The basics

Let's back up a bit, perhaps? Rather than jumping right into the center of the debate? I have a few general principles (since that's what this part is supposed to be about, right?) that I'm wondering if we can all agree on:

1. Highway articles almost all need to be disambiguated somehow. "Route 90" could be anything from an Interstate to a county route.
2. There are multiple ways of peforming disambiguation.
3. Wikipedia guidelines do not have a preference for one method of disambiguation over another.

If we can all agree on these three, I have some more that might be more controversial but would help us form a foundation for later principles. Powers 19:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. howcheng {chat} 22:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? --physicq210 00:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree... to an extent. You could stretch these to fit both of the principles, so the statements as they are written I agree with. --TinMan 05:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

w00t. —Rob (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Wikipedia:Naming conventions says that "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." Linking to articles is easier with parenthetical disambiguation. --SPUI (T - C) 11:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions also says "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." I don't think "making linking to those articles easy and second nature" necessarily means parenthetical disambiguation is preferred. In fact, Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic specifically says "If there is a choice between using a short phrase and word with context, there is no hard rule about which is preferred," and, in reference to using adjectives for disambiguation, "but it's usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses." Powers ^T 14:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Any "disambiguating" portion of a state highway article's title (meaning a portion which does not commonly appear in documents published by the maintaining agency in the context of referring to a specific road, which exists only to help readers understand the context, or which simply disambiguates it from other roads with the same proper name) should be confined within parentheses. Period. If a certain state's DoT is inconsistant, then we can discuss it, write to them for clarification, whatever we need to do. These steps should not be necessary in the majority of cases. —freak(talk) 14:16, Aug. 13, 2006 (UTC)

