Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll

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

1 Part 2 Discussion

Part 2 Discussion

Getting the page ready (Part 2)

I've coded the page. If you want your state to also be transcluded onto your state highway WP talk page then you can set it up, just follow directions on the page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that:

We keep Canada out of this. There was no prior indication this would have any scope beyond the U.S., which was the locus of the original dispute. "Per the Arbitration Committee Highways case Remedy #5: Consensus encouraged, this poll has been devised to create a guideline regarding the naming of United States state highways."
We do not make it a condition of Part 2 that "Each convention needs to follow the principle passed above". Not only is it highly unclear if anything's "passed", in the usual sense, but this would be in contradiction to the statements during that discussion in regards to "exceptional" cases like "K-12", "M-1", etc.

I will edit the page along these lines unless there are any "speedy" holdons. Alai 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

- Toss Canada, I agree with that one.
- I would say keep that condition with the exception of Kansas and Michigan.

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What's so special about Kansas and Michigan? How is "New Jersey Route X" any better than "Kansas K-X"? --SPUI (T - C) 17:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Kansas has the concerns about K-X where they say that the DOT always uses K-X. Michigan too. New Jersey doesn't. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey has concerns where the DOT uses Route X. --SPUI (T - C) 17:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

For the final time: NEW JERSEY IS NOT AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE that Alai was refering to. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Michigan uses M-X, New Jersey uses Route X. Neither uses the state name. What's so exceptional about Michigan? --SPUI (T - C) 17:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey does not use NJ-XX. And furthermore I will consider this provocation if this issue is pressed any further. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey uses a term without the state name. What's so hard to understand? --SPUI (T - C) 18:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've said somewhere before, even though Principle I is preferred by the majority, it should not be applied blindly to every state highway system. There are states where the state name is virtually unused by local media, the state DOT, and the state government to refer to their roads. Principle I might be a useful default in cases where it is not clear what common usage is. But don't apply them if it is clear that a state does not use the state name. --Polaron | Talk 18:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The only exceptions are Kansas and Michigan. That is trying to twist Principle 1 above. Principle 1 is what has been chosen. My viewpoint is backed up by WP:ANI. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Any state which doesn't put the state name first is an exception. --SPUI (T - C) 18:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not what has been passed here. You are irking a lot of us to the point that many admins will block for any more silliness that happens here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has been passed. Policy requires consensus, not majority. --SPUI (T - C) 18:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Why does it feel to me, a mostly outside observer, that the whole thing is being argued all over again? Didn't the proposals include applicability? I'm not clear why there is so much arguing going on now... and yes, I'm tempted to call for some blocks here if things don't settle down. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's because there's no consensus. If there was consensus, we'd agree on the best action to take. --SPUI (T - C) 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh no... policy HERE... per arbcom, does not REQUIRE consensus, it merely encourages it. The consensus **I**' see is to go along with the majority vote, even if that majority is not itself a consensus. If this tendentiousness continues, there may well be blocking of unreasonable people until consensus is achieved... ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

SPUI, to be honest you're the only one I see arguing anything here and at AN/I, WP:Village Pump, WP:Naming Conventions, and several users pages. Everyone else on both sides seems ready to accept this stage of the process and move on to the next. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Creating policy requires consensus. --SPUI (T - C) 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No one is creating a policy here. Just a guideline so we can finally put this to rest for a while and get back to writing an encyclopedia. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Until a formal naming convention policy regarding state highways is reached, no page shall be moved from one controversial name to another." If you're not making a policy, what is your aim here? --SPUI (T - C) 18:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine we are creating a policy, but in an unconventional way because conventional means won't work. You've seen to that. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't have the necessary consensus for a policy. --SPUI (T - C) 19:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Says who? Almost every admin on the planet disagrees with you. 59% isn't the traditional consensus threshold, but in the absense of that it's the best alternative yet provided. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Says Wikipedia:How to create policy and Wikipedia:Consensus. --SPUI (T - C) 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing at WP:Consensus that contradicts the process that was done here.JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Read section 1.18 above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

When you create a naming guideline that contradicts Common Names, the arguments will never stop. Also, why are some people acting as if the poll was a winner-take-all election? They're not even trying to build consensus anymore. The chosen principle could be used as the default naming style if it is not obvious what official/common usage is. The naming guideline should also allow for exceptions for those states where it is obvious that 99% or more media/official usage does not include the state name. The naming guideline is not policy and can never be one. If you make an inflexible guideline, the debates will keep coming. --Polaron | Talk 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to build consensus when someone declares that it is a "loser-takes-all" election. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

When did I do that? There's clearly no consensus - which means we continue not moving pages under the ArbCom decision. --SPUI (T - C) 19:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And would you say that had the vote been reversed? You've been in "I'm right you're wrong" mode since day one, would that change if the vote had been reversed? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious there's no consensus. What the poll shows is that including the state name in front is the style preferred by a majority. What I'm saying is don't throw the Common Names policy completely out the window. Allowing for the obvious cases where the common name does not conform to the preferred style as exceptions is not unreasonable and would go a long way to achieving consensus. If the common name is unclear then by all means follow the chosen principle. --Polaron | Talk 19:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Polaron here (and with comments made by CBD elsewhere (or maybe it is further up this page -- I can't keep track of where all this is going on). At best this is a very weak consensus for a general prinicple. Certainly not a basis for enforcing an all-encompassing pre-emptive naming regimen. And to those who say It's hard to build consensus when someone declares that it is a "loser-takes-all" election -- it is also hard to build consensus when someone takes a small majority in a vaguely phrased poll to dictate "winner-take-all" terms. older ≠ wiser 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I do wish that it was cleaner than it is... but most of us have agreed with CBD's points, so I wouldn't say the winner is taking all. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lar's second comment above. The ArbCom would seem to be saying that consensus is best but not that they are mandating it. In fact they also seem to have accepted the fact that consensus was not to be attained. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. If it had gone 59/41 the other way, we'd be happily into Part 2 by now instead arguing about consensus vs. compromise. howch e ng {chat} 21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting contention... one wonders on the basis of what evidence it's made. At any rate, I think we should get on with Part 2, happily or otherwise, since hopefully when people get down to specifics, at least some evidence as to actual usage might start to threaten to impinge on the discussion. What I don't think we should try to do is to try to mandate that Principle #1 precludes options to be considered under Part 2, or start striking out votes on that basis, etc. (However, if after Part 2, things are equally consensus-free, a best-guess "majority wins" resolution may be the best that can be done. Anyone else find that the Gdanzig saga springs to mind, though?) Alai 23:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, since the purpose of having two parts to the poll was to take care of the disambiguation/style/whatever before arguing on "State" versus "State Route" versus whatever. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your inflexibility will only alienate others who might be persuaded to give this a chance and gain real consensus. Could you please at least try to understand why there is opposition to a blanket application of the naming style of Principle I? --Polaron | Talk 23:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Inflexibility? Then what was CBD's comments for? I'm sure there is opposition as we've never had any rules whatsoever regarding the naming of state highways. It's not what people are used to. Can you understand the frustration we feel as people mark this poll "rejected", say there was "no consensus", etc.? And how people are trying to twist the rules and change the principle that was voted on? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're apparently arguing that having largely ignored the question of what's the common name in part 1 -- and failed to achieve a consensus on that basis -- we should then give people a "Hobson's choice" poll between alternatives consistent with P#1, again without regard to what the common name is. It's not the case that there are no rules whatsoever for state highways, existing naming guidelines apply to those, as they do to everything else. Whether or not it would be reasonable to suspend "use common names" on the basis of a local sonsensus decision, its hardly reasonable to do so without that. This is going to look extremely odd when someone moves in a couple of months' time when someone moves a state highways article that they have strong evidence for the common name for, gets reverted, blocked, and so on, and when it ends up back at arbcom, the justification is, "we had a poll in which 59% of people decided we weren't interested in the common name, so we had another poll in which that option wasn't tabled for consideration". Alai 00:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone moved the page they would not be blocked; the move would be reverted and we would explain on the appropriate talk pages. If they kept move warring, though, then a block would be warranted. And by common name we mean common nationally and internationally. The whole world is not <insert state here>. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that state-specific would not be an appropriate basis to determine the common name. But my concern is, we're skipping the part where we determine the common name entirely. Alai 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying. Don't ignore common names completely. At least try to see if the name using Principle I is in at least some use -- like even 10% usage. We're going to vote on names when we haven't even tried determining what the actual names are. --Polaron | Talk 00:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what was trying to be said was that instead of disambiguating using parentheses (a la SPUI), the highways will instead be disambiguated with the state name first, then common name of highway, then number (i.e., California State Route 152), with "California" the "disambiguating term" or whatever it is called, "state route" as the common name, then the number of the road (152). --physicq210 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Which isn't consistent with WP:DAB, if it's done without reference to what the (or at least, "a") name of the object is. Alai 03:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Do what now?

