Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Preliminary Discussion

Other Areas

the Insular Areas of the united states (Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam) be included in this debate? how about canada and its Provinces and territories? User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 22:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Insular areas, yes. Canada... we may have our hands full already but I don't want a separate case for this down the road. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguations

There are many ways to name a highway. The proper way of approaching this should be to contact the DOT of the state (visit is website, etc) and get how they name it officially - either by a law (recommended) or official documentation. The problem is many of us have used varing names in the past. I have 5 or more different ways that editors have linked the route name Therefore, we need a method of managing disambiguation pages as well. There are already instructions for approaching this as such in the U.S. Roads project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master son (talk • contribs)

Why is the DOT official name the right one? WP:NAME says to bias toward common names. What if the official name isn't the one commonly in use? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
There are limits to this, but in general I agree. The essential problem is that the "common usename" can never really be defined. U.S. Route 24 in central Illinois is just called "24". I suppose you can disambig that to 24 (road), which would point to, what? Interstate 24? U.S. 24? M-24? (I just now asked someone that's originally from central Illinois... it is just 24.). What if U.S. 24 in eastern Illinois is called "the 24"?
I may already have made this comment in the past, but in spite of the fact that U.S. 50 across the country is called "50", "Route 50", and "U.S. 50" in places, the proper thing is for U.S. Route 50 to be the main page and having redirects handle everything else. It's the closest thing to common use we'll ever get. And, again, we have to pick something. —Rob (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I know it. I don't think there is a "right" answer and I tend to distrust the people who seem to think there is one here. There may or may not be a "best" answer. But I entirely argree we need to pick something. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and by and large, it's what the DOT calls it. But I also think that's best handled state-by-state -- sometimes the DOT doesn't know either. So then you get admin actions, blocks, bans, mass reverts and mass renames on a moving common name target. If Wikipedia could poll 1,000 Washingtonians about the name of their state routes, you might get a good answer. But then what if you get 500 voting for "Washington Route X", and 500 for "Washington State Route X"? —Rob (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes and then the DOT does dorky things sometimes. Like waht if the DOT calls it WISR 95? What is "WISR"? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
One proposal I had was to pick the largest-circulation newspaper in the state and try to determine how they referred to them. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if they bother for accuracy or commonality though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a collection of papers and blueprints from Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, and Virginia. Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia use "Highway" as their proper term. State Highway XX would be the proper term, unlike what SPUI "googled" and "found" otherwise. All of my Virginia DOT papers show "Route" being used, but most of the documents I have for that come from the western districts. Central and metro DC might use different terminology.
As a side note, what is the big deal over route naming conventions? Whether or not it is named "highway" or "route", it is not going to matter a great deal to the general population, except for a few anal-retentive "roadgeeks" who must assert their decision one way or the other. For instance, I am not too fond of SPUI's mass-edits to the Ohio state highway log to which he suggested mass-renamings be conducted based on his "googling." No discussion took place, so a revert is being done as editors update the page.
Slapping tags left and right is not the way to go on this. Voting is more approperiate (see "Voting is Evil") since you will get the consensus of experienced editors from a large geographical locale. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and what about all of the redirects that are made from multiple ways to name a route? --master_sonLets talk 04:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, ODOT certainly uses Highway. Give me a break. --SPUI (T - C) 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
There are many different ways to call something "something" in the US. For example, every carbonated soft drink down in the southeastern US is called a "coke", even if it's Pepsi, RC Cola, or some generic cola-flavored drink. Same goes for highways. In Wisconsin, we call them (mostly) "Highways" (Highway 94, Highway 18, Highway 32); in Illinois, they call them "Routes" (Route 132, Route 41), though they call the Interstates by their proper names. In the spirit of disambiguation, I'd suggest using the terms, "Interstate Highway ##", "U.S. Highway ##", "Statename State Highway ##", and "Statename Secondary Highway ##" (for those states that have designated secondary highways). Just my US$0.02. -jwhouk 06:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
There you go. Google searches are always the best route to go on this. Let's ignore the fact that I hold many planning documents from various DOTS that all but solidify my stance on this minute subject matter. But let's analyize your "searches" --
*certainly - "Adopt-a-Highway"? Is this your proof in this search? The first response has "highway" mentioned, not "route" as well.
*uses - Of course no results. I can't find any for "highway 7" (that matches OH 7), or for really any significant state highways. Why be so nitpicky?
*Highway - Good job. You queried "state routes". Now, what about "state highways" or many other different terms?
Good job on finding "state routes" in press releases. I also found packets that mention state highways.
My point? It's going to vary. I have an Executive Summary on a relocation project for US 33 that mentions the road being "U.S. Highway 33", not "U.S. Route 33." I also have another document about a preliminary engineering report that lists it as "U.S. Route 33." It's fine the way it is, let's just do redirects to Highway since that is the proper term for the U.S. Highway system. As for state routes, let's leave it the way it is at its current presence. If it isn't broken, let's not go and try to fix it, because its only going to lead to further heated arguments over something very minor and insignificant. Let's spend more time editing and improving these articles instead of crying foul over how they are bolded or if it should be highway or route. It's really quite pathetic. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Those matches for "state highway" talk about the state highways in general. Not about individual state highways, which are named "State Route X". --SPUI (T - C) 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting is evil

m:voting is evil --SPUI (T - C) 23:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like there was no choice other than to bring it up to a vote. It's sad this debate boiled down to this. --physicq210 23:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Especially priniples 9 and 10, re "arbitrary decisions". —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this situation has left no other option but to vote on the issue, but what I fear is that the "correct" naming convention determined in this issue will force states to use terms that are never used locally in the state. For example, state routes in New York are never called "highways", they are always "routes" or "state routes". Vermont seems to be the same way, with the bias toward "routes". (Disclaimer: I know this is just pre-poll discussion, and I am merely presenting these cases to supplement my point.) --TMF T - C 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I assume there will be some flexibility... like the principle will be something like

(State Name) (Type of Road) 43 or (type of Road) 43 ((State Name)) or something to that effect, and we will then vote on individual conventions for each state. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and then you'll just say that the type of road is "California State Route". That dichotomy still doesn't work, because some states like Louisiana do put the state first: Louisiana Highway 1 etc. --SPUI (T - C) 00:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
No, because that would be against the spirit of the new naming policy. That is, if that was the outcome. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the ArbCom case, I do not see where there has to be a vote like this, but just listing this page as one in many trying to sort this issue out. As others have said, reduce the rigidness of the time table, since decisions like this does not need to be decided by a watch. It is ok to allow for a start and finish date, but all of this inbetween stuff needs to be gone. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
If it's not impartial like this I do not believe the "losers" will follow the convention. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I did cut one of the votes out of there since it was redundant. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because I'm sure doing mass-edits to gain your position, conducting "google" "researches" that conclude with inaccurate facts, and forcing your viewpoints down other people's throats is a lot more fair than voting. (rolls eyes) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Look, we're not here to discuss the past. Just get this vote moving forward and over with. --physicq210 02:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Question?