Um, why? Since when is disambiguation only allowed via parentheticals? Powers ^T 14:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[1] Principle 8 in the ArbCom case --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"...but their use is not a required method." (ibid.) --Tckma 17:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I don't know where to jump into the debate here, so I'm just gonna start here. I think the articles should be named like the interstate and federal routes. For example, instead of Pennsylvania State Route 39, how about just PA-39? --myselfalso 19:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the problem with that is that it's confusing. It might work for some states, but definitely not all of them. In fact, the articles about Interstate and US highways are not named I-XX and US-XX. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 19:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • True, I did forget that I-XX and US-XX are redirects to Interstate-XX and US Route-XX. Ultimately, I like it the way it is. The current name for the PA-39 article is Pennsylvania Route 39. I think we should stick with that. --myselfalso 19:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I also think you should stick with that, unless the word "Highway" or "State Road" is more common in PA. I've been there a number of times, but I can't say for sure. Those decisons are later on though. Right now, we're trying to decide whether "State Term x" or "Term x (State)" is better for the majority of the country. Each side has great points, but in the end, this matters very little. No matter what the decision is, redirects can be made for almost anything. Yet, it has to be done to stop this nationwide mayhem, which by the way, seems to have died down since this debate started. --TinMan 21:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it's easier to do it "State Term X" rather than "Term X (State)". I just like the formatting better. "Pennsylvania Route 39" makes more sense to me rather than "Route 39 (Pennsylvania)". I should think that there would be a disambiguation page for Route 39 (for each state route 39 and federal and interstate route 39) reguardless of the name of the page, but I would think that more people searching up PA-39 would search under "Pennsylvania Route 39" before "Route 39 (Pennsylvania)". I think the article should be named for what is simpler for the person looking up the article. And while "Route 39 (Pennsylvania)" looks cleaner than "Pennsylvania Route 39", I think the latter is easier to find faster. --myselfalso 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
      • What people are likely to search for should not be the main concern. That's what redirects are for. The title should be a common name that is used by the state DOT. For the specific case of Pennsylvania, PennDOT does use "Pennsylvania Route" but some other states do not include the state name in what the state DOT calls its state highways. --Polaron | Talk 23:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Well stated, Polaron, I agree completely. Names should be based on official usage. → JARED ^(t)  00:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't think anyone's arguing that. The question is whether to disambiguate via the state-name-as-adjective prior to the route designation, or via a parenthetical state name. Powers ^T 00:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
            • I completely disagree. The state DOT's half the time don't know what they're own routes are called. Many just call them many names. We had a big discussion on this for I think Minnesota highways, which are called Trunk highways. I say that road signs and mailing addresses trump the state DOT's. For example, in North Carolina, legislation dictates that Interstate 95 is called "Interstate Route 95", something I think the article shouldn't be called. Plus, Wikipedia encourages common names, as long as its not too informal. Official names should be used, but not when nobody calls them that. An article about the BB&T bank should be named BB&T, not Branch Banking and Trust that probably nobody has heard of. Now if a state DOT or some other official body uses language that anyone can identify with, by all means, apply it, just as long as the rest of the country doesn't suffer with silly abbreviations. The talk page of this naming convention has already covered a lot of this. I encouage that everyone at least skim over that before rambling away. --TinMan 02:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
              • I agree, the title of an article should reflect what the general public calls the route, not what only the government calls it. Here, the SHA calls each route MD X, but that convention isn't used by the general public. The general public is more likely to call each route "Maryland Route X", which is the naming convention we use at WP:MDRD. However if the general public uses what the government uses in a certain state, by all means, use that convention. -Jeff ^(talk) 03:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
              • That was what I was saying — choose a common name that the state DOT also uses (even if it is not the full legal/official name). But if the state does not append the state's name to what it calls its state highways, then the title should reflect that. --Polaron | Talk 03:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
                • Wait, whoa. We still have to disambiguate it somehow, and the pipe trick is the only reason anyone's come up with for using parenthetical disambiguation. I personally don't find that particularly compelling. Much better to have parallelism, IMO. Powers ^T 11:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Um, with what part of my statement do you disagree, TinMan? Powers ^T 11:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
                • When you stated, "common name that is used by the state DOT" I thought you wanted the DOT's to decide everything, something I oppose (the bold threw me off). My point is that DOT's rarely know themselves. In Virginia's case, when someone sent an email to the state DOT, they just looked at what the minutes of DOT meetings said and gave out popular references. Your further statements clarify your true intentions though. I'm in a agreement now that I know what you're saying. --TinMan 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
                  • I didn't say that. Maybe you meant to reply (and disagree with) Polaron? Powers ^T 22:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
                  • right. --TinMan 02:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with all numbered "Principle 0" items given above. --Tckma 17:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with this. Both ways work - what's the problem? We can always use redirects. --master_son^{Lets talk} 23:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement

OK, so we're all agreed on points one and two, then. Point three has broad support, but SPUI and FreakofNurture disagree. SPUI has a good point that parenthetical disambiguation allows the pipe trick to work, but I think it's important to note that the pipe trick will still work as long as we have the proper redirects in place. In fact, I daresay almost all of the linking issues on both sides of the argument go away if we have the proper redirects in place. Even the search issue pretty much goes away if we have the proper redirects in place. Perhaps, then, the only remaining issue is what should the user see at the top of the page? That is, the title -- but the title without respect to how easy it is to search for or how easy it is to link to it, since all that is taken care of by redirects; rather, the title with respect to how it is read by the user on the actual article. Thoughts? Powers ^T 15:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that redirects make alot of points moot in this debate, so what it comes down to is what title simply looks right. People from "Some State" might say "Route X" but disambiguate from other states by saying "Some State Route X" and people from "Another State" might say "Highway X" and disambiguate by saying "Highway X in Another State". In this case I think the article titles should match how people disambiguate rather then use parentheses. Like I said before we don't disambiguate town names with parentheses because people are more familiar with using "TownName, StateName", I don't see why that principle should be any different here.-Jeff ^(talk) 15:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not the only issue - Rschen7754 was changing the bolded titles of articles from "State Route X" to "California State Route X" until he was blocked for it. He only did it on pages that were located at "California State Route X" (California has some at each).