Transclude what onto what? I'm a little confused. Seeing as I'm running WP:ILSR, what am I responsible for? What do the WP talk pages have to do with this? And can I remove Illinois because there's no question about how it's named? —Rob (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to transclude the NC discussion for Illinois onto WT:ILSR you can do that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to include all the states? Some states like IL and NY have non-contentious names that conform to the chosen style. Part 2 is probably not worth the effort for these states. What do other poeple think about excluding states that conform to the chosen style and have no naming dispute from Part 2? --Polaron | Talk 21:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You can leave them out if you can link to the discussion. Just make sure that the convention is not stable because all the pages are there or they were moved there (for example, CA and WA). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think I finally figured it out (couldn't concentrate on what you were explaining to do while I was at work yesterday). Let me know if I set up Ohio correctly. I also added a box above the transclusion on WT:OHSH explaining how (specifically) to make edits to the transclusion. Thought it might be useful info, and anyone who would like to copy that to their own state's WP talk page is free to do so. Homefryes ^Say•_Do 14:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible compromise

Perhaps one possible compromise that will be acceptable to a much wider group is to apply the chosen principle only to the states where move wars and naming debates are occuring or have occurred in the past. Some states that do not conform to Principle I where absolutely no naming debates have gone on might be better left untouched. Would this be an acceptable compromise solution? --Polaron | Talk 22:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that (Kansas and Michigan excluded) we need to stick with one style. Kansas and Michigan being left out since they have a special situation. I'm saying this because that was what was voted on and what passed (since those states i.e. Florida were what were listed). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the standard should be Wikipedia-wide, excusing Kansas and Michigan, as those are unique to the country. There was already a vote on the issue, and now its up to the ADMIN. to decide. --myselfalso 22:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Under the result of the poll, what options are going to be available to Kansas and Michigan? Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 23:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that is a good question. Preferably they should not use the parentheses, but if it is absolutely necessary, an exception might be made. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As SPUI mentioned somewhere above, Michigan and Kansas are not necessarily special. Michigan calls their highways "M-"s (e.g. M-28) while Massachusetts calles them "Route"s (e.g. Route 28). Under Principle I it should strictly be Michigan M-28. Exceptions should indeed be allowed if the use of the state name in front by local media and state governments is virtually nil. --Polaron | Talk 23:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Now you're just trying to create a loophole. Kansas and Michigan only. Last time I'm saying it. --Rschen7754 (talk -

If Kansas and Michigan are the only exceptions, then I suppose North Carolina will use North Carolina N.C. Highway X, I suppose. atanamir 00:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There we go with trying to create loopholes again. I'm about to withdraw support for Kansas and Michigan having an exception. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:10, 2 Septembr 2006 (UTC)

Please, we're finally having a civil discussion. Don't make threats and have this degrade into what we used to have. Just lay out why you don't want what they said. --Rory096 15:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Who are you to dictate what can and cannot be exempted? You'd love to get the "State State Highway XX" convention back wouldn't you? --Polaron | Talk 00:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, actually. First of all, "State Route" etc. where appropriate. Secondly, as creator of this poll, I do have a bit of input as to what goes on. Not to where one principle is favored over another, but to clarify things like that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be North Carolina Highway X? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this works. I just remember reading somewhere that it's commonly written as NC Highway X there; and it would follow the same philosophy as M-X and K-X, if you're intent on expanding them out to Kansas 10 and Michigan 10. atanamir 00:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I said it. That's what's written on the sign outside (N.C. Highway 150). Although, "NC x" is also very common on road signs; that's just far too vague, considering that "NC" stands for lots of things, and it can be avoided. As part of NC's WikiProject, we have all "NC x" pages redirecting to the route articles or disambig pages where there are conflicts like the movie rating for NC-17 (NC 17 hwy article not written yet b/c US 17 took over) or NC 4 with the airplane. We had a big discussion on it at WT:NCSH. Ohio is also commonly OH-xx and Virginia is sometimes VA-xx, not always officially, but locally or on websites or something. I don't understand why Michigan and Kansas should be treated differently. M and K stand for lots of things. Yet, I suppose, if they already are content with their convention they can keep it. I'm not sure this is true though. For North Carolina, it's either North Carolina Highway x or North Carolina State Highway x, as per Principle 1. --TinMan 06:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It puzzles me as to why there's so much discussion occurring after the conclusion of the vote. The polls are closed, the people have had their say, now let's let the timeline carry out and let the judging admins make a decision. --TMF ^{T - C} 22:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with TMF. --myselfalso 22:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As do I. The only reason there is any discussion is one or two people who are ultimately unhappy with abiding by the vote. While Polaron's proposal isn't unacceptable as you say, voting is over. It's time to move on. SPUI nothwithstanding. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, we're finally making civil discussion and making progress on the way to a compromise that everyone can agree on. What's wrong with that, even if it's not in the designated time period set by this process? --Rory096 15:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the decision was already made. The admins went in favor of Principle I. Why are we discussing something when it has been decided? There was more than ample time to discuss this before. --myselfalso 16:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the judges decided that, but that doesn't disallow us from creating a compromise that everybody agrees to. See WP:NBD. Anyway, does it really hurt anything to discuss it? --Rory096 16:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it really hurt anything to discuss it? No. But is there any reason to? No. A decision has been made. The point here is that it is unnecessary for a compromise. I voted for Principle I because I think it is that which makes the most sense to use, and yes, I find it more aestetically pleasing than using parenthesis. As for binding decisions, in this case it is apparently necessary as there are several people, yourself included, who doesn't want to let this go. A massive process is being undertaken to achive the goal of having a conventional system for naming state routes. Continuing the discussion about this is only slowing down this process even more, especially since there are very deep divisions on what principle should be taken. But by a majority of the vote by users, Principle I is what we should go by. By the admins, they went with Principle I, and we should go by that. To put it bluntly, I don't want a compromise. Hate to tell you that, but it's the truth. I feel that Principle I is the right thing to go with. If I felt otherwise, I would've suggested something else, or I would've voted for Principle III. It's time for a decisive decision, not the continuation of argument and debate that isn't getting us anywhere, other than the process outside this debate is going to continue regardless. --myselfalso 16:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a reason to. You said yourself that some people don't want to let it go. You're absolutely right. So wouldn't it be better if everybody could agree and stop holding the process back (and they're holding it back a lot more than a discussion is). We're currently in a rest period, and the discussion doesn't affect Part 2. I agree with you that Principle I was decided on. However, wouldn't it be nice if the Principle II supports agreed to support Principle I, which is exactly what they're doing in this compromise? A decisive decision would be made by everyone agreeing to this. This debate is getting us places. Have you noticed that both SPUI and Polaron have agreed to Principle II? We're definitely being productive, and you should help out a bit, so we can have everyone agreeing to something. --Rory096 17:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A compromise is reaching a middle ground between two points. Yes, I have noticed that SPUI and Polaron agreed to Principle II. The problem is that they won't let go. What they need to do now is say, "Unfortunately, the position I supported failed. So be it. It's time to face the music and figure out what do to with Principle I in Part 2." I lack the understanding as to why this can't be done. --myselfalso 17:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the compromise consists of SPUI and Polaron agreeing to Principle I, and in return, they get a few considerations in the naming conventions (see Part III). I don't see what's wrong with it. --Rory096 17:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Confusing Terminology

Is the result of this poll a policy, convention, or guideline? In Wikipedia, these three things are different from each other, and the main poll page lists all three in a whirlpool of words. --physicq210 23:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that is a good question. I think that this needs to be a policy because of all the ... whatever. Ordinarily, it would be a convention though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Under the circumstances...

I really really really hate to ask this, but I'm considering opening Part 2 early. It is against the timeline, I know. But developments at WP:ANI... let's just say they're sick of this and there is talk of banning' all of us from making any edits on highway-related articles until we get a policy hammered out. Do we want to open this early? I'd like some input before I accelerate the timeline. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. --physicq210 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I glanced over AN/I and read the comments there and, I'll admit, at first glance I was pissed off. After thinking about it for 10 minutes, though, it makes the most sense to me as it forces a policy to be adopted for anything to continue. That's my $.02 on that. As for the speeding up of the timeline, the admins have voted (Principle I by a 5-0-1 count), so yep, we can go ahead with Part 2. --TMF ^{T - C} 00:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to play this by ear by discussions below. I'd rather see everyone on board with a uncontested consensus, but we'll see how it goes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

How about we have open Part 2, then at the same time, have a straw poll on the compromise being created below, to see if there's a consensus for following that? Part 2 isn't really dependent on Part 1, so it won't affect it if we haven't yet decided on a principle. --Rory096 06:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It sort of is dependent on Part I... but see new section below. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

At the earliest, Part 2 will open a day early. At the latest, it will open as scheduled. I don't know if the closing date will be adjusted or not. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards opening it a day early since well people have started posting proposals... any objections? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a point if polls will open in about an hour and 45 minutes from this posting? --physicq210 22:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well just in case. I'll change the page to reflect this. I don't think I'll move the closing date up though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait. I misread the dates. Never mind. --physicq210 22:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling that some debates will be done quickly but others ("Northern Marina Islands") might take a while since we don't know much, or there might be contested ones. So we might close some after the 12th. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You can edit highway articles again... WP:ANI clarified. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this

(Using Ohio as an example) In text, we write State Route X. It's easier to link to State Route X (Ohio). But for some reason we put the articles at Ohio State Route X. --SPUI (T - C) 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh no. Do we have to debate this again? --physicq210 00:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never understood it, so if this is "again", please link me to somewhere else where it is explained. --SPUI (T - C) 00:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you got it. That's what's happening. And not "for some reason." --physicq210 00:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Then what is that reason? This is what I have never understood. --SPUI (T - C) 00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it was decided thus. --physicq210 00:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a circular argument. Think of it - if your argument is good, maybe you can convince me to join your side. --SPUI (T - C) 00:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. Because the community decided thus. --physicq210 00:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That still doesn't answer my question. Why did the community decide thus? --SPUI (T - C) 00:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence? See this, this, and the above discussion. --physicq210 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK - maybe you don't know that. Then I'll ask a different question. Why did you decide Principle I is better? --SPUI (T - C) 00:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That was already discussed under Discussions. The debate is over for Part I, so let's move on. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because the scheduled time for debate is over doesn't mean that the position supporting Principle I shouldn't be explained to him. Discussion is never bad, even if it's outside of the designated time period and place. --Rory096 00:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit of digging into past discussions will work instead of wrongly implicating others of stifling dissent. --physicq210 00:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not implicating anyone of anything, just saying that discussion is still OK. Nobody's dissenting, either, just requesting a link to reasoning. Do you mind linking to the past discussions for SPUI to dig through? That would probably be helpful. --Rory096 01:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I did give you the links. Look above. --physicq210 03:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What"s dumb about this is that SPUI has participated in just about every discussion on this issue. He should know what our reasons are. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone asked me why the articles are where they are, I'd say two things: inertia and parentheses being "ugly". I'd like to think there's a better reason, but I haven't seen any. --SPUI (T - C) 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Same reason why we don't want "State Route 33 in California". It's too messy. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So it is that you find parentheses "ugly"? That's the whole reason? Wow, I figured there was something more behind it. --SPUI (T - C) 05:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(shift) I slightly disagree with Rschen7754's logic here. My opinion is that because we are not bound by the "correct name" or whatever the DOT uses (as you stated below). Often, readers find California State Route X easier to read than State Route X (California). Similar to the reason why it is United States Congress instead of Congress (United States) or Congress of the United States or equivalent. --physicq210 05:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole argument is rediculous. --myselfalso 03:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with that too. Sorry, just really... whatever. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Which argument? --physicq210 03:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What SPUI brought up. --myselfalso 04:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've started Wikipedia:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways. Hopefully we can come to consensus on how to write articles and link to them. --SPUI (T - C) 01:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We should also setup something like consensus polling. This will hopefully help us meet everyone's concerns and come to a true consensus. --Polaron | Talk 01:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely agree with something like consensus polling, it's a great idea in this circumstance. --Rory096 01:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD said at WP:ANI that this was probably the best we would get. And what are you trying to do? Get the consensus to go your way? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this part 2