I had a link to this on my talk page and really don't understand what you're trying to do? Is this for all state highways and interstates or what? Where is the poll going to be taking place. To me, it seems too organized. A straw poll is laid back, not timed and regulated. There should be consensus however, so I guess if someone can get this going that'll be good. It just seems like it'll take too long. → JARED (t)  23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We had a massive ArbCom case. Yes. Arbitration Committee. That's why this is so organized--so that people don't complain "Oh they had a unfair advantage, I'm not going to follow policy." Poll will take place on the page this is attached to. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

state by state

Can this not be taken care of state-by-state without the need for a nationwide poll? Aren't things done a bit differently in each state? Aside from that, the Interstate Highway System and United States Numbered Highways seem to be doing pretty well with names like Interstate 684 and U.S. Route 6. There don't seem to be many articles on roads in US territories, so that is a small problem which can be dealt with seperately. Foreign roads (including Canada) should really be kept out of this as the problem seems to be centered around WP:USRD. Even if this can't be done state-by-state, meta:WM:VIE deserves some serious consideration. --Chris 00:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe this only applies to the United States, not Canadian roads or roads from other places. It mostly deals with the 50 States and how their articles are named. I have no preference to what they are named but this shit needs to end now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
a) No, the problem is speading to Ontario as well. b) Then the madness will continue at the other 49 states that haven't had a poll yet. Plus, that would be a nightmare to manage. c) Sadly enough... a vote must take place. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This should cover Interstates too. That way if the region type number system is implemented, we'll have pointless moves like U.S. Interstate 95. --SPUI (T - C) 01:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes this will include Interstates / U.S. Routes only to keep the existing convention for them. (Those are uncontroversial, right?) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Not by your reasoning - if we have California State Route 99 why not U.S. Interstate 5? --SPUI (T - C) 01:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
For our purposes here, they are different classes of highways and are treated differently. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
So this doesn't apply to secondary state highways in states that have them? --SPUI (T - C) 01:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This does apply to those since they are state highways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
So in short, this poll applies only to state highways? --physicq210 01:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Correct. --TMF T - C 01:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Because there are multiple "state route 99"s but only one "Interstate 5". —Preceding unsigned comment added by LtPowers (talk • contribs)
So you admit that the name is State Route 99, not California State Route 99? Why then are you changing the bolded text in the intros? --SPUI (T - C) 01:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't write the unsigned comment. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Then what's your reason? --SPUI (T - C) 01:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Article names should match what is bolded. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The bolded name should be the proper (official) name, regardless of what is agreed upon for the article title. --Polaron | Talk 01:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Bingo. That's the precedent used in biographical articles, for example. Sorry for not signing my earlier comment, btw. Powers 01:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Can one of you please remove the bolded "California" from the articles Rschen7754 recently "fixed"? --SPUI (T - C) 01:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Which one? --physicq210 01:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's an example. He did a bunch of those with edit summary "fix" after I was blocked for the same thing on Nevada State Route 28 under the Arbcom probation. --SPUI (T - C) 01:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Wait... to get around the probation? Um, SPUI was blocked because he edit warred over the page. And don't blindly revert. I made plenty of good changes if I saw needs for them. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You just edit warred on all those pages. --SPUI (T - C) 02:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let's just get back to the point here, instead of accusing each other of edit warring. --physicq210 02:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The point is that these need to be partially reverted. --SPUI (T - C) 02:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(shift) Isn't there a more appropriate place to discuss that issue than on this page? This is intended to be discussion of a nationwide poll, not a subpage of WP:CASH. --TMF T - C 02:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we can't agree on simple things like bolding the actual name, there's no hope for making this work, dog and pony show or not. --SPUI (T - C) 02:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that why we have this poll, dog and pony show or other equivalent? --physicq210 02:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's get the naming conventions dealt with here. We can worry about teh boldface later. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've said at every one of these polls that we should decide this state by state. If a state doesn't have a wikiproject and someone really wants to come up with a naming convention for that state then they should set up a poll at WP:USRD. Back when there were only two active members at WP:MDRD we managed to come up with a new naming convention for Maryland that was more accurate (it's used in newspapers and, as SPUI pointed out, in state laws). I know these polls are made in good faith, but I don't see any point in dragging in the states that have decided on a convention that they are happy with and making them conform to a nationwide standard. Furthermore, different states call routes different things. One state might say "Route X" and another might say "Highway X", this means creating a national standard would violate Wikipedia:Use common names for some states.-Jeff (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That coincides with the point I made up in the other section. Agreed, there are a good number of states that have a stable standard and states who have equally unstable ones. No point in including the stable ones in this, based on the mess that's erupted in the above comments in this section. --TMF T - C 02:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well we need to be careful with "stable." Washington has a "stable" convention because it got mass moved there and then the move restrictions came, locking those articles where they are. Some other states have a "stable" convention because whoever statrted that state's articles put them there with no regard to style at times. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm assuming that consideriation would be given to states that have a convention agreed upon (not imposed on by someone else if there is no WikiProject or if mass moved) to use their convention. That is only for a few states, though (you must link to the actual discussion, but I know you've had one.) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
(Homefryes moved the following response up from the Notification problems section, since it seemed more appropritate for this section)
Thanks for including me on this input. I sort of half-agree with the individual state conventions; but I can see both sides of the debate - nationwide consistency would be nice IF we can agree on a standard. We should definitely try to minimize ambiguity (for example, though NC 54 is convenient, I still believe it is a terrible title for an encyclopedia article. I'll read through the existing discussions more thoroughly and I hope to contribute. Nimur 13:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Nimur, you've said exactly what I was thinking. On the issue of Ohio, I will have to side with SPUI as, in my experience living in and near Ohio, the commonly used term is "Route," not "Highway" (and if you really want to get technical, we pronounce it to rhyme with "out," not "boot," but that's neither here nor there). However, it's my experience, living near Wisconsin, that we and the locals I know in the southeastern part of the state, commonly use the term "Highway" for numbered roads and County Trunks (lettered). Now, the question of whether these nuances are statewide or regional, I certainly cannot answer to. But I strongly feel that a universal standard for all states may not be the best solution – rather, each state should have its own convention that works. – Homefryes 17:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Homefryes and Nimur that different states use different terminology and that their article titles should reflect that. I think almost all of us can agree that the words "Highway", "Route", and "State Road" mean the same thing. I know very few people in North Carolina that use the word "Route"; in fact, the only place I see that word is on a few maps and state legislation (Heck, NC statues call Interstate 95 "Interstate Route 95", something the article should never be called). "Highway" is the more preferred term in NC and is reflected by most road signs and has been used as common practice at WP:NCSH. Therefore, I think that each state should be able to pick which word (Highway, Route, or State Road) they want to use. The thing we should focus more on is how to arrange the state name and route number around these words...and how abbreviations should be handled. Agree? --TinMan 04:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the naming convention should be on a state by state basis and if someone consistently uses another naming convention they can make redirects or disambigs to the article that they want Hollowman512 18:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that this should be resolved state by state. For the Massachusetts articles, I have been putting them in Route XX (Massachusetts) because that seemed to be the established precedent. I grew up on Long Island, and we (my family and friends) referred to state routes as just "Route Twenty-Five" (pronounced like "root"), or more often by their local name ("Jericho Turnpike," e.g.). The LIE was referred to as either "the ell eye ee," "Four Ninety-Five" or "Route Four Ninety-Five" rather than "Eye four ninety-five." When I moved up here to Mass, it seems that the locals also refer to the roads as Route XX with the exception of major controlled access highways, which just get the number, e.g, "one twenty-eight," "four ninety-five," "two ninety," etc. I thought this was a pretty nationwide convention until I went to California, mentioned something about "Route 1," and was corrected: "You mean Highway 1." Furthermore, in Ontario, the locals refer to 400-series highways as "the four-oh-one", for example. There are local differences in language/dialect, much like "soda" in New York vs. "pop" in the Midwest vs. "tonic"' up here in New England.