There's also the issue of only those of us "in the know" using the redirects. If someone is writing an article on Foo, California, and wants to say that State Route X runs through it, they'll probably look up State Route X, find the disambiguation page, click through to California, and use the title of the page. So the article will read "California State Route X runs through Foo". --SPUI (T - C) 20:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think someone would do that. I think they would search for "California State Route x" (or some other term)... the point is, I think they would obviously put the state name in the search, realizing that each state has routes and there are U.S. routes, and Interstate routes, county routes, so on and so on. Furthermore, what's wrong with saying "California State Route X runs through Foo"? I don't see anything wrong with that. --TinMan 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You are objecting to one of my assumptions that doesn't affect the argument. No matter what someone types, if they find the page, they are likely to link to it using the title. And saying "California State Route X runs through Foo" is bad writing, because it is redundant, just as we don't say "California State Route X runs from Foo, California to Bar, California via Baz, California and Bam County, California". People don't generally call it that. --SPUI (T - C) 20:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that people are smart enough to not repeat "California" all the time. Is there some reason that they wouldn't use [[California State Route X|Route X]] runs from [[Foo, California|Foo]] to [[Bar, California|Bar]] via [[Baz, California|Baz]] and [[Bam County, California|Bam County]]? We already expect them to do that for the city and county links. Isn't it reasonable to think they'll do it for the road link too? howcheng {chat} 21:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying that. See for instance [2] and [3]. It's worse here than with cities because some states do put the state name first. --SPUI (T - C) 22:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point SPUI. I can see where this would get quite redundant on articles dealing specifically with California or another state. However, saying "State Route 1 is a state highway in the U.S. state of California" is an incorrect statement. That's why I suggest we treat route articles like we do for city articles. After the state name has been claified once, we can drop it for the rest of the article, similar to how pronouns replace nouns. For example: you could say: "Washington State Route 7 is a state highway in the U.S. state of Washington. It is 372 miles (83 SPUI UNITS) long. State Route 7 travels east-west in the northwest corner of the state." Yes, Washington would be clarified twice in that instance, but I don't think we have a choice if we want to be accurate. In North Carolina, the first bolded letters have been replaced by a common nickname, so an article might read: "NC 87 is a state highway in central North Carolina, United States." (I just put SPUI units for kicks.) Now, let's say I'm writing an article on Clingmans Dome and I wanted to describe the road that takes visitors to the park. I would have to say "North Carolina State Highway 37 provides access to the park", not "State Highway 37 provides access to the park" since the mountain is right on the NC/TN state line. (That's not a true statement, it's just for example). --TinMan 01:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

'However, saying "State Route 1 is a state highway in the U.S. state of California" is an incorrect statement.' Uh - what? That's perfectly correct, just like "Santa Barbara is a city in California, United States." Santa Barbara is a disambiguation. There are multiple cities named that. This one is a city in California - and this SR 1 is a state highway in California.

Wait, how is saying anything "State Route 1234 is a state highway in the U.S. state of Utopia" an incorrect statement? Even if it's also a state highway in Dystopia, the former's still correct. --Tckma 19:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Look below. --TinMan 02:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As for your Clingman's Dome example, it depends. You could say "State Highway 37 provides access to the park from Fooville, North Carolina" without any ambiguity. --SPUI (T - C) 13:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess you could wiggle around it like that. I stand corrected...d'oh! I'm just not a fan of leaving the state name off on non-route articles. You could say "Billy Joe lived on State Route 8 in California" or "Billy Joe lived in California on State Route 8" or "Billy Joe lived on California State Route 8". Each has its benefits and down-sides. --TinMan 18:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Something that hasn't yet been mentioned here either is that the correct name for the route is simply state route 8, not california state route 8. Caltrans calls all their routes state routes, not california state routes. It would be more correct, then, if you really want to put the state name before the route, to put "Billy Joe lived on California's State Route 8," just as you would say "Billy Joe lived on San Francisco's Market Street," not "Billy Joe lived on San Francisco Market Street." atanamir 17:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