Am I seeing new, not previously discussed/voted alternatives turning up on the Ohio state subpage? [1] [2] Is this the consensus of the community or just one person's idea? Because if it's not, I want to know. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It was SPUI's idea, actually. --physicq210 03:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's another one of SPUI's attempt at derailing the process. It was discussed long ago to which there was no outcome that was suitable for either party. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? --myselfalso 03:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I was aware it was SPUI's doing but being a bit out of the loop, coming in late etc, I want to know if it's something that fits within process or not. I'm aware of Seicer's view but what of everyone else? ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Man this is getting tiresome. The addition of principle 3 to Ohio's subpage is of SPUI's own volition. During the discussion process it was determined that only Kansas and Michigan might have exemptions to the format because they use M-X and K-X names. SPUI's position on this is that neither Kansas, Michigan or Ohio (among others) officially use the state name in front of the route name so it should be exempted, too. The reason Ohio wasn't included in the exemption list is because ODOT doesn't name their roads "O-X" and so Kansas and Michigan are presented with a unique situation. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 04:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I second Stratosphere and Seicer. --physicq210 04:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on the instruction for Part II, this round of discussion/voting is to decide on whether to use "State Highway", "State Route", "Route", etc for the common name, with the exception of Michigan and Kansas. Part I was to decided on what format the disambiguation was to take. --Bobblehead 04:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. --physicq210 04:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Then the third principle should be removed. --myselfalso 04:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But I'm waiting for a judging admin to remove it so it carries more force. --physicq210 04:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. Question . . . how much longer is this one person going to go on about this? --myselfalso 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Which "one person"? --physicq210 04:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably Polaron. Or maybe Rory096. --SPUI (T - C) 04:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(ec)I have to disagree about what was "determined" during Part 1. K-? and M-? were certainly cited as obvious problem cases, but at no point was principle #1 ever modified to make any exceptions or variance in its application explicit, and assorted opinions were expressed about what should or shouldn't be an exception. I don't see any reasonable way of handling this other than by explicit handling of each case on its merits -- whatever those might actually be. I've yet to see either "side" of this debate make any compelling argument as to what 'the common name' in a general sense actually is in any such case, and I live in hope that someone might, and am trying to keep an open mind on that basis. (Fool that I am.) It would be unfortunate to say that for "procedural" reasons we can't even address that. (And at no point did part 1 ever achieve consensus, let us not forget, so citing it to prevent consideration of specific alternatives would seem very suspect practice.) I'm still highly dubious about Lar's 'the arbcom has deemed that 51% makes policy' interpretation (which would in effect be a policy determination on the part of the arbcom by proxy, not their usual practice, and which I'd like to think that if they were to choose to do, they'd at least make explicit). But even if we proceed on that basis, what the front page says is, "The format of all state highway article titles shall be [State Name] [Road Term] XX unless otherwise designated." So how else do we decide what's "otherwise designated"? SPUI is certainly wrong to cast everything in terms of what the state DOT's usage is (since WP practice does not hinge on official usage, and as a state organ they have a rather "systematic bias"), but we need to at some point address the issue of what actual usage in comparable contexts is, otherwise we're indulging in in what's effectively original research as to what a "natural" usage is -- only without the actual research part. Alai 04:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually in agreement that we shouldn't necessarily blindly go with DOT usage. If the undeniable common name was "O-X" in Ohio, despite ODOT using State Route X, we'd go with that. On the other hand, if the common name was "SR X", that's an obvious abbreviation of State Route X. --SPUI (T - C) 04:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that we have arguments in favour of "a presumption in favour of" the official name (which is often a sensible thing to factor into the question of what/which 'common name' to use); and arguments in favour of a presumption in favour of an ambiguous name; or an "natural" name (ditto, in each case). But those three presumptions in this case conflict, and we've very little data on the "common name" supposed baseline. Alai 05:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The common name may be easily found by smpling local newspapers. These newspapers are mirrored on the web and mention various roads every single day. Look in the archives under "Determining Common Names" for details of how to go about this. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Local papers are no good because local terms for highways tend to be ambiguous. Powers ^T 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

we've very little data on the "common name" supposed baseline You asked for the common name. It can be found by sampling papers throughout the state. It may be ambiguous. It is still the only common name. There are no "next best common names". If there is one name that is most commonly used and that is the only choice for "common name". --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Another user has been scared off due to this madness

User:TwinsMetsFan. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's only madness if you make it. May I reiterate that on Wikipedia, it really, really, really doesn't matter what the article is called because the point of Wikipedia isn't the names of the articles, it's what's in the article. Rename all my pages to Illinois Whazzarut X if you want; it'd be stupid, but I wouldn't really care. —Rob (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Spelling out concerns about each principle

Just for the hell of it, let's lay out each side's concerns. Yes, it may have been beaten to death, but we haven't just laid them out in a list yet, then tried to address them. So please just add them to the list just below and add any additional comments in the discussion section below there. I've started it; I hope that everyone else will cooperate and help us reach a compromise. --Rory096 05:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Principle I

It often does not match the official or common name, which could confuse people linking to the article.
It is consistency for consistency's sake.
Anomalies may arise, such as Kansas and Michigan, where P1 makes less sense than it normally does.
It is more restrictive; Principle II allows a P1-style title in cases where that name is commonly used.

Problems with Principle II

People are unlikely to type a road name then parentheses into the search bar, making it harder to find the article.
Not as straightforward to the reader as Principle I (meaning, it might take a few glances by a reader to be able to find out the state the road is in).
Less consistent between states.
It makes a mess in automatically-generated categories. For example, Category:United States road stubs (see the ones for State Route).

Discussion

Redirects and disambiguation pages are good. They solve P2#1 but not P1#1. --SPUI (T - C) 05:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

P2#2 is rather weak, and is easily solved by making the article clear. "State Route X is a state highway in the U.S. state of Ohio." --SPUI (T - C) 05:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I support SPUI here. The article title can use Principle I while the intro can use "State Route X is a state highway in the U.S. State of Ohio" like your example above. --physicq210 05:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That pretty much eliminates the issue of P2#2. --SPUI (T - C) 05:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The intro can use a title different from the article title. --physicq210 05:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It can, but not for the reason described in P2#2. --SPUI (T - C) 05:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm extending a compromise that you can use the "official term" for the intro. And thanks for making P2#3 more clear. --physicq210 05:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's meant by "Leads to inconsistencies within the same topic." --SPUI (T - C) 05:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if it was confusing. What I meant was that dealing under the same umbrella (state highways) we have a patchwork of naming conventions (Louisiana Highway X for Louisiana, State Route X (California) for California, etc.)

We still have "inconsistencies" between California State Route X, Louisiana Highway X, etc. --SPUI (T - C) 05:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What inconsistences within states? --physicq210 05:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Again I don't understand you. Each principle keeps consistency within a state. --SPUI (T - C) 05:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

But P2 doesn't keep consistency among states. --physicq210 05:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither does P1. Only "[state] State Highway X" does, and both sides have rejected that. --SPUI (T - C) 05:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was overall format (aka state name before road term or state name in parentheses after road term, etc.), not the road term itself. --physicq210 05:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So it's still not consistent, just a bit more consistent. --SPUI (T - C) 05:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes. But more consistent than P2, I guess. --physicq210 05:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

P1#1 cancels that out anyway - consistency is not a goal in itself if there are reasons to not be consistent. --SPUI (T - C) 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're trying to aim to be as consistent as possible. --physicq210 06:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We've taken care of Kansas and Michigan already. We've given them special exceptions. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

P2#4 is also very weak, and also temporary, since eventually every article will be a non-stub. In categories that are not automatically generated, a simple sortkey solves the problem (a sortkey is needed anyway to place 20 before 101). --SPUI (T - C) 05:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Temporary? We have over 2000 road stubs for US alone... I know because I have been sorting them. And we still have routes with no article... And that's only one example of a category with that problem, there are many other categories that have that problem. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's really a problem, split it by state. Or wait for category math. --SPUI (T - C) 05:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

(ec)But most articles (including the stub categories that most of the above US road stubs are actually in) are per-state, not "everything in a beeg bucket". What other categories is this a "problem" for? Alai 05:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The {{South-US-road-stub}}, the new map and assessment cats that just got created, to name a few. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, constructive discussion for once. At least, so far the discussion is cordial and constructive. --physicq210 05:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, what is the purpose of this discussion? We can't overturn a consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It can't overturn the vote, yes, but you have to give credit that we're actually engaging in a civil discussion so far. --physicq210 05:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly can't overturn a consensus, yes... due to not having one in the first place. Alai 05:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you kiddding me? The consensus that all six judging administrators have supported? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? If it's necessary to accept a long-way-short-of-a-consensus majority as a binding decision, then so be it. But let's not add insult to injury by mis-describing it. Alai 06:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's not start this debate about the process. We're finally having a civil discussion which is conducive to forming a better consensus than any that existed already. There's no need to ruin it by saying it means nothing or that the process sharing the page with this was bad. It doesn't matter, we're finally getting along and just talking, rather than arguing, which is good. --Rory096 05:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I won't. It's just that other attempts at compromising were attempts to loophole the compromise, well I won't get into that either. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I could accept using the style of Principle I in the title of the article if it can be included in the proposed Manual of Style that the commonly used name is the one bolded and linked to/explicitly displayed in cases where the context is clear, such as describing routes within a state. The commonly used name should also be used for the infobox. For highways ending at a state line, the Principle I text can be used if desired. People should also ensure all the appropriate redirects are setup in their WikiProjects. Although I very much dislike creating naming conventions that are inconsistent with WP:NC(CN), it is not actually uncommon to see such conventions here in Wikipedia. Also, it would be nice if some of the proponents of Principle I at least try to understand what the issues are and be a little flexible. --Polaron | Talk 05:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --physicq210 05:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways - I'm ahead of you. --SPUI (T - C) 05:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can fix up the thing later. It's just a draft right now. --physicq210 06:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if stuff other than the links should be in there too? Like stubs, infoboxes, etc. for the states without WikiProjects? Just a thought. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We'll discuss that in Part III. --physicq210 06:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the names of the templates rather than the text within them, that's not really a concern to me because of redirects; the name is only seen by editors. A category standard might be useful though. I think I actually like a consistent "numbered highways in (of?) State" there - it's descriptive and all-encompassing without being ambiguous where state-maintained roads and state-numbered roads don't match. --SPUI (T - C) 06:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about the cats, but that's another story... I'd want to integrate that with the structure we have already too... but that can wait until Part 3 at least. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