It makes sense to use the locally accepted name -- we want to have the article come up with the most likely name that someone would use to search for it. Obviously we can't use the number as the article title, unless there is no potential for disambiguation (i.e. if this were a VERY topic-specific wiki such as FIRSTWiki, where by typing, e.g., 126, you'd expect to come up with the FIRST Robotics team with that number rather than a road). My preferred way of doing this would be to have articles as $statename Route XX, or $statename Highway XX, or M-XX depending on local conventions, but that's just a personal opinion.

On the other hand, there's the argument for the "official" name of the road, on, e.g., state highway department documents. Chances are, no one in New York (and especially no one outside NY) is going to do a search on New York State Touring Route 25, or New York State Reference Route 908M -- they'll search on Route 25 or Southern State Parkway, instead. Then you might argue to have a redirect of the locally accepted name to the "official" name. Which brings up an interesting point -- secret routes -- the public generally does not know these roads have an official number. What do we do here? What about something like Connecticut's Route 15 which is indeed signed as such, but has different, independent sections that are known to more people as the Merritt Parkway, Wilbur Cross Parkway, and Berlin Turnpike? Here we currently have seperate articles for each road section as well as a unifying article for the entire route, because each road section has a seperate history and suchlike.

In sum, I say each state's highway WikiProject should decide this on an individual basis, because each state has different naming conventions, local conventions, and unique things like NYS Reference Routes. Tckma 15:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't clarify my point very well. I think that the words "highway", "route", "state road" should be left up to the states, but we need at least some basic formula for the state names, possible abbreviations, parentheses, the word "State", and route numbers. For example in NC, should it be North Carolina State Highway 3, North Carolina Highway 3, NC Highway 3, N.C. Highway 3, NC 3, N.C. 3, State Highway 3 (North Carolina), Highway 3 (North Carolina), NC 3 (highway)... etc, etc. Do you see the problem? All of us at WP:NCSH can agree that "highway" is the preferred word, it's just the arrangement that we need to worry about. I think there needs to be a standard on the arrangement and it needs to be solved here. Now, for WikiProjects that think they already have a concensus, like my own NC Highways project, I do not think they should be bound by this convention, but they should take its ruling under concideration. This convention is mainly for route WikiProjects that have experienced warring and new route WikiProjects that have just started. That's what I was trying to say. Personally, I think all this abbreviating and parentheses stuff is silly, but that's for the convention to decide. --TinMan 16:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Well to explain what I was thinking... for part 2 the individual conventions will be drafted based on the chosen principle. Do we want this:

  • Agree for all but NH. NH uses blah blah blah. --NHBoy
  • Agree for all but CA, OR, WA, IN, TX. They all use blah blah blah. --User:2

Or do we want this:

Alabama

  • blah blah blah x Alabama uses blah blah blah. --alabamaman
  • blah blah x Alabama uses only 2 blahs. --alabamawoman

And have a section for each state? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think each state should have its own section. Otherwise it's going to be well-nigh impossible to keep track. Tckma 16:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What if we transcluded the ones with a state highway WP onto the state highway WP talk page? Although it would be a coding nightmare... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a wise plan. I also think that all states should have a state highway WP. I'm trying to figure out how to start a WP, but I'm too lazy to copy/paste from another state WP and edit. I'd like to try and start a WP for Rhode Island and Connecticut, though. Tckma 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, although we have to wait for a demand... it's pointless to start the rest of them and then have only one contributor. As Wiki grows, it will be possible though. So it's probably best to start them one at a time. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, WP:MASH only has three listed contributors. There needs to be at least two (otherwise how can any "discussion" occur?), but basically I'm thinking we need to have a place where such things can be debated, and a collaboration point for people to discuss their work and what needs to be done. There are several Connecticut state route articles, for example, and I've tried to invite those involved to start a WP. *shrug* Who knows. --Tckma 18:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I mean I created WP:USRD to fill the gap for states that don't have a WP... for some reason some people don't want a WP. WV is probably one of those states. But eventually people will come that do. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I thought WP:USRD was just a "root node" for the individual states, so to speak. --Tckma 18:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It is that too... basically it was created b/c WP:SFD was deleting our highway stubs. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Notification problems

For some reason or other I could not get to the following people to inform them about this page. Maybe I misspelled or something.