TinMan's Final Analysis: So I guess all we're voting on tomorrow is which design do you like better. Both principles have pros and cons and I could go either way. The best thing to do is weigh each side and come do a decision, selecting the lesser of two evils. --TinMan 18:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC) By the way, check out [4]. Four years ago. It's all Brion's fault. --SPUI (T - C) 22:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so the issues are the title as it appears to the reader, without regard to how easy it is to link to it, but with regard to how it influences editors referring to it. Is that fairly accurate? Powers ^T 14:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also easier to link to a parenthetically-disambiguated title. The naming convention apparently takes into account these nuances. --SPUI (T - C) 14:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you mean by the latter statement; which naming convention, and which nuances? I think your first statement is obviated by the use of redirects. [[State Route 34 (California)|]] works regardless of whether the link in question is a redirect or the main article. Powers ^T 14:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The only possible reason I can see for that is to avoid the user seeing "California State Route 1234... redirected from State Route 1234 (California)" in the article title. And really, who cares, as long as you get to the actual article? --Tckma 19:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The only impact I see is in the parent category display order. They will appear odd in appearance and look like some are misnamed if the dab form is used. I'm not saying wrong, just odd. Having the state name first for these articles unifies the look in those categories and makes it clearer that each state names their roads differently. Vegaswikian 06:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Flaw in point 3

Coming to this late, and have no great stakes in the debate, but there is a flaw in point three, that Wikipedia guidelines do not have a preference for one method of disambiguation over another. Wikipedia:Disambiguation does offer the following: it's usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses when discussing specific topics. Hiding Talk 10:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting

So we're going ahead with voting despite the fact that we can't even agree on the principles involved? This has the makings of a sham. Powers ^T 20:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, right now it's a dead heat. --TinMan 01:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Going back to my initial thoughts about this poll when I first heard about it two weeks ago, I believed that this had all the signs of a sham. Consider the two proposals: the first one would establish a nationwide standard. Would this set a standardized naming convention? Yes, to an extent. Would it please everyone involved? Absolutely not. Would it be an appropriate NC for every state? Equally not so. Then you go to proposal two, which advocates the use of a "common name". From the way the proposal is presented and the comments of others, this proposal seems to be nothing more than advocating status quo. Anyone can argue what a common name is, meaning that the heated debates (WP:WASH and WP:CASH come to mind) over naming conventions that this poll was intended to end, will continue to rage on. The end result: regardless of what proposal is chosen, someone won't be happy at the end of the day. --TMF ^{T - C} 02:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's inevitable, isn't it? --physicq210 04:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much. =) --TMF ^{T - C} 04:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll be laughing out loud if the vote ends in a tie, but I'll be crying on the inside. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

as an added note, I used to be in agreement with the argument of those who have signed principle 1, but given the examples that would be applied to Michigan (which I think are stupid), I opted for principle two which would keep the status quo at the Michigan WP. I haven't been around in the Roads department nearly as long as many of you, but I see why it had to come down to this, it's unfortunate. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that the Michigan example in Principle I is stupid and redundant. However, one of the reasons I chose Principle I was simplicity. If we were to follow Principle II, we would have 51 naming standards/conventions for state highways, one for each state and the District of Columbia. --physicq210 02:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If the Michigan example in P1 had been Michigan State Highway XX, I would have voted for P1. Nobody calls a route a trunkline, the DOT hardly uses the term, and Michigan M-XX is just stupid. Oh, well, in the end it all doesn't matter. As SPUI says, everything can be fixed with redirects. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The trunk highway name was chosen for Michigan because no one was sure what the specific term was for Michigan. There's no reason why "Michigan State Highway XX" can't be used for Principle I, as it still fits the basis of the principle. --TMF ^{T - C} 02:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, per the previous discussions, P1 uses the official term, which is trunk line. That's how it's defined in law and it make me cry on the inside. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

When I proposed principle I, I was under the impression that I was merely proposing a principle and that the road term would be determined by discussion and not necessarily by official name. If I'm wrong, someone correct me. --TMF ^{T - C} 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, (I've been wrong before), then once the voting is over for this part we vote for styles per state on an individual basis that follow the principle passed? Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. From the project timeline: Part II: Individual state conventions - By 23:59 UTC on September 4: Preliminary list of conventions vote begins (one section for each state, that is where voting will occur. Transclusions onto state highway WP talk pages are acceptable as well). Here we are voting on "Highway" versus "Route" versus "State Route" etc. for each state individually. --TMF ^{T - C} 03:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, pfft, reading is for suckers :P I guess I was under the impression that this first part was going to set a hard definition and that part 2 would be voting on minor variations of the one that is selected. Good to know. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue now is what they will redirect to. --physicq210 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that if its close to a tie, each state just gets to pick one and move on to the next step of the process. By the way, bets anyone? :) --TinMan 04:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