About the linking. How would we determine what states need to use the pipe tricked redirects and what ones don't? Would this mean redoing each article and fixing the links? Although a bot could do that. Speaking of which what happens if someone puts their bot on it and un-does the pipe-tricked redirects? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways. Anyway, bots are not supposed to "fix" redirects; hopefully that bot would be stopped or blocked. --SPUI (T - C) 06:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll go along with the proposal above, provided that we discuss about the specifics at the page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A bot that "fixed" a redirect in such a way that a) the ultimate target was the same (or a double-red was fixed thereby), and b) the link text was unchanged would be essentially benign, in theory. However, it's the sort of mind-boggling trivial change that there's no consensus for, as it's basically clogging histories (and for non-botflagged edits, recent changes), and hammering the servers for more-or-less-pointless edits. Alai 06:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:REDIRECT says that you shouldn't do those types of edits, so the bot wouldn't pass WP:BRFA anyway. --Rory096 06:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Said "how-to guideline" I think is essentially consistent with what I said above, which is that there's "no need" to perform such edits, and that it's more of a performance hit than it is gain, rather than being something that's Bad to do per se (if one were already editing the article for some other reason, especially). But "needless on an industrial scale" would indeed be highly unlikely to be bot-approved, yes. (Though the mind boggles at some of the things that have.) Alai 06:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the new proposal, I think that they need to be kept separate so that we can get the naming issue done and over with. WP:ANI is not happy about this issue and wants it done and over with ASAP. The proposals can be going on simultaneously but need to be separate. Integrating them will bog both proposals down. But of course we'll put as part of the policy that "the links follow a different format using the pipe trick that shall be adressed in an upcoming policy." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for the rest of WP:AN/I (an interesting shorthand for "active administrators" I guess) but as for myself, I want to see this resolved. To me that means getting agreement on a part (voteforced consensus or whatever) and then moving on, not reopening that part or trying to change it around or narrow OR expand the scope of what was agreed on or inserting exceptions. Keep proposals that are of different scope separate. Don't introduce new choices for proposals that are already decided. Don't forum shop. Don't claim things are guides or guidelines when they are still proposed. Don't argue against the process (we all know this is not normal consensus. We get that... pointing that out, or using it as a reason to not accept the decisions or the process is disruptive and I consider it a blockable offense at this point in time, for this process, for this question...) most of the rest of what I outline is also in the same category, don't chivvy against it. So far only SPUI has been blocked, and it did restore some order, but I see this descending back into contention and I am not afraid to hand out more blocks, to whoever necessary, until this gets done. ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See the new section I created. But I'd rather wait a little bit and get most people on board before we continue. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are we having a discussion about the problems of Principle I and Principle II? A majority of users voted in favor of Principle I, and the judging admins picked Principle I as the consensus. What is the point of discussing the problems of each principle when the issue was discussed and voted on already. This seems to be just like the election of 2000 and 2004. --myselfalso 14:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the way I see it too. Doesn't the fact that the judging admins all agreed on Principle I constitute a concensus, regardless of how we, the editors, voted? Couldn't the admins have all disagreed with the majority and decided among themselves that Principle II was actually the better choice? Wouldn't that mean that we would have to comply with their decision? Am I right or wrong here? — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 15:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter that the judges have already decided there's a consensus? I think we can all agree that it's a weak one at best, and isn't agreement of everyone involved much better than 60% of them? There's nothing wrong with this discussion. --Rory096 16:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does matter. The judges decided that the consensus was Principle I. Once again, I refer to election of 2000 and 2004. --myselfalso 16:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what the judges decided. Unlike in Presidential elections, Wikipedia does not have binding decisions, and we can always discuss new things, and if there's consensus for it, overturn the previous decision, slightly alter the previous decision, or just keep it and widen the support for it. --Rory096 16:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That in general is true, but I'm not sure it's true in this case which is operating under special rules (as I see it). Since my interpretation has been questioned, I've asked for specific clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Specific_Highways_clarification_request I'll note that if all participants arrive at a consensus, and do so in a quick, amicable way, to clarify or expand something, I do not view that as necessarily violating "Don't introduce new choices for proposals that are already decided."... it's when the several people say "no, we already decided that" and the point gets belabored that I see it verging into disruption. Sorry if that was not clear. But I'm not going to do much substantively here till I get the clarification I seek from ArbCom, because I want the approach to be taken made explicit rather than implicit. ++Lar: t/c 16:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added an additional note at your clarification request. As long as people are discussing productively, and they are right now, I would encourage people not to make negative comments like "There's no point in this discussion." There's always a point in positive discussion. --Rory096 16:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A straw poll is not an election. Please don't act as if this is something where the "winner" gets to dictate all the terms. Would you prefer everyone work together or would you rather the proponents of Principle II just shut up and go away? I can't speak for the others but I said Principle I is acceptable if most of the concerns of Principle II supporters are addressed somehow. We are trying to do this at WP:USSH. I agree that the discussion of that should be separate and should be continued there. Please be open to continuing discussion. Nobody is trying to overturn the decision here. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 16:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If I were a proponent of Principle II, I wouldn't be arguing about it now. I'd be looking to Part 2 and looking to see what to do about Principle I. --myselfalso 17:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody's arguing in favor of Principle II anymore! They're just discussing how to solve the problems with Principle I. --Rory096 17:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And that's why this section talks about Principle II as well? --myselfalso 17:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's irrelevant- it was before the supporters of Principle II agreed to support the compromise. --Rory096 17:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not irrelevant. It's part of the whole debate. It's what is chasing users away. --myselfalso 17:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Former Principle II advocates have sat down, had a civil discussion and agreed to support Principle I provided that the MoS created fixes a couple problems with it. We're finally on the track to everybody agreeing. Is that really a problem? --Rory096 17:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not a problem. The problem is the route that some took to get to that point. This should have been accomplished much faster. --myselfalso 17:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but we can't change the past. We might as well make the best of the agreement we have now and work with SPUI and Polaron to hammer out the details of the MoS. --Rory096 18:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What if all the highway articles are made with Principle 2 (like WI)

I really don't think we should take the time to flip the redirects between Wisconsin State Highway XXX and Highway XXX (Wisconsin) now that all of the articles for known highways have been created. Please give me a honest reason for why we would have to make that change. Its may also be true for many other states. --master_son^{Lets talk} 05:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Consistency with the 47 other states. Everyone else has to switch, it's not fair to Wisconsin that we give them an exception, just because. Of course, we can help with the work. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I had suggested that states that don't conform but have had no naming debates be excluded but it seems that a majority wants some kind of consistent "look and feel" for the article titles. --Polaron | Talk 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Rschen7754. I guess this has become a mandate now instead of just a suggestion for states that are already complete and/or already have had a concensus. I guess you couldn't have an individual state concensus with some of the editors here who would always disagree with it. Well, it's been settled now. What's done is done and what has yet to be done should be done. Of course, don't start flopping yet; wait until the porcess deems it necessary.--TinMan 06:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a bogus "mandate" -- established with a weak majority and considerable opposition and confusion. What is so essential about inflicting such "foolish consistency" (Emerson) at a national level? older ≠ wiser 11:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean aside from several edit wars and arbitration cases? Syrthiss 12:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither the edit wars nor the arbitration cases necessitate inflicting arbitrary uniformity, especially for states where there has been little or no evidence of any conflict regarding the current de facto convention for the state. older ≠ wiser 13:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, No conflicts were present in WI convention (originally following Principle I) until the WP:WIH was made, after that, a conflic appeared because a user believed that Principle I was a Neologism--master_son^{Lets talk} 13:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So there really doesn't appear to be any clear cut common name there and the concern is whether it is worthwhile to churn the article names once again merely to conform with some other arbitrary naming convention. older ≠ wiser 13:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I may not like it, but it is going to happen and I will go along with it. --master_son^{Lets talk} 12:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify the confusion

So if you're wondering what is going on here. No, we have not thrown the whole vote in the trash. Don't worry. But in exchange for nearly unanimous support for Principle I, we have agreed to create pipe-trickable links and to use those instead of the normal links. In other words, this passes with Principle I, but Wikipedia:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways also passes. Let us know your thoughts. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of any process, method, or solution that gets to closure. If the objections that this isn't a consensus solution are dropped (that is if people accept Principle 1 as the best that can be achieved and accept "consensus as majority, this one time") so much the better. ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So you're okay with this then? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as it moves quickly to at least no worse a consensus than we had before and I don't see signs of disruption, I'm more than OK with it. But if it veers off into contention or if progress isn't being made or I see obstructive behaviour, then I'll go back to considering what to do about removing impediments to progress. This is all based on assuming that my request for clarification to ArbCom comes out with the answers I generally expect. ++Lar: t/c 21:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Integration?