  • Analogdemon
  • Nimur — I'm here now.
  • UltraSkuzzi
  • Beatgr
  • Feedloadr
  • Endominion
  • WillC

Otherwise I think I got everyone. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I notified Analogdemon - no problems there. --SPUI (T - C) 01:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it's on my end. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Notified Nimur. And SPUI, I saw what you did on Analogdemon. Hilarious, yes, but this matter is serious. Everyone want to get this crap over with once and for all. --physicq210 02:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
And look at my rollback usage on the main page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. I don't think the last two exist. --physicq210 02:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
They're listed on some page... I think I misspelled. Uggh. Thanks. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
By "Will C" do you perhaps mean WillC?-Jeff (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
If he's on a state highway WP page then yes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
yes he is-Jeff (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Aaggh stupid technical problems. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. Does the other user still exist? --physicq210 02:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I think he was off WP:USRD or WP:CASH. I'll look. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
How weird. Didn't see that. But then where did I get it? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

SPUI's proposed names

Interstate systems
Intrastate systems

--SPUI (T - C) 03:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me drag this point up. In California, no one calls it "state route X" except (perhaps) in legislation. Everyone calls it "Highway 1" or "Highway 4." At least in the Bay Area, where I live. I might put "(unsure)" next to the California entry. --physicq210 03:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying the "route" designation is wrong. I'm just stating a form of reference common within California. --physicq210 03:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Northern California uses Highway X, SoCal uses The X. We should have consistency across the state, so we should go with what Caltrans uses. --SPUI (T - C) 03:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's quite right to say that Northern California uses Highway X, SoCal uses The X. I think that The X in Southern California corresponds more closely to X in Northern California, and Highway X comes closer to a statewide usage than any other name. See the article on California English for more details. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It is given on WP:CASH:
The contents of each article in this project should reside in California State Route XXX, with XXX being the route number;
also, California State Highway XXX should redirect to the article as well. Note: In all uses of the phrase "California State Route",
capitals are to be used. This includes stubs and categories and templates and lists.
Seeing that it has been debated ad nauseum on their talkpage, and to respect the wishes of the WikiProject, I urge SPUI to rethink his/her stance. --physicq210 03:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I will not back down to an incorrect position. --SPUI (T - C) 03:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect? Please explain. --physicq210 03:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The usage of "California State Route X", when the name is "State Route X". --SPUI (T - C) 03:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Please provide evidence supporting your position. --physicq210 03:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Compare [1] to [2]. --SPUI (T - C) 03:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

From WP:GT, may I quote:

Further judgment: the Google test checks popular usage, not correctness.

*Emphasis added.

And for one thing, your Googled "evidence" has (inadvertently?) pointed to how Caltrans names its routes. The routes are formally named California State Route. "SR" is the abbreviation of this. Check the links. --physicq210 04:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Google test in this case checks usage by Caltrans. Where is your evidence that the formal name is "California State Route X"? --SPUI (T - C) 04:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not actually clicking the links/results, not just glancing over them?

And I believe you stated:

We should have consistency across the state, so we should go with what Caltrans uses.

I am only acting on your word here, not attacking you. --physicq210 04:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I did check the links. I see very little usage of "Califernia State Route X". --SPUI (T - C) 04:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you check the titles of the pages? --physicq210 04:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If you have a point, please get to it. --SPUI (T - C) 04:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Then if you did, did you notice that they all stated "California State Route X"? Did you notice that most of your results for "state route" often have "California State Route"? If you didn't, then we may need a third person to check our findings. --physicq210 04:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that one area of the site - their Cal-NExUS reports - uses that. Almost everything else uses "State Route X". And many of the Cal-NExUS reports are now fixed - see for instance [3] versus [4]. --SPUI (T - C) 04:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you check their truck restrictions pages? --physicq210 04:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me be more specific:

--physicq210 04:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

For every page you give me, I can give you over 300 in return. Go back and check the searches again. --SPUI (T - C) 04:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe I can call Caltrans to settle this outright. --physicq210 04:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You could, though I'd call it original research without a reliable source. --SPUI (T - C) 04:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
And your "300 in return" is outright exaggerated. Your evidence do not show the legal definitions of the routes, only their maintenance records. --physicq210 04:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Look at the state laws. Everything is "Route X". No State Route, no U.S. Route, no Interstate. Caltrans adds the different types. --SPUI (T - C) 04:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Then by your logic, the highways should be called "Route X," which is not possible. --physicq210 04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It is possible - Route 1 (California), etc. But Caltrans seems to use State Route X and SR X much more than Route X, so combining "use common names" with consistency throughout the state would mean we should use State Route X. But you are free to propose Route X. --SPUI (T - C) 04:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
We'll see how it plays out. --physicq210 04:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe it is possible. You can just name it "Route X (California)" because it's the legal term, as you and Caltrans say. --physicq210 04:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed that the Californias have been removed from the pages. Not that the results are wrong (they are correct), but the resulting sentence sounds strange and awkward. Just a comment on aesthetics. --physicq210 04:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Parenthesis will be mutilated in the http address bar. HTML does not like them. --master_sonLets talk 04:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Huh? MediaWiki handles them just fine. --SPUI (T - C) 05:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I may be chiming in a little late, but I also agree with the proposed names above. If each state officially calls the highway something different, then the Wikipedia Article should be different. Take for example the infamous Centre Court at Wimbledon. Its official name is "Centre Court" being spelled with "re" not "er." Now it would be wrong to spell it with Am. En. because name is officially in Br. En. There's just no logical reason to spell it any differently. Now why would we take the official name of a state highway and change it so that it fits in with the rest of the states' highways. It wouldn't make sense at all! So don't do it! → JARED (t)  13:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
In Virginia, I suggest that we use the Virginia State Highway XX format, as we have already established most of the pages in the state in that format. We have established this system already on the Virginia Highways WikiProject page. I believe that we should stick with what we have here for Virginia, since we have come to a consensus already as to how to name the pages.
I am going to agree here. It's going to save a lot of time and effort to leave them as is. We need to be focusing more on the content rather than engaging in edit wars or wasting time arguing about the naming convention or some bolding issue - as that leaves little benefit afterwards. Let's let the individual states decide based on the common consensus of the people who live there or have a heavy hand in the editing of the pages. And no, doing Google searches do not count as research. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. See my comments in "Spongefan's Proposal". --TMF T - C 15:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, the reasons Seicer gave are the exact reasons why we need to have this naming convention. Yes, we should focus more on content, but I know for a fact that many state route WikiProjects have been hijacked with article naming wars, preventing any good "content" edits. It's difficult to make articles better when they're being moved around all the time. That's why we need to bring this to an end now. Yes, many WikiProjects have a happy concensus on how to deal with article titles... those Wikiprojects are not covered and are not bound by this naming convention. If it's not broke, don't fix it. I think this naming convention is mainly for route Wikiprojects that are in a state of war and for new Wikiprojects in the future. Therefore, I also think that whatever policy comes out of this should have a little leeway for the states. --TinMan 16:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It is assumed that if a state is happy with their convention and it follows the new principle then it will probably be re-adopted. If it does not follow the new principle then it might be changed, but it's not definite either way. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, and this is not the time to discuss naming conventions, this is to get everything straightened out on the process. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Process looks good for me, especially the individual state voting. It is a long process, but as I look at the steps, it seems necessary. --TinMan 20:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, The above that was quoted from the CASH page:

The contents of each article in this project should reside in California State Route XXX, with XXX being the route number;
also, California State Highway XXX should redirect to the article as well. Note: In all uses of the phrase "California State Route",
capitals are to be used. This includes stubs and categories and templates and lists.

I must take the blame for this, as I am the one that wrote it in [8] this diff. The context for that was during the CA-17 debate where I felt it'd clear everything up if I added the naming convention into there. I did this without consensus and simply just drew on where most the other articles were at. I also wrote this under the incorrect assumption that California State Route X was the official, correct name. I hope this helps contribute somewhat to this discussion. atanamir 07:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, atanamir. Now the entire naming scheme for California state routes is up in the air. At least this time around we can settle this once and for all (right, SPUI?). --physicq210 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I give this little chance of success

I have the feeling that this isn't actually going to be a functional, productive debate with a positive conclusion. Instead, it's just going to be the same arguments over and over again, propagated by people who are desperately convinced they are right (based on whatever evidence is presented that day). I really shouldn't care about this, since I was forced to leave the highways project(s) following a fiasco over a highway that starts in Cloquet. I'll just give the following advice, though: Editors will have to start actually respecting other editors' opinions on this issue, and it will be necessary to find legitimate, citable sources -- not just a Google test. There needs to be some genuine consensus building here, and not just one user saying that he's an expert and that nobody else's research or opinions are valuable.

Personally, I'm not even going to enter this debate -- there are better things to do. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The above debate is considered civil already. You should look at past debates. They were outright dirty. --physicq210 04:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Confusing to Oregonians

Regarding the state of Oregon. While User:SPUI is correct about Oregon "routes" and "highways" (as ODOT calls them); 99% of the population (those who aren't road geeks or traffic engineers) have no idea about ODOT "highways", and use "highway" and "route" interchangeably to refer to ODOT "route" numbers; "highway" being the preferred form among motorists.

My thoughts on Oregon (and I live here):

  • Articles should generally be about routes (using the ODOT term), not about highways. If we write about ODOT highways, the preferred article title should be the official name of the highway (such as Mount Hood Highway, Lower Columbia River Highway, many of which are known and form a namespace which won't be confusing); if we refer to them by number in article titles, it should be explicit that the highway number referred to is of the ODOT variety--say, ODOT Highway 1 (which would, if it existed, be a redirect to Interstate 5). In general, ODOT highways articles should redirect to the corresponding route number, and only have their own article if the ODOT highway is signficantly well known (such as the Mount Hood Highway, which encompasses both OR35 and US26), or does not have a corresponding route number. Recent legislation has eliminated most instances of the latter case. Having Oregon Highway 51 refer to the Wilsonville-Hubbard Highway (which has the ODOT number of 51 but is signed as Oregon State Route 551 rather than the Independence Highway (which is called OR 51 on the map and on the roadsigns), would be asinine in the extreme. Again, for emphasis, nobody (but ODOT and roadgeeks) cares about ODOT's own internal numbering system. It should not be the basis for organizing articles or content concerning the Oregon highway system in a general reference work.
  • Perfectly OK to mention ODOT numbers within articles, and have list pages sorting highways by ODOT numbers. We largely have that today.
  • Other than the case of ODOT Highway 1 and such, numbers in article titles should only refer to what shows up on roadsigns and route markers--the ODOT "route" numbers.
  • Keep in mind that ODOT numbers apply to routes signed as US and Interstate highways, just not those signed as state highways. Also, many routes signed as state highways are maintained by cities and counties, and not technically part of the state highway system.
  • With all those caveats, I don't care whether Oregon articles are of the form Oregon State Highway XXX, Route XXX (Oregon), etc. "Highway" is a bit more common than "route" among the general public (according to my ear; I do not have a WP:RS for that claim), but either form is acceptable. Redirects from the other common forms should be provided, and in many cases are. However, again, whether we say "highway" or "route" in the article title, it should refer only to ODOT route numbers, not to ODOT internal highway numbers.

Apologies for the rant.