TinMan, you're probably pretty accurate with that assumption. Honestly, I see "status quo" in the future of this poll. --TMF ^{T - C} 04:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the status quo? --physicq210 04:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Individual naming conventions by state determined by the individual state WikiProjects. --TMF ^{T - C} 04:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm> I thought it was confusion and flaring tempers. </sarcasm> --physicq210 03:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That too :P. It seems like no matter how this debate turns out, the individual naming conventions are going to be the real debate here. Thus we will end up where we were at the start of this part of the debate, only with the states now being forced to pick NCs.-Jeff ^(talk) 18:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, now. Isn't Principle 1 [State Name] [Commonly-Used Road Term] XX? Or is it [State Name] [Official Road Term] XX? --Tckma 19:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends. That's why it was decided to leave out the descriptive (and hence limiting) adjective altogether. --physicq210 19:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's whatever the individual state poll come up with. It could be Trunk Highway, State Road, State Route, Highway, Autoroute, Fluffy Bunny Route, Primary Route, SR, etc. However, the guideline says it should be a common name and one that's somewhat official as well. --TinMan 17:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me the best idea on here is uniformity. Even though Principal 2 seems slightly more confusing to me, it's a lot less confusing than both principles being used at once. I expect to adhere to the majority vote, be it the result I supported or not, but I don't expect others necessarily to adhere to it. Nyttend 01:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This poll seems to have stirred up lots of controversy in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Virginia Highways. We had already agreed on a standard, Virginia State Highway XX, and another user, User:NE2, comes along and wants to change what we already have to State Route XX (Virginia). The same debate that goes on here has spread to our project. It is almost like he is dictating it to us. I think that no matter what happens nobody will be happy. This is a never ending battle, and I think it is a losing one on all sides. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 02:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Termini problem

Ok, I was just thinking, which is scary! For Principle 2, what would you say for roads that terminate at the state line. For instance, if State Highway 37 (Delaware) ended at State Highway 92 (Virginia), how would you phrase it so someone could understand "State Highway 37 ends where State Highway 92 begins at the Virginia state line." Would you put parentheses there too to show which state highway goes to which state? --TinMan 23:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There are several ways to disambiguate in article text. State Route 37 in Delaware, Delaware's State Route 37, or Delaware State Route 37, I prefer the last, especially if that's what the articles end up being called. When referring to out-of-state towns we don't say Maryland's Annapolis, for example, we say Annapolis, Maryland. Similarly we should apply the standard disambiguation method here whenever it is called for.-Jeff ^(talk) 00:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Piped links older ≠ wiser 01:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So in other words you would either say "State Highway in [state]" or revert back to Principle 1? Exactly what I was expecting. --TinMan 02:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Regardless of which option were in force, I'd be using piped links for just about every reference to a road. No one uses any of the suggestions under Option 1 for "Michigan M-XX or Michigan Trunk Highway XX or Michigan State Highway XX". I don't know about any of the other states. The current naming convention for Michigan roads is pretty good AFAIC. M-XX (Michigan highway) is unambiguous, and with the pipe trick, it is simple to create links that display the name most commonly used for the roads, M-XX. With the names suggested for Option 1, it wouldn't be quite as convenient. older ≠ wiser 02:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, a number of states don't use the title name for the rest of the article. They may abbreviate the state name like M for Michigan or VA for Virginia or NC for North Carolina and use that form for the rest of the article. Michigan is a special case in where the abbreviated version "M-XX" is part of the title. Most states, as of now, do not use their abbreviated version in the actual title. It's either "State Route XX (State Name)" or "State Name State Route XX", not "SN-XX (State Name highway)" for most states. So if everyone keeps debating "well, State Route XX is the common name, not Mystate State Route XX " and they're not even going to use that common name in the article, why bother? In the abbreviated form, the state names are in front, so why not for the title? Why not use a format that you you're going to use in the article, even if it is just abbreviated? --TinMan 02:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow what you are saying here: In the abbreviated form, the state names are in front, so why not for the title? Why not use a format that you you're going to use in the article, even if it is just abbreviated? What do you mean by the "abbreviated form"? I mean, I really don't give much of a hoot about what how articles for roads in other state name their articles. I will be pretty POed if someone once again renames all the Michigan road articles. The articles had originally been at "Michigan State Highway XX" and after some discussion in which everyone except Rschen7754 agreed that the name "Michigan State Highway XX" was not only incorrect but bad, a number of editors undertook to rename the articles. IMO, the current naming setup there is much preferable. The most common way to refer to the routes, M-XX, is first and has the greatest emphasis in the title. The parenthetical portion provides clear disambiguation (and facilitates using the pipe trick). older ≠ wiser 12:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For termini, I usually put either "State Highway 152, Texas state line" or simply "TX-152".