Do we want to integrate the proposals here or keep them separate? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, integrate. It's by no means necessary to do so at once, especially if that might cause more grief and confusion in the short run. Alai 03:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I just don't want this proposal slowed down by the other one. It'd just be good to get this done and over with. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Logically they should end up in the same place (unless it's possible and desirable to refactor all the "NC" issues out from the "style guide" issues), but if one is going to impede the other, keep them separate until it's reasonably clear that's no longer the case. Alai 04:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Irony.. we just integrated a little bit so we don't have to have 2 votes that are similar... it won't mess things up too much though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, what are you talking about? Which "proposals"? --TinMan 07:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This one and the Wikipedia:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting on Part II has begun

Well, the title speaks for itself. Voting will end on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 23:59 UTC. --physicq210 00:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Slightly different format?

We should be determining the common name for Wikipedia:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways. How about "voting" on options like "[California] State Route X" - which means the common name is State Route X and the article title is incorrectly at "California State Route X"? Obviously anything that doesn't begin with the state name is still nuked. --SPUI (T - C) 04:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As in ... oh names to use for links. Not sure about that one... obviously it needs to be addressed at some point. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not do it at the same time? We're already figuring out whether "State Highway X" or "Route X" is the common name - why not figure out if the common name has the state name in front at the same time? --SPUI (T - C) 04:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as people don't object... I'm looking at how to implement this. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to use <> instead, since [] could make it link. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Only if the state name is a URL... --SPUI (T - C) 05:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... it doesn't matter though really. I'm going through and seeing how to convert the stuff already there. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ten states have started voting. Here is what I'm proposing:

California: Not sure what to do on this one.
Michigan: I think it's safe to leave this one.
New Jersey:...
North Carolina: Either split Conventions 1 and 2 into two different ones, with <> and without, or just have the <> versions. How about 3 and 4?
Ohio: Just add <>.
Oklahoma: Just add <> since they are switching from P2.
Pennsylvania: Leave alone?
Virginia:Just add <>?
Washington: Just add <>.
Wisconsin: Just add <> since they are switching from P2.

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Pennsylvania can be left alone. --myselfalso 05:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

California and Michigan already have their formats adopted (by actual consensus). I don't see why we need to change them in any way. --physicq210 05:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

- Michigan is fine. California, the question is <California> State Route x or California State Route x. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, I really don't see a point in including the state names for any of the articles in the article mainspace. It's not as if there will be confusion. "California State Route X is a state highway located in the U.S. state of California. California State Route X is blah blah blah. California State Route X was once blah blah blah." It's just redundancy. --physicq210 05:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah go ahead and add <> around California. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, I meant all of the states, not just California. --physicq210 05:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

At WT:NCSH, I think all of us agreed that "NC x" is the common name that we will use for links and for most references in the article body. Therefore, North Carolina doesn't need any of those < and > things... I think (if I'm understanding this correctly). Consensus was reached, so we shouldn't have to debate that again. --TinMan 05:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, instead of all this confusion, why can't we just use [State abbreviation] XX in the article mainspace (after the intro)? Examples include CA 85, DC 295, MA 1A, etc. --physicq210 05:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Avoid neologisms and all. --SPUI (T - C) 05:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

They're not all neologisms. Ohio uses OH sometimes and North Carolina I know uses NC. South Carolina may use SC and the district has DC painted on the shields. Michigan uses M, but so might Minnesota, so that wouldn't work, and making Michigan use MI doesn't make all that much sense to me if the real name is M. --TinMan 07:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fine. Then can't we just use [Road term] X, without the state name? Repeating the state name again and again is pointless, if not annoying to the reader. --physicq210 05:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, unless for some reason that is not a common name. --SPUI (T - C) 05:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't heard of anyone say the state name of the highway unless there really is a chance of confusion. --physicq210 05:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm trying to think of a case where the state name is always used in full and can't think of one. The closest I can come is Michigan-style. --SPUI (T - C) 05:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And Kansas. But that's just their way of naming highways. --physicq210 05:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, wouldn't just saying "Highway 1" be far too vague? What type of highway is it? Wouldn't the word "state" have to be included if you did something like that? I would think so. On a side note, if we want to use state abbeviations where they apply, how would one do the < > thing? --TinMan 07:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What does adding <> around a state name actually signify? Is this explained somewhere? older ≠ wiser 11:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it: Any part of the convention in <> will, if adopted, be either removed or moved to disambiguating parentheses when linked in the text of an article in partnership with Wikipedia:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways. Although it is a somewhat unfamiliar use. Still not entirely certain how that would work in practice. older ≠ wiser 11:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically, for all practical purposes the article is at principle 2, but the actual title is principle 1. It's an imperfect compromise. --SPUI (T - C) 11:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But better than no compromise. --physicq210 18:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being a bit dense, but can someone summarize what exactly is being discussed in this section? I've read it over a couple of times and looked at the note in the actual poll (as well as it's applications), and I'm still not sure what it's about. Thanks. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We're sort of voting on both P1 and P2 names. For instance see Virginia - there are options for <Virginia> Route X and Virginia Route X. Both are the same under P1, but the latter is Route X (Virginia) under P2, which is how most links will be. --SPUI (T - C) 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah, I see that. Is this for how the route name will appear in an article, or is this for the actual title? I'm assuming it's for within an article and if Virginia Route X "wins" then links to other Virginia routes will be done as [[Route X (Virginia)|]]? And if <Virginia> Route X wins will links in an article be [[Virginia Route X]] ?? Thanks again. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 01:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The opposite - <Virginia> Route X would have links at Route X (Virginia). --SPUI (T - C) 02:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

~~What the? That's not what I thought. I thought links would be at "Route x", with no parentheses.~~ I understand now, it's for the pipe trick to work on linking. Ok, that's good. By the way, nobody answered my question on how to use brackets if you want state abbreviations and then route number for the so-called "links" (i.e. "SC x"). And for many states, those are commonly used and are not neologisms that we came up with. --TinMan 12:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I get it, just to be clear, this is just for linking? The title (and location) of the article will still be at Virginia State Route X? Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 14:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. P2 is only for linking with the pipe trick. P1 is used for the article title.

Any American Samoa road people out there?

Yeah the territories ones will be hard to vote on. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not leave them out - this is a "state route naming conventions poll". --SPUI (T - C) 05:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Rename the poll to "state and territories route naming conventions poll." </sarcasm> --physicq210 05:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Two questions . . . 1)Does American Samoa even have territorial highways (akin to our state highways)? 2)Is there an American Samoa Routes WikiProject? That is all. --myselfalso 05:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

They only have 3 routes, why not just keep it like it is "American Samoa Highway xxx". I don't think anyone would get pissed if we did that... plus, none of their articles have been written yet. <humor> Anyone want to venture into a American Samoa Routes Wikiproject!? </humor> By the way, here is the list: List of highways in American Samoa. --TinMan 05:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

They do - common naming might be AS001,[3] Highway 001 or American Samoa Highway 001.[4] List of highways in American Samoa shows the marker. --SPUI (T - C) 05:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. One day we may have such a WP :) Or it will stay with WP:USRD. Since we don't have any road people from there... Maybe we should just use the default "<territory> Highway x" since there's no articles. (It can't be a state highway...) If there's any problems later, we can amend this. Let's just not do Kingman Reef highways... or a WikiProject for that :) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rschen7754 and abuse of process

Rschen7754 asked me to "take my whining" here, and I am. I am fundamentally disturbed, not only by the process being undertaken, but by the arrogant and abusive tactics used by Rschen7754 to achieve an arbitrary "consensus" and then shove it down the throats of users nationwide. As explicitly described, New Jersey operates under a stable, and almost entirely complete, standard of Route xx (New Jersey), with all but a few proposed and defunct roadway articles created and virtually every possible redirect created. While invitations were sent out, the fact that there was no stateme statement that this poll will decide how every single road article in the United States will be named or that stable, mutually-agreed-upon, nearly-complete-statewide articles will be disturbed. A review of the discussion that has taken place showed much browbeating and dictator-style tactics, that even managed to cow SPUI into submission. There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with trying to shove a decision down the throat of every Wikipedia user updating road articles nationwide, when there was no explanation up front as to the goals, missions and reprecussions of the one-sided process that transpired. Am I the only user who sees a problem here? Alansohn 01:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he's being a dictator about this. If anything, he's being direct and keeping this shit on track. I started editing road articles apparently after the ArbCom in May(?) so I haven't experience, directly, the brunt of this crap; but from what I've gone back and read this whole thing has been a fiasco from day 1. The ArbCom wanted a decision made and only encouraged consensus. Even if a statement was made about the poll (without specifics), on a particular state project page, it would behoove those related to such project to scope things out. While I'm not in 100% agreement with the way things have been handled, given how things have gone in the past, this is moving along fairly well all things considered. At this point I think the vast majority of us involved in state road projects want to get this settled and put it behind us so we can continue doing useful things, like, oh I dunno, editing articles? Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 01:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. There has been too much arguing over something so @#$@ing trivial. I mean, it is highway naming conventions, something that should be at the backs of mines of editors more so than it has not been. This is a process that is going as directed and very well, I might add, because ArbCom directed us to come to a conclusion once and for all. We want to get this done and move on with this, because a lot of editors have quit in frustration over the disruptions made by one or two editors in the past - we don't want to lose any more over this. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand the intentions; I question the practice. Just a few bon mots from Rschen7754 from this article:

"I will consider this provocation if this issue is pressed any further"

"You are irking a lot of us to the point that many admins will block for any more silliness that happens here"

"There we go with trying to create loopholes again. I'm about to withdraw support for Kansas and Michigan having an exception."

The browbeating and bullying from Rschen7754 continues with the poll, on talk pages and elsewhere. Let's achieve a genuine consenus by dealing with those states that are at issue and leaving those states (New Jersey and others) that have mutually-accepted solutions that still provide redirects that meet all principles. Alansohn 01:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that is wrong. Kansas and Michigan have exceptions to the process listed elsewhere, and some supporters of Principle II want to see this exception granted to many other states for non-valid reasons because the majority did not vote in their favour. Remember the outrage that occured after the majority voted for Principle I and the chaos that ensued when one SPUI refused to acknowledge the process as legitimate?