--EngineerScotty 06:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

How about having at the top of Route 51 (Oregon) "for the unmarked Highway 51, see Wilsonville-Hubbard Highway"? --SPUI (T - C) 06:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm OK with that, although I'd phrase it a bit differently. --EngineerScotty 06:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear. I dread the day I need to find out what Main Street needs to disambig to in the state of Illinois... —Rob (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this... Create Articles about the routes, with redirects for highways. So Oregon State Highway 1W would point to Oregon State Route 99W. In the infobox, I'd suggest having the up/down values for both routes and highways. Also each route's page should start with "Oregon Route XX" (Oregon Highways "Highway Name" #XXX). Just a suggestion, but makes sense to me. TEG 15:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Still confusing to the average motorist, who doesn't know anything about ODOT highway numbers. If we must include them in article titles, call them "ODOT highways", not "Oregon Highway", as the latter will be understood by most to be what ODOT calls the route number. Remember, use common names for things--this is why, for instance, that Black widow spider is the article and Latrodectus mactans the redirect, and not the other way 'round. --EngineerScotty 16:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

comments from Lar

I have watched much of this controversy from afar but have never personally renamed a road. I am dismayed that this process is so huge and long running, but totally understand why it seems that it has come to this. I support the process and am if nominated as a "judging admin" would be willing to serve. I'm not convinced it will work but am nevertheless willing to try to help. ++Lar: t/c 14:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Should I sign you up? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

I have proposed naming conventions for Canadian roads, along with a few other uses in the Canadian Roads WikiProject. They are listed below:

  • Alberta Provincial Highway x
    • Alberta Secondary Highway x
  • British Columbia Provincial Highway x
  • Manitoba Provincial Highway x
  • Manitoba Provincial Road x (for secondary highways in the province)
  • Newfoundland and Labrador Highway x (For main roads)
    • Newfoundland and Labrador Route x (For secondary roads)
  • Route x (Northwest Territories)
  • Nova Scotia Province Route x
  • Nova Scotia Highway x (for Arterial/100-Series Highways)
  • New Brunswick Route x
  • Ontario Kings Highway x (Official Name. "Provincial Highway" was replaced with Kings Highway in 1930.)
    • Ontario Secondary Highway x
    • Ontario Tertiary Higwhay x
      • <County Name> County Road x (Example: Essex County Road 22)
  • Quebec Route x
  • Quebec Autoroute x
  • Saskatchewan Highway x
  • Prince Edward Island Highway x

Please let me know what you think. User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 15:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In re: Ontario's county routes... I'm by no means an expert on political boundaries in Ontario, however, I do know that for whatever reason, some areas are called XYZ County whereas others are ABC Regional Municipality. So to say Niagara County Road XX would be wrong, wouldn't it? How about Niagara Regional Route XX? --Tckma 20:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Why are there two Northwest Territories ones? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Does it really matter?

State Route XX (State) or State State Route XX... does it really matter? The amount of energy being wasted on this is mind boggling and quite frankly sad. If you want my "vote" I say go with whichever gets more support on the individual Wikiprojects (or articles if there isn't a project for that particular state or province). Trying to bulk vote it like this is a bad idea, especially since what's good for Texas might not be good for Manitoba. Gateman1997 16:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does matter - the result of what we're doing now is edit and revert wars because One person feels that the nomenclature is incorrect--master_son]]Lets talk 17:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it does matter because of this huge ArbCom case that we had regarding highway names. We are now "ordered" by the committee to come to a binding consensus, per Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/Highways Remedies Sections 5 and 6. Hence this byzantine poll. --physicq210 18:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does matter, given the local/regional differences. (and yes, there are still differences between SPUI's list here and (at least in Georgia) what is ordinarily noted (though I won't go into the differences here). --Mhking 04:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The state numbered highways, routes, or roads in the U.S. must be uniform across the board

I my opinion, state numbers described as routes or roads should not be used on Wikipedia. Some state numbered routes are highways like Ohio State Highway 126 in Cincinnati or even Ohio State Highway 11 in eastern Ohio. Other examples include Arizona Loop 101, Arizona Loop 202, and State Route 51. Roads are to only be used for county roads. Instead all state numbered roads should be highways because all of these go from point A to point B. Highways are defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as a main direct road. All roads numbered under the jurisdiction of the state should be highways across the board on Wikipedia.