Now as for the Michigan/Kansas debate: I've never been to Michigan, so I'm not sure about the officialness of the names there. But I'll say this about Kansas: the only source I've ever seen not use "K-" was The Kansas City Star, and it's based on the Missouri side. K- is used by KDOT[5][6] as well as common usage. Then, we have problems with K-9 and K-12 and other non-highway articles conflicting. So we add a parenthetical term, which is the same thing that is normally done when article names conflict. "Kansas State Highway 10", "Kansas 10", and "Kansas K-10" are neither official nor commonly used. But, again, this is more relevant to part 2 of the poll.—Scott5114↗ 14:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

K stands for Kansas, M stands for Michigan. Those are abbreviations for the state name. So K-37 stands for Kansas-37; I don't think it could stand for anything else. Abbreviations are used because they are just that, abbreviated. If you're going to put "Michigan" or "Kansas" in the article title, why dont you just unabbreviate instead of putting it twice? Just to let you know, I think Michigan M-XX is silly; Michigan should not have to be stated twice. --TinMan 23:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't follow you. Who is suggesting saying "Kansas K-XX" or "Michigan M-XX"? BTW, they are not stricly speaking abbreviations either. The name of the route IS "M-XX" or "K-XX". Yes, the M and K symbolize Michigan and Kansas, but the name of the routes are not abbreviations. older ≠ wiser 23:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A related problem to this is routes that traverse multiple states. Imagine if Route X (Maryland) was the convention decided for Maryland and State Route X (Delaware) was decided for Delaware. Then some routes junctioned by U.S. Route 113 would be listed as: State Route 404, State Route 54, Route 90, U.S. Route 50, Route 12. This would be confusing to the reader since, with the exception of U.S. Route 50 , these names are ambiguous. I think it's a good example of why article titles (or at the very least, out-of-state references to these routes) should include the state name. A good actual example of this can be found at U.S. Route 301#History. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff02 (talk • contribs)

Part I Voting

Directions

• Add your name and YOUR NAME ONLY using the format #~~~ (three tildes) below the principle in which you endorse. You cannot vote more than once.
• 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).
• Do not discuss principles or otherwise leave comments here. Please discuss in the relevant sections above.

Reminder

• Voting ends 23:59, Thursday, August 31, 2006 (UTC).
• The current time is 05:32, Friday June 13, 2008 (UTC).

Principle I: [State Name] [Commonly-used road term] XX

Examples

• Florida State Road XX
• Louisiana Highway XX
• Massachusetts Route XX
• Michigan M-XX or Michigan Trunk Highway XX or Michigan State Highway XX
• New York State Route XX