I wholeheartedly support the blocking of any user for 10 hours if they try and disrupt the process. ArbCom wants us to come to a conclusion as swiftly as possible with an agreeable consensus by the parties involved, and if that means losing one or two editors because of their silliness, then that is fine with me. Others have expressed support in this, and an administrator has as well because no one user is indispensible to this project. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Out of all the people I've seen, not even SPUI has used such negative words as Alansohn's about my actions or this poll. Your actions are probably the most disturbing out of all those I've seen, SPUI included. At least SPUI came to a consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not come to a consensus; I was forced into one. --SPUI (T - C) 02:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A compromise, I mean. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I was forced into said compromise. --SPUI (T - C) 02:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well you were willing to, but the point is, you didn't use as strong of words as Alansohn did. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most if not all of what he said. --SPUI (T - C) 02:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Me too. atanamir 02:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I additionally quote from my talk page: "You indicated that the New Jersey articles were to be changed "<New Jersey> Route xx - Converting current convention to P1." On what authority? When was there an invitation to participate in this process, as you had indicated? Why is an arbitrary process being shoved down the throats of a longstanding WikiProject, founded almost a year ago, that has accomplished together what is likely the most thorough set of road articles of any state in the country? Alansohn 00:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)" I'm sorry, but it takes a lot of nerve to say that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, more quotes, this time from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration:

* There have been a minority of participants who have continued to argue that there is not a normal consensus here and who have ignored the above consensus to accept majority. Their actions have, in my view, been disruptive. DOES arbcom agree that arguing against this principle constitute disruption of the process?

Yep, playing games. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The forum participants have developed a process in which everyone votes to determine opinion, and then a set of (admin) judges interprets the vote and decides what the outcome (what principle shall hold) shall be I adjudge consensus for that process. DOES ArbCom agree? Is agitating against the process disruptive?

disagreeing, no. agitating , yes Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have expressed concern about the process, and after questioning the solution and the process encountered the bullying tactics that other users encountered in their effort to "achieve a consensus". Resorting to nuclear tactics, a statement that supports "blocking of any user for 10 hours if they try and disrupt the process" is a demonstration that this seems to me to be part of an effort to impose a solution, not to agree on one. Rschen7754 explicitly asked me to take what he derisively called "whining" here, and I did. If this is an effort to reach a consensus, let's try to achieve one. If it's a tiny clique abusing the process, there's something fundamentally wrong. Alansohn 02:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We have already come to a solution, thank you very much. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No binding decisions. --SPUI (T - C) 02:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, we have come to a solution. If someone puts this up for debate again, I guarantee that people will not be happy, look at the comments above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As SPUI indicates, it's clear that there is no real "consensus", let alone a solution. Even if there were, the process clearly seems throughly tainted by threats and abuse of process, as documented above, and the bullying continues to escalate. Let's address the issue and come to a genuine solution that all can abide by as part of a real discusssion with full participation and none of the attacks. When will the threats stop???? Alansohn 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in the admin discussion:

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.

Concensus is community agreement. Concensus is to stop this debate, in the process that has taken place. To say that there is not an agreement because you disagree is not how mediation or arbitration works. As stated above and below, this is a discussion of standards in naming roads. A standard must be adopted, and as a wise person once said "A good compromise is when no one leaves happy." Neither Rschen or SPUI will win this. The consequence of failing to come to an agreement for all of this will be more ArbCom applications and further time spent away from other aspects of the project, from editors to admins to arbitrators and probably even Jimbo following along. Teke ^(talk) 03:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not leaving happy. Besides the bad faith generated on all sides, it sure is a pain to have those redirects and the linking to them. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your upcoming departure is regrettable in the worst way. What is as regrettable is that an argument over how to name roads has come this far, from both sides. This could have/should have ended long ago, but it's too late to change that. Can both sides just say below that it's over? Because it has to be; there is nothing left to argue in the pages and pages of discussion (which took me a better part of an hour to wade through). Rschen, SPUI: give up the warring, let the next two parts run their course. Whatever the outcome continued conflict will get both of you blocked, should more pursuits be made by other parties they can be blocked for WP:POINT. And yes, I am willing to be the one to do it should it be a necessary intervention. Teke ^(talk) 03:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I will be happy, more than happy, to leave things the way they are now. (What I meant by "I'm not leaving happy" was referring to your remark about consensus). A compromise is formed, and I am willing to follow it, let stuff run its course, etc. Note that I've been crying "leave things be" all this time. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not make those threats above, they were taken directly from Arbitration. If you're not aware, they are very influential on Wikipedia. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments are both disrupting this process and creating a lot of bad will all around here, starting the wars with Principle I against II. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So, if there's been no pre-existing debate over New Jersey's long-standing and apparently stable status quo page names, why the fuss over them? Just leave the articles be. Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I think there's a lot of people here who are far too focused on the idea of "winning" this debate rather than creating stable and generally acceptable article names. FCYTravis 03:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not fair for the other states such as Wisconsin that must change over. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So, what? If there's no dispute over names in a certain state, why create a dispute over them where none existed before? That's just asking for more contention, dissension and general ugliness. It's not going to help Wikipedia to start more arguments. If there's a dispute about names in a certain state, resolve it. If there's no dispute, why in the world would you go looking for one? It makes no sense. FCYTravis 03:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We have already agreed upon a compromise. They are still complaining. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you notify the WikiProject dedicated to New Jersey State and County Routes that there was this "agreement" - did you give them the opportunity to let you know that they had already come up with an agreeable and consistent naming system for their roads... or are you just bound and determined to dictate to them what they can do? It looks like the latter, because you failed to post on that project's talk page until after you were already ready to impose upon them "principle 1" or whatever. You are creating bureaucracy where none need exist. If the local WikiProject has a consistent, agreed-upon naming system, I see absolutely no reason to completely change it around backwards out of some alleged misguided notion of "consistency." All that does is create more ill-will, spur more flame wars and generally screw things up. If it's not broken (and it's not), why try and "fix" it against the apparent wishes of those who edit the articles? Honestly, it's like pouring gasoline on a forest fire. Argue over the articles that need to be argued over, not the articles that are just fine where they are. Unless you just like the conflict. FCYTravis 03:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I invited them all to take part in the discussion. I don't think any did. I know I inivted Alansohn. Furthermore, what is your reason for continuing to argue this? Let's just accept the compromise and move on. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What's your reason for continuing to argue this? Just let the existing NJSR status quo remain, because clearly nobody objected to it before. By continuing to insist that they change long-standing names for no other reason than "consistency," you appear to me to be more interested in winning a battle than creating workable state route names. FCYTravis 04:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We've agreed upon a compromise. I see no reason to continue the battle. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Then we agree. There's no reason to continue battling over something as unimportant as NJ state route names. The status quo was uncontentious, and there's no reason to start a fight over them remaining at their current names. Let it go, Louie, let it go. FCYTravis 04:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the compromise between me, SPUI, Polaron, and others. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay now it sounds like this is a conflict of interest, but why not just end discussion on who threatened who? This is a state route naming conventions poll, last I heard. There was probably wrongdoing or at least hot tempers on both sides. Let's get back to naming highways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the point here?

Honestly. What is the point of bringing all this up again? Here we have two options:

Bring this crap up again. Bring dissension and blocks and ArbComs and RFCs and Jimbo appeals and all sorts of crap up.
Leave it be and work with the compromise we have.

What shall it be? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that a lot of people disagree with you, and disagree with a 45-37 "consensus" that got input from an infinitesmal fraction of Wikipedians and a majority of less than 10. Do you know how tiny a sample that is? You're attempting to turn this into a fiat mandate, and I find it nothing of the sort. If it was 450-37, you'd have a point. But it's not. You've got to quit treating this as a fait accompli. Trying to unilaterally implement things with such a weak majority is asking for trouble. FCYTravis 03:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the admin comments? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume they didn't and chose not to help participate in the process. After all, it is easier to bicker and whine about it after the fact than it is to actively participate in the initial discussion. All they are doing is trying to stir the pot around and see who they can irritate the most. If this doesn't quit, and the whining doesn't subside, I'm going to ask for an intervention. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to read the admin comments to know that a 45-37 "consensus" isn't grounds to go unilaterally imposing stuff everywhere unless you want to create a lot of righteous conflict. You can't dismiss this as all "dead-ender" terrorists intent on destroying precious consensus. The majority was all of 8 people out of fewer than 100 voting, out of uncountable thousands of Wikipedians. That's not a mandate where I come from. FCYTravis 04:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What you're advocating is Principle 3, "leave everything to the states", right? That received 3 votes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What I'm advocating is that if there's a status quo set of pages not in contention - that is, before this whole mess, nobody was arguing about their names - that we refrain from running around changing them. Where names were previously the subject of edit wars and divisive battles, this naming conventions thing is a good idea. But by extending this to places where there were no fights, you are creating ill will, bad blood and hatred for no good reason. Please, give me a good reason why the NJSR page names need to be changed. Are they wrong? Are there edit wars over them? If not, why would we want to break something that's currently working, just so we can fix it again? FCYTravis 04:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Rschen could have said it more diplomatically, but what he is trying to do here is to not have any holes unplugged. If we were to leave the New Jersey highway naming convention as it is now, in the future, someone may use the "exception" as an example of the "uselessness" of whatever convention comes out of this and we'll just be back at square 1. See the city names debate if you want an example. --physicq210 04:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

FCYTravis, just to be clear... a mandate is not required here. Consensus would have been nice and it is how we NORMALLY do things but this is different. ArbCom has spoken. What is mandated is that a solution be arrived at. A poll was held. The admin judges all ratified that a majority selected principle 1. My take, which I have asked for clarification on, is that there is, or was, a consensus to accept the majority, this one time. What is needed now, after the fact, is for everyone to work together, including those that maybe weren't as involved during the process but came later, to make this work. Or else those that work against working this out will be blocked until only reasonable people remain. That's not the way we do things normally but this has gone on long enough. Figure out how to make this work for NJ and go along. If that means setting up redirects to match principle 1, and not changing the article names, that works for me. But we want a standard pattern is my read on what principle 1 is saying. ++Lar: t/c 04:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith (again)

Could we all please assusme good faith here and work together? I just got back online and I see that things are starting to veer away from everyone working together again. Let's stop saying that other people aren't working together, and instead do our part to make sure WE are. Remember what I said above, because I'm gonna be a pain about it... maybe I'll lose my sysop bit over it but I don't care. I want closure and I don't care who I have to block to get it. My thinking is if anyone alleges anyone else isn't working together... I'll block both parties and let it go to AN/I instead of digging into whose fault it is. That's a messed up strategy isn't it? I know it is. Totally unfair, and heck, even gameable, and not the way we do things here normally. But there you are. I just don't care whose fault it is any more. ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to assume good faith and wish that it had been reciprocated. The problem is that this process has been throroughly contaminated with bullying tactics that just don't stop. Above and beyond the threats and browbeating are incidents where Rschen7754 protected a page on his own where he was directly involved in the matter. I have no issue in applying this "consensus" to states where there is no accepted policy or where edit wars are occurring. In the many states that have stable policies, leave them be. The suggestion has been made as constructively as possible and has been met with "If someone puts this up for debate again, I guarantee that people will not be happy". If I were an Italian in the waste management field on The Sopranos, this would be a poorly written line. On Wikipedia, this is abuse, plain and simple.