Spongefan's Proposal

But the use of "highway" for some states is incorrect. Let's say John Doe in Syracuse wants to find information about NY 690. Would he look for "New York State Highway 690"? Absolutely not. The phrase "highway" is never used in New York State. This argument can be extended to other states (PA, MD, VT) as well. From WP:MOS: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. The majority of, if not all, readers in the aforementioned states, would look for the article under "route", not "highway". --TMF T - C 18:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: NY 690 -- Route is part of the "official" name -- New York State Touring Route 690. But John Doe wouldn't search for that. He may also know that it's an extension of Interstate 690 (New York), however, but that's not what we're discussing. Tckma 17:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, highway is not used. That was my point. --TMF T - C 17:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Right you are -- I was not disagreeing with you. Perhaps I should have been clearer -- we need to make it so that if John Doe types in Route 690, because that's what he and his Syracuse neighbors call the road, he'll get to the article on New York State Route 690 or to a disambiguation page immediately. Tckma 17:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe except for California. We use "highway" in our vernacular (in Northern California), but the legal designations are still "routes," hence rendering Spongefan's argument null and void. See California Streets and Highways Code Section 301-635. And strangely, California's state highways are legally named "routes," not "state routes" or "highways" or any equivalent. --physicq210 18:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree that there should be a uniform US system whether highway, route, or road is used. (Official terms can be ambiguous or even undeterminable.) And any choice should preferably be with no parentheses (for reasons given by PHenry at the old debate page). All three of the choices are common English words and any confusion from a particular term not being commonly used in a particular state can be overcome with redirects. Good luck with this process. -  AjaxSmack  02:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the states should decide between the terms: "highway", "route" or "road". I don't see any reason why a state that never uses the word "highway" should be mandated to do so. I feel a 10th Amendment-type rule should be applied. The states fund and build their own roads, so the states should decide what they call them. Redirects, like AjaxSmack said, can solve the rest of the phrases and terms. --TinMan 04:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The states fund and build their own roads but they do not fund or control Wikipedia so it's not necessary for Wikipedia to be solely guided by the dictates of any government. The issue is encyclopedic usage, not obedience to authority. -  AjaxSmack  18:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Right... I completely agree with you Ajax. I did not mean that the state governments should decide, I meant the state WikiProjects should decide. Sorry for any confusion. I just used the "states fund and build their own roads" statement to make my point that states should decide on "highway", "route", or "state road" and the rest should be left up to this convention. --TinMan 19:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I concur with TinMan. Let each state determine the name of the highway/route, and we can fix the redirects. -jwhouk 13:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with TinMan as well. As I've stated this whole time, there should not be a unified national naming convention when it comes to state roads. Not every state calls a state road a "highway", and not every state calls it a "route". The naming should be done on a state-by-state basis and, what's more, for states that already have an established convention through discussion, this whole thing is a waste of time, IMHO. --TMF T - C 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning, but I think there needs to be a universal basic format for arrangement of words (See my argument earlier in SPUI's Proposed Names) with some leeway for the states to decide the really nit-picky stuff like the word "highway" or "route". --TinMan 16:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me ask the question: Why? Does someone have a useful template or such in mind, whose efficient construction depends on all highway article names having a common format? Is there concern that Wikipedia will be criticised if different state highway systems are named differently? Is there suspicion that the reader would be confused by lack of a uniform naming convention? Refactoring is generally a useless exercise unless the benefit to be gained outweighs the cost of the operation; I have a hard time seeing how that condition is satisfied here. --EngineerScotty 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed here. As I mentioned in the section below, I don't think the naming principle has to be uniform across all states. Let each state decide their own naming principle. If some states prefer parentheses while others don't, that should be fine. --Polaron | Talk 17:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed that each state should decide between the terms and that we should use redirects. A nationwide "one size fits all" solution won't work, especially with regard to secondary (county, supplemental, FM, whatever) routes. I also disfavor parentheses for the reasons already given. Doctor Whom 12:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I really don't like parenthesis. I've only been using them since, in the states I've been working on, it seemed to be the established precedent. I'd far rather see Massachusetts Route 2 than Route 2 (Massachusetts), since the former is probably what your average Wikipedia user would type into the search box. Yes, these types of things have redirects, but that's not the point. --Tckma 14:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Would you rather type [[Massachusetts Route 2|Route 2]] or [[Route 2 (Massachusetts)|]]? --SPUI (T - C) 15:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I see your argument -- as a Wikipedia editor, I'd certainly rather type the latter. The point, though, is, what would a Wikipedia user type in to get to the same page? To link to an article, I'll generally type something like [[Route 2 (Massachusetts)|Route 2]] or [[Route 128 (Massachusetts)|Yankee Division Highway]], anyway, so it doesn't really save any keystrokes for me as an editor. --Tckma 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Pages are to be named for the benefits of the user, not the editor. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Rschen, I believe that is the Cliff's Notes version of what I was saying. :) --Tckma 17:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The only place where I think you would need [[Massachusetts Route 2|Route 2]] would be on the "List of Massachusetts routes" article. Otherwise, I'd prefer to use [[Massachusetts Route 2]] for almost everything... either that or a redirect link like [[MA 2]] (just an example). By the way, we need to have a at least a national "rule of thumb" for states that don't have route WikiProjects yet, like the ones in white on the map to the right. This way, someone could right an article for "New Mexico Route 4" and call it "New Mexico Route 4" (if that's the format we choose), put it on a route list, categorize it, etc. all without starting a new WikiProject with a long state naming convention, which will probably result in no concensus, and so on. It will make route article creation much easier. Plus, I would assume, if a group of NM natives start the New Mexico Routes WikiProject, and they came to a concensus (by some miracle) on a new naming convention just for New Mexico, they could enact it in opposition to the national standard. Is that true? Also, I think state natives and people who are extremely familiar with a state should be able to have more "pull" on the fate of their state route articles, so that Wikipedians like (for example) SPUI and Rschen7754 (unless they are from that state or know that state really well) cannot upset a supermajority on say... New York state articles. Do you understand what I'm saying? Example: here. In other words, since I live in North Carolina and have never been to Montana, I shouldn't have the ability to upset Montana's naming convention; I can suggest idea, but not have the same voting rights. I guess that's an unspoken rule though. --TinMan 20:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with that principle. And then there's the people who have no relation with highways who try and help you too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In regards to linking, take a look at the linking in the first two sentences of Route 9 (Massachusetts) --
'''Route 9''' is a major east-west [[state highway]] in [[Massachusetts]]. Along with [[US 20]] to the south and [[Massachusetts Route 2|Route 2]] to the north, these highways are the main alternatives to the [[Massachusetts Turnpike]]/[[Interstate 90|I-90]] [[toll road]].
That's a prime example of why you'd need a construct like [[Route 2 (Massachusetts)|Route 2]].
As for the non-WikiProject states, I agree with your request for naming consensus. --Tckma 20:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you aware of the pipe trick? --SPUI (T - C) 04:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course I'm aware of the pipe trick. [[full article name|link text]] produces link text. Hence the link above shows as Route 2. I'm afraid I'm missing your point. --Tckma 12:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the "pipe trick" in question is this: [[Route 2 (Massachusetts)|]] produces Route 2. Powers 14:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Principle....?

The page states we will vote on "principle." Can someone clarify this? Thanks. --physicq210 18:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume this means a basic format. "(State name) (Road type) X" or "(Road type) X (State name)" for example. --TMF T - C 18:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought that was Part II. --physicq210 18:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Part II is where we decide the actual conventions based on the principle. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think even the "principle" or structure of the name should be decided on a per state basis rather than have one blanket name structure for all state highways. Some state highway WikiProjects might prefer to have the state name in front while others might prefer to have them in parentheses. We should also identify those states that have no naming issues and remove them from the applicability of whatever this process comes up with. --Polaron | Talk 16:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Inquire with individual DOTs?