Votes in support of Principle I

1. TMF ^{T - C}
2. howcheng {chat}
3. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)
4. -Jeff ^(talk)
5. physicq210
6. TinMan
7. Homefryes
8. Station Attendant
9. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 07:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Nyttend
11. Athryn
12. JB82
13. Seattlenow
14. Stratosphere ^{(U T)}
15. WAS 4.250 04:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Calton
17. *drew
18. FLWfan
19. Exodio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.80.34 (talk • contribs) Note: This vote is valid; see [7]. --physicq210 03:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
20. tckma 19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
21. -- tariqabjotu 20:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
22. --EngineerScotty 23:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC). But barely.
23. --Gherald
24. Kether83 04:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Thumbelina 17:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
26. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
27. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs)
28. --myselfalso ^(talk) 19:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
29. Bubba ditto

    FairHair Vote struck, as editor did not meet 100-edit threshold; see edit count for evidence. --physicq210 02:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

30. Seicer (talk) (contribs)
31. Zsinj^Talk
32. Deh 21:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
33. >: Roby Wayne ^Talk 21:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC).
34. Kirjtc2 03:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
35. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)}
36. LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>}
37. --Dhartung | Talk 01:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
38. Micheal 07:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
39. Vegaswikian
40. --Sonic3KMaster^(talk)
41. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻
42. *Dan T.*
43. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐
44. Mellow honey vote questionable, user does not have 100 edits at time of vote (only 98 per this) Syrthiss 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Note: This vote is valid; user now has 103 edits.--Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 01:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
45. Jonathunder

Principle II: [Commonly-used name] XX ([disambiguation - typically the state name - if necessary])

Examples

• State Road XX (Florida)
• Louisiana Highway XX
• Route XX (Massachusetts)
• M-XX (Michigan highway) or Trunk Highway XX (Michigan)
• New York State Route XX

Votes in support of Principle II

1. Birgitte§β ʈ Talk
2. --SPUI (T - C)
3. —Scott5114↗
4. master_son^{Lets talk}
5. Polaron | Talk
6. older ≠ wiser 23:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
7. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Lincher 13:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
9. W.marsh 04:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Cyde Weys 05:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
11. FCYTravis 05:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
12. Kusma (討論)
13. Avenue 14:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    Nnnnnnnhytr 16:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (Very new user, probably trollish sock (contribs) - Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

14. FrankB 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
15. —freak(talk) 21:55, Aug. 21, 2006 (UTC)
16. --SB | T 22:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
17. atanamir 22:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    Rory096 23:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC) vote struck by Rory096 17:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

18. Ral315 (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
19. Dakota 07:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
20. InkSplotch 17:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
21. —Rob (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
22. M^ask 00:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
23. → JARED ^(t)  14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
24. Bastique▼^parler _voir 15:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
25. Tfine80 03:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
26. tjstrf
27. Alai 03:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
28. –Pedriana (talk)
29. NoahElhardt
30. --CharlotteWebb 19:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
31. Sam8

Principle III: State by State

Decide on a state by state basis either at the state's wikiproject or if none exists on the list of routes for that state.

Votes in support of Principle III

1. Gateman1997 02:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Alai 03:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
3. tjstrf

Admin discussion

It appears that there is not much support for Principle III (which would confusingly disambiguate based on individual state Wikiproject decisions). That leaves us with a black-or-white choice between I and II. Both choices are logical and there is no reason to rule either one out. I recognize that there is a good amount of support for each, and II is supported by major highway editors such as SPUI and Polaron, and admins such as Cyde. But a majority is demonstrated for I, and failing any evidence of election fraud or illicit campaigning, which I don't see, there's no reason to dispute this. Ashibaka tock 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

(SPUI notwithstanding, I cast my vote under the belief that there is a general consensus to use the simple majority's view as firm policy for article naming.) Ashibaka tock 19:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that I forgot to copy and past the reasoning in. I aggree that there is good and rational support from both sides for Principle I or Principle II. However, I find that the slightly higher number of votes for Principle I coupled with the argument that a reader would expect to see it in that format and probably search using that format causes me to support it. All sides should be commended for their ability to remain (for the most part) civil. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have little to add; I agree with Abishaka and CBW on all accounts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightstallion (talk • contribs) .