If consensus is that Rschen7754 has acted fairly and reasonably, then I will back off - Lar, just give me the word. If the record demonstrates that this "consensus" was achieved improperly by abusing fundamental Wikipedia policies and procedures, then the only reasonable thing to do is to reopen the poll in a clean and honest fashion. Alansohn 04:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Name the times that I have "bullied." Why do I have users backing me up? And WP:ANI backs my actions up. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the evidence you provide to support your claims of misconduct are not evidence of "abusive tactics." They seem more to be evidence of frustration boiling over rather than a sinister plotting to attain dictatorial powers over nothing. --physicq210 04:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, knock it off. This is exactly what I am talking about. I don't care who is right. As it turns out Rschen is partly right in that he was quoting from stuff that has been said, but maybe could have been quite a bit more mellow, and also there is reasonableness in asking whether this has to apply to states where they already have a different convention. That said.. We're not going to reopen the poll. What everyone needs to do is reasonably and amicably work out how this applies state by state, in a spirit of compromise and working together, or I WILL GO GONZO ON THE LOT OF YOU. Babies, bathwater, the whole enchilada. You don't have to sing kumbaya and hold hands, that part I will let slide, but no more bickering. at this point it is totally not about who was right, it is about getting this mess over with. ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sorry, Physicq210 was on the right track, I was a little frustrated. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Really I need to ask what is easier at this point. If we let New Jersey slide then we have to let other states slide. Then we have to discuss which states follow P2 and P1, and that will take even more time. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Are there many other states which have long-standing current WikiProject-based naming conventions which contravene P2 and P1, and whose WikiProject members vehemently disagree with the names slated to be assigned to them? Let's get an idea of the scope of this issue. FCYTravis 04:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the only state resisting the proposed changes is New Jersey. --physicq210 04:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wisconsin did above, and if they see this discussion, I suspect that they will ask for an exemption too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that then we're opening a loophole, and states such as Connecticut and Florida will ask, then where will it end? We get a Principle 3. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, ask CT and FL. Do their WikiProjects generally agree with the names they have now, or are there existing edit wars over those state highway page names? If there are existing edit wars, solve them with an imposed naming convention based on the previous vote. I have no problem with using the conventions to solve problems and stop edit wars. But where there have been no edit wars, there is no reason to break stuff so we can fix it again, in the process creating more conflict, discord and hatred. FCYTravis 04:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well okay then what about GA? And then AL? And MA? And DE? ME? OK? TX? Do you see what a mess that creates? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you see what a mess you're creating by imposing a unilateral convention on people who never even discussed, let alone agreed to, this convention? The naming conventions are supposed to stop edit wars and create harmony - by imposing them on states which have no current problems, you're creating disharmony and potentially fomenting edit wars. FCYTravis 05:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There won't be edit wars regardless since ArbCom has decided to block anyone edit warring over names. And they were given a chance to participate. I gave anyone on WP:USRD or state highway projects an invitation to participate. I did. It took me like 2 hours to do. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you give one guy a discount, everybody else will want one too. There's 50 states... how many have exeptions? This seems to remind me of the American Civil War. We're splitting. --TinMan 04:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, what's the problem with splitting, if in doing so we avoid edit wars, discord and hatred? FCYTravis 04:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue of" creating a mess" is entirely reversed. The handful of states with stable alternative formats are the ones that have done the most work on creating the articles once they agreed upon a format. Changing the rules in midgame for these states only messes up those states more than any benefit that might be achieved. Let's define it: Principle 3: Those states with a demonstrable, agreed-upon alternative standard may retain such standard, as long as redirects meeting Principle 1 and/or Principle 2 are provided for all roadways in such state. Other than NJ and WI, are there any other states that have definitive alternative standards that would benefit from Principle 3?. Alansohn 05:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That flies in the face of consensus. That got 3 votes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that was stupid of all of us. That's the problem with single-select voting. I should have voted for 3, given the discord created since then. Let existing consensuses remain, and use Principle 1 to fix places where there are edit wars. This will effectively implement Principle 1 while respecting consistent and stable decisions made by state WikiProjects. FCYTravis 05:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

After a discussion with lar off-wiki, I support this, provided all such redirects are created and maintained. Any state where there is an existing edit war or other conflict shall have Principle 1 names imposed upon them. FCYTravis 05:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this because it would circumvent the process we have going. We had a huge discussion, took a poll reading, and had the admins make their decisions. End of story. If you don't like it, you should have voiced your opinion then rather than now because it won't do a damn bit of good here. All you are doing is stirring the pot, disrupting the solution we are trying to gain, and cause controversy. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Seicer, I don't see how, if redirects are put in place to implement Principle 1 naming conventions, that is disruptiong the solution. I'm trying not to take any positions on this so I'm not taking sides, but I see someone who was resisting now offering compromise. Let's embrace that. Some of what you're saying is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, I strongly oppose this too. This is not what was voted on, and this flies in the face of the compromise and consensus. This is throwing the whole vote in the trash. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(Dang, I couldn't put this in here because of all the edit traffic) All of you trying to prevent a solution here should be ashamed of yourselves. Rschen7754 has my full support at this point since he has demonstrated absolutely none of the crimes any of you have charged him with. As far as I can see, these accusations are nothing but trying to stall the process. I would like to remind everyone that when we voted, we all agreed that we would all support whatever decision came out of this. We voted, the admins voted, and Principle 1 was chosen. If Principle 2 was chosen, I would be more than happy to help in any way I could to put it into effect. There was ample time for any discussion or any objections. Now that voting is over, I don't see a reason why we can't compromise with links and the small details, but that does NOT mean that we are throwing the poll away because some people don't like it. No, that would be foolish and useless. Any solution at this point is better than nothing at all. I say that anyone else who is trying to overturn what has already been decided should be ignored. This is my opinion. I appologize for my tone, but I believe it was necessary. --TinMan 04:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. People had plenty of time to cast their vote, engage in discussion, and discuss the policies beforehand. Any attempts to derail the process should be stopped in its tracks, and the users starting said discussions should be ignored. Let's discuss Principle I since that was chosen, not why you think Principle II or III is better, or why this poll is flawed, or why there should be exceptions. That was decided long ago when the said derailers never bothered to bring it up. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Some off wiki discussion leads me to believe that we're about to get back on track and I can put my can of block-___ away for tonight. I don't think that it is invalid for someone to raise implementation concerns and explain why they are issues, as long as it doesn't result in back and forth with no discernable way to resolve it. But I think a compromise is about to be mooted that will go a long way to address some of these implementation issues for NJ and WI. Let's not cast aspersions on who came to the discussion when, let's continue working together, and let's not dismiss ideas out of hand if they are put forth in a spirit of trying to implement what was agreed on. ++Lar: t/c 05:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Things have calmed down, that is true. But I'm not sure what you're referring to. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Got a question...

Considering that a) people have offered to do all the work of moving pages and b) editors can still use the pipe trick, I don't see what the problem is of a state having to move its pages. Is there something I'm missing? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll#Problems with Principle I, specifically point 1. It keeps us from having to tell people to use the parenthetical links. --SPUI (T - C) 06:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but on a state-wide scale... if everyone's making the switch... We've addressed a lot of these with the compromise. But for a state that's "the most complete" as they say... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So we're going to tell every editor that might have occasion to link to one of New Jersey's state highways? That includes links from New Jersey towns, rivers, mountains, ... --SPUI (T - C) 06:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tell, or fix? If there are appropriate redirects set up, it doesn't seem to matter to me but I'm perhaps missing something. Also, bots these days can fix all sorts of things quite easily. Is this a showstopper issue or can it be worked through with some compromise? ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We want people to write "Route 27 crosses the Raritan River at New Brunswick, New Jersey", not "New Jersey Route 27 crosses the Raritan River at New Brunswick, New Jersey". The former is more likely when the article is at Route 27 (New Jersey). --SPUI (T - C) 14:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I would ask someone else more knowledgable to comment but my perspective is that this is a pretty small deal all in all, fixable with bots, or pipe tricks, or pointers to style guides once they are widely accepted, and definitely not a reason not to implement. Besides I actually don't think the "not" phrasing is bad. It's just a little wordier. ++Lar: t/c 14:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a reason - a better reason than Rschen7754 has for changing it. The "not" phrasing is bad - the name of the highway is Route 17, not New Jersey Route 17. Bots can't help unless we're not going to allow any links to New Jersey Route 17. --SPUI (T - C) 14:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) When you say "the name of the highway is Route 17, not New Jersey Route 17" it sounds to me like you're reopening the closed discussion on Principle I. Please tell me you're not doing that, it got you blocked before, and if you give me reason to believe you're reopening this, instead of working productively (including proposing compromises, workarounds and other ideas to meet folks part way and make this all work) you're pushing my buttons.

Sorry to threaten, and it's not just directed at you, but I seriously am not kidding. Any signs that anyone is arguing instead of trying to find working solutions and compromising and moving this all forward will be looked at very unfavorably. Assume I'm clueless about roads and don't really care which solution is "right", just that I want "A" solution that can be implemented and I want everyone to work toward that solution without any arguing. Avoid even the APPEARANCE of arguing, even if you (any of you) are sure that what you are saying isn't argument, and assume that I'm just itching to hand out irrational blocks at the slightest provocation. Heck, maybe I am, you can't really be sure... why risk it? ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, most if not all of us agree that the name is simply Route 17 - that's why the option is <New Jersey> Route 17 and not New Jersey Route 17.

And keeping New Jersey where it is is a perfectly working solution. --SPUI (T - C) 15:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, but look at the thread above... to someone that ultimately doesn't care which answer is chosen, you look like you're arguing for a particular outcome rather than working to find a compromise. Assume I'm an irrational maniac looking for any excuse to block you, and word your remarks that way. (I'm not, but assume I am)... This is not the way things normally are on WP, but for now, for this one topic, we are going to get this done and behind us. So, elaborate how exactly keeping "keeping New Jersey where it is" works, explain it as a solution and what has to be done, instead of having it read like you're arguing a point. Assume I'm a moron that doesn't recognise subtlety well (I'm not, but assume I am), and spell out exactly what the compromise, the thing to do, the change, whatever, actually is. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What has to be done? Nothing. Just keep New Jersey where it is. --SPUI (T - C) 15:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Explain (in small simple words) how that is congruent with principle I, and who has to do what, and how it's a compromise, without ever once using the terms "right", "wrong" or "better" or "worse", and you're golden. ++Lar: t/c 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What's with the arbitrary adherence to principle I? The line has already been crossed with Kansas and Michigan. New Jersey similarly does not put the state name in front. --SPUI (T - C) 16:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, even New York newspapers simply say "Route 17" when referring to the road in New Jersey.[5][6] --SPUI (T - C) 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. That's arguing one phrasing is better than the other. "bzzt", wrong answer. Let me know when you get the principle at work here... I no longer care which is better. But for now you pushed my buttons when I explicitly told you not to. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you think you're doing here, but it's not helping. --SPUI (T - C) 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 15 minutes, I told you not to argue. Work out how to implement this, in 15 minutes. ++Lar: t/c 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your message was loud and clear - I'm not wanted here on this page. I'll leave consensus to you grown-ups. --SPUI (T - C) 16:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That was not at all the message. Your positive, consensus building, constructive contributions are very much wanted on this page. But arguing, by any participant, is not. That was the message. In my judgement you were arguing and I wanted it to stop, and the block was intended as a preventative measure, to get you to stop disrupting. As I said on your talk page, I understand and respect if you cannot participate in this most unusual (for this wiki) and ultimately unfortunate, process. But the process will go forward until and unless someone bindingly tells me to stop. And at the end of it, you and everyone else will have to accept the outcome, somehow (by editing under it, or by choosing to edit elsewhere, or by choosing not to participate in the project at all). ++Lar: t/c 18:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm hesitant to step in this hot tub, but here goes anyway. The New Jersey route article titles must change to comply with P1 unless for some reason the don't have to. Your pipe trick links to Route 11 are fine with basically everyone here since it will only display "Route 11", the accepted common name. Note that this is P2 and will only be accepted if P1 is allowed to be the main title. It's a mix between the two principles and I thought everyone here understood that. Am I understanding this clearly? Is this what we've all agreed to and are trying to work toward? --TinMan 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this the generally accepted view at this point? ++Lar: t/c 18:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No. I continue to maintain that existing state WikiProject consensus names should be respected unless there are current edit wars over the titles. There is absolutely no sense in creating more conflict where none currently exists. Use Principle 1 to impose names on current conflicts, but leave current consensus names where they are, creating P1 and P2 redirects where they don't already exist. This is the compromise proffered by Alansohn and I think it clearly makes the most sense and creates the least conflict. FCYTravis 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Nod. When you and I talked last nite that was what I thought the compromise was, don't insist that existing things need to be moved immediately as long as redirects could paper over the differences, and that most people were on board with it. MY take on this is what matters is consistency for people searching or browsing, and redirects are cheap. Over time, why not move everything to be in alignment with P1, (with bots) but not necessarily right away. ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with FCYTravis. The poll is a weak basis for imposing changes where there is no demonstrated necessity. For a long term perspective, my prediction is that once all the hot air dissipates and the current poll is a dim memory and the current antagonists have moved on to do other things, other editors will come along and wonder why some of the state road articles use names that no one else actually uses and the circle will go around all over again. older ≠ wiser 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is Annoying

I have a lack of understanding here. I was under the impression that we had reached a compromise. Then, people from the NJ WikiProject come and are pissed because they have to change their articles to fit Principle I. 1) They don't have to do it themselves.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, this debate needs to end. A definition needs to be adopted that establishes what a state route article should be named. Principle I took a majority of the vote (albeit not 2/3rds), and Principle I was acknowledged by the Admins. I agree that this is a weak majority and consensus, but - and much more importantly - I think that No Binding Decisions can no longer apply.

If this arguing doesn't stop, then I think this whole thing should be shut down. What is being accomplished by this apparently neverending bickering?

Also, if there are no binding decisions, then what the hell is the point of this poll to begin with? Why does anyone have to follow any convention?

Then I suppose that's why the whole edit war began in the first place.

This bickering needs to end. You people aren't accomplishing anything by this.

--myselfalso 15:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please let the hardass here handle this... I may agree with you, ok? But let's have all the bad feeling at people calling people arguers and threatening blocks directed at me instead of everyone, so you can all hate me and then get this done in spite of my threatening you every time you all go in the weeds... ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

PS it's my read the people from the NJ project have come around and have figured out a compromise that will work for them and everyone else... ++Lar: t/c 15:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's good. If not, then we may have to invade New Jersey and overthrow the regime. =) Like I said earlier, granting exceptions is worse than upsetting one state because of the snowball effect; more and more states will want exceptions. But, if there's a consensus over there a NJ, so be it. --TinMan 16:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just telling the facts, and posing legit questions. At this point, I feel like the NJ project should be granted an exception and let it be left at that. --myselfalso 15:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care. If everyone is on board with that, great. But no arguing about it. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not on board with it. The whole intent (for me) of going with PI over PII was to have consistency among all of the state highway articles. So that someone browsing via whatever method (category, in-article links, whatever) can have a consistent user experience, and know exactly what state he/she is "in" with a quick glance at the title. Powers ^T 18:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We already do not have consistency among all of the state highway articles - it's an impossible dream, and one which shouldn't even be aspired to, given the fact that all states do not have consistency in their usage. By continuing to insist upon forcing existing agreed consensus titles to change, this mess is growing and creating more conflict instead of resolving it. Use Principle 1 to resolve outstanding edit wars and move battles - not create more discord and infighting where none existed before. FCYTravis 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it impossible though? Bots can do many wondrous things. I see that there are two camps here, still... one saying that P1 applies across the board (except for two states named off at the time P1 was up for a vote) and article titles, leads, etc all have to change, to conform. The other camp is saying P1 applies where it needs to, and that those two states are not the only ones that need not have P1 apply. Is that a correct statement of a problem here? If it is how do we resolve it? I THOUGHT that it was resolved by compromise, that some combination of renaming, redirects, piped links and so forth would paper over this for every state. Could folks please clarify? ++Lar: t/c 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So did I. That's where my lack of understanding (see first post, this section) comes from. --myselfalso 19:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If the intention was to end edit wars, then Principle III: Those states with a demonstrable, agreed-upon alternative standard may retain such standard, as long as redirects meeting Principle I and/or Principle II are provided for all roadways in such state goes a long way to solving the problem, as discussed with Lar. Let's achieve a compromise that allows those few states with settled standards to stay as is and allow all other states to chose Principle I or II to resolve their issues. Let's reach a compromise and move on. Alansohn 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that the intention was to gain a more consistent look and feel across the projects, and the result, or byproduct in this case, would be to end edit warring -- not that the intention was to end edit warring. — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 20:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Could those states with settled standards eventually move to P1? Can you all work this out or do the admin judges need to come in and make (impose) a decision? Note that it's P1 or a modified P1, not P2, as I see it, that are the alternatives. P2 is out, it was rejected, part 1 is over, and you are wrangling about how to apply P1. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the admin judges need to impose a decision. It's the only way that things are going to get accomplished, in my opinion. I was under the impression this fighting was done, and obviously it has continued. --myselfalso 20:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they could, and I think that's a question to settle in the future. Let's deal with one battle at a time. If there are still people bound and determined to impose this poll's results on states which have not had previous conflicts, worry about that later. Let's focus on implementing Principle 1 in the areas where no previous consensus existed, and hence clearly some sort of new resolution is desperately needed. FCYTravis 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) Is there a consensus to do this, or to not do this? Can it be arrived at quickly if it doesn't yet exist? If either of those two is true, great. If not, I think canvassing the other admin judges and imposing a decision is the way to go. Let's call the question for this time tomorrow. If by then there is clear consensus I won't ask the other admins to decide and impose. Can someone frame the question clearly? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 21:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, at this point, I just want to keep the process (or what's left of it) moving forward, as I have one state I'm heavily involved in whose naming convention is in question (route vs. highway). There's a weak issue about P1 vs. P2 for that state, but not like the others who are struggling. Since really none of the states I am working on are at issue with the P1/P2 to the degree of other states, I will go with the majority, just to keep this moving forward...but ultimately I'd like to see much more conformity with the overall naming structure (P1 being my choice). — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 21:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but P1 ("The format of all state highway article titles shall be [State Name] [Road Term] XX with the exception of Kansas and Michigan ") doesn't speak to Route vs. Highway, does it? Those are "Road Term"s ... so that's a part ii Vote. If your state is either already in compliance with P1 or has by consensus decided it is going to change to be in compliance with P1, it seems to me you can get on with voting about part 2 (for example Alaska is voting already on "<Alaska> Highway X" vs. "<Alaska> State Route X" ) and even with implementing. Is your state actually unclear about P1 vs P2 for part 1? That is, what did you mean by "weak issue" ? ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, didn't mean to confuse the issue. About the end of July, prior to the beginning of this debate, we had an issue where someone (