I had the thought long ago of each state's highway wikiproject contacting their respective DOT/highway dep't and using whatever the official, legal nomenclature they do. Any thoughts?
Kether83 10:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't anything particular on WisDOT's site when it comes to names. WisDOT refers to state highways as "WIS ##" on the official site. However, according to Wisconsin State Statutes, Chapter 84.02, Wisconsin state highways are known officially as the state "trunk highway system". -jwhouk 13:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well like a email, phone call, or something. This website business where we search on google does not work and gives us multiple answers. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. I was thinking "gee, there's more than the internet still." We can maybe look up an 800 number and call them, or call a local depot or something. In PA I contacted the local county office of PennDOT and obtained a lot of information about one project I was working on. This is how reporters do it people - we have to start acting like that but when we say NPOV, mean it :oP
Kether83 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. In another post, I made the mention that "google" searches do not provide accurate results. For instance, SPUI did some of his own "queries" that produced, of course, state routes. But I found an equal number of pages that were tailored to my own search queries that produced state highways. And with planning documents and all in my big book of papers, I can verify that the majority of the districts that I have papers for, use the terminology "state highway" versus "state route." Ditto with West Virginia, where officially, I have found that "state highway" is used in proper. Now, in regular conversation, "state route" may prevail, but that isn't the point. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Washington, D.C.

What about the District of Columbia, which, as far as I know, has only one (signed) "state" route (295)? Whatever that article gets called, that would set the precedent in the unlikely event that D.C. decides to number more routes. Or, should that be covered under Maryland Route 295, the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (its common name), or even Interstate 295 (Washington, D.C.) since it was all supposed to be part of said Interstate at one time? Tckma 16:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that DC needs to be treated as a separate state here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, I see they already have an article for the route. It's District of Columbia Route 295. Tckma 16:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Forest Service Routes

Reading the article on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (which I always thought was part of Maryland Route 295) got me to thinking that in some places (the Grand Canyon being one), the U.S. National Park Forest Service maintains a system of numbered roads. The Park Forest Service, in my opinion, should be treated as a seperate "state." Thoughts? Tckma 16:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we have articles on those? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Not that I know of. I've just looked for one, but I don't remember any of their numbers offhand. I took a cross-country road trip last year and remembered seeing some in Grand Canyon National Park. They were in the 300 series, if I recall correctly. Tckma 16:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Forest Route is the main article. I don't think we have any articles; the "notable" ones are typically either gaps on state highways or named. --SPUI (T - C) 09:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They are designated by the United States Forest Service and funded by the federal government, but are generally owned and maintained by the states or counties in which they are located. (from the article). So, perhaps we should group articles on National Forest routes into the individual states where they are? --Tckma 13:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a LOT of national forests in the country, and each one of them have numbered forest routes crisscrossing all over them. I don't think we should make articles for all of them; if any, as SPUI said above, only the named ones or more heavily travelled ones. [9] there is a nice example. atanamir 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Concur that it's unfortunate...

...that this debate is taking so much time and energy. Regarding part 1, my preference is to decide this on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis; and not to try and come up with a Uniform Wikipedia Naming System For Highways That Nobody Will Like. I've missed out on most of the debate (intentionally), but am astonished by the amount of bandwidth this silly argument has consumed. If the NY roadgeek community wants to call their highway articles something different than what we in Oregon call ours, 'taint any skin off of my nose. Please consider the wise words of Ralph Waldo Emerson. --EngineerScotty 16:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree. This is the optimal way to satisfy the most number of people, and still maintain correctness. Perhaps this debate should not be on Wikipedia, but actually in the states' Departments of Transportation - until THEY have a uniform naming convention, how can we the wiki community be expected to have one? Nimur 19:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that why we have 50 states? --physicq210 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nomination of admins

To nominate an admin, follow the proceedure on the page. They must be a administrator, NOT be involved with highways whatsoever, NOT let any opinion sway their judgment, and must be approved with no objections. But how many admins do we want? It needs to be an odd number so there's no ties. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I say we go with 5. Big enough spread, but small enough we might actually get the amount we need. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, five would be good, or maybe seven. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 22:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Apparently it has been finalized, as the page says five. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 22:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Not really... if a few people say more then I'll change it again, but we need a number to work off as the nomination process is starting in 2 hours. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


I am posting a WP:AN notice advertising for admins. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

i'll remove myself from this situation and decline to be one of the 5 admins before anyone asks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that this is actually the hardest part of the process (barring the formulation of individual state highway names). No one seems interested to become the next Mexico's electoral judges. --physicq210 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... well an admin up there said he would if we didn't have enough... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
If need be, contact me to be one of the five admins, though I don't want to push myself on to you if I'm not wanted; I think I'm quite disinterested in this matter, though, so that should work...? —Nightstallion (?) 12:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

North American terminology

Here's a map I created (from the U.S. Roads WikiProjects map) of all the US states and as many of the Canadian provinces as I could fit displaying the current terminology used for route article titles. Places that use "highway" are in purple, places that use "route" are in orange, and places that use "State Road" are in green. Use this to help you formulate your opinions. It almost looks like an electoral college map. My conclusion: the terminology is almost a regional thing. By the way, Nova Scotia uses both..."highway" for the the freeway routes and "route" for the minor routes.--TinMan 21:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, at the time of this writing, of Georgia's 85 articles, 84 use the terminology "State Route" and just one "state highway" (though that one's not in a title; it's mentioning the hidden designation for I-575, and I'll be fixing that momentarily). –Pedriana (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Missouri, Ohio and Virginia consistently use Route outside Wikipedia. Kansas and Michigan don't use any of these. Oregon uses Route for the signed routes. New Mexico uses a mishmash of names, but the old shields said State Road. --SPUI (T - C) 04:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Great. Confusions galore.</sarcasm> --physicq210 04:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This is supposed to be what the ARTICLE TITLES have on them right now. --TinMan 05:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by saying "consistently use Route outside Wikipedia". Are you referring to common language, legislation, websites on a Google search, the state DOT's, or in my opinion the biggest factor... what the road signs themselves say? --TinMan 17:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's "SPUI's" Google research, which is inconclusive at best. I have documents from a variety of states that show highway is a commonly used term, such as in Ohio. Press releases may say route. I also believe it is more of a district terminology, since I have some documents from southeast districts that conflict with documents in the northwest. Of course, your mileage may vary, depending on how you structure your Google query. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Please provide sources. There are many for State Route and SR, including the official maps from 1923 on. --SPUI (T - C) 05:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so its internet sources/DOT sources that you use. We can debate this when the time comes... according to the process. --TinMan 05:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)