I'm going to throw a bit of a curveball on this one as the ArbCom ruling which served as the basis for this page stated that no 'side' had demonstrated the existence of a consensus for their view and urged the community to work together to build one. Looking only at the polling results I, like the other judges, find a clear majority for Principle I, but do not find sufficient direct support to form a true consensus as directed by ArbCom. However, consensus can be built out of a combination of high direct support along with at least acceptance by those who would prefer a different option, and I find reason to believe we may be able to do so in this case based on the contents of the discussion. Specifically, many (though not all) of the concerns of the Principle II group could seemingly be addressed by making it standard practice to include the Principle II format as a redirect to the page... and I did not see any of the supporters of Principle I objecting to that idea. One of the major remaining concerns expressed is that many users might not realize the 'Principle II redirects' exist and still type out long links when they could instead use the pipe trick... or might routinely revert to the long format to 'avoid the redirect'. To ameliorate that as much as possible I would suggest that when Wikipedia:Naming conventions (roads) (or whatever name it ends up under) is written we include information on the standard redirects, the benefits of the pipe trick, examples of links like [[Route 15 (Florida)|]] being used when the state is implied by the context and links like [[Florida Route 15]] being used when the state isn't clear from the context of the article. For the moment I reserve my support for there being a "consensus" (as opposed to majority) behind Principle I to see if my belief that there is general agreement on the above issues is accurate. I will put a similar message on the talk page so people can comment. --CBD 10:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is the intended decision method for many of the activities here on Wikipedia. These discussions stem from the problem that we have two well supported answers to a formatting problem, and that editors who are convinced that their "side" is correct (based on their arguments) have often sought to apply their format. This led to move wars, revert wars, and at least one arbitration case which led us to this poll. Perhaps here we can consider compromise as a sister to consensus. With two primary options (I agree with my fellow admins that principle 3 is right out), and no insurmountable flaw with either option, I find for principle 1 based on numbers of qualified votes. Syrthiss 12:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus would be nice. In this case we can't get consensus directly, but most parties have agreed to, in this case, abide by the majority vote. That's my take (and I think that of several other admins involved). That's what I think ArbCom ultimately wants, too. So in other words we have a consensus to accept something that maybe isn't exactly consensus, but at least is a majority, because getting consensus has proven impossible. Clearly not everyone agrees. In fact, regrettably, we have a vocal minority, including at least one person actively trying to disrupt this process. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a consensus for accepting a majority outcome in this case without that overriding how we do consensus most of the time. This issue has been too contentious, too time consuming, too divisive, not to push for closure now. So with that as a backdrop, I am persuaded that there is a majority for Principle I, and I concur with those admins who find for it. I am not pleased by those who would disrupt this process though, and would warn them that they have my attention now. Which is not a good thing. ++Lar: t/c 12:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have protected the page, so I am neutral. My comments are regarding what defines concensus. The principles of the arguments have been layed out in great detail. As such, I think that the "votes" are in confidence in principle. Therefore, the larger percentage of support shall will. This is an interpretation of concensus; there will be no majoritive mandate but that's not to matter in our process. I believe a support in vote of principle equates to outlining the same idea illustrated; as such the community will reach a concensus. This dispute is perhaps the greatest test of the philosophy behind policy/guidelines decisions we make. With that said, I admire the parties to the Arbcom case for laying out such a process as to resolve the matter once and for all. Teke ^(talk) 04:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin votes

Vote "Principle I", "Principle II" etc. after 23:59 UTC on August 31. ONLY ADMINS SHOULD EDIT THIS. Hence it is protected.

• Principle I Ashibaka tock 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Principle I CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Principle I per CBD. It may not have an actual supermajority supporting it, but most can live with it. —Nightstallion (?) 05:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Principle I - I find that a significant majority prefer this method, most others find it at least acceptable, and only a handful strongly oppose. That IS a consensus, though unfortunately a weak and disputed one. Hopefully the use of links to Principle II style redirects will help to make this workable for most users. No consensus for now. See comments above and on talk. --CBD 10:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Principle I Syrthiss 12:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Principle I with recognition that it's not the consensus decision, it's the majority one, but that consensus is to accept the majority decision. ++Lar: t/c 12:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Page has been protected for the closing debate, administrators are to make the final edits. Teke ^(talk) 02:35, 1 September 2006 (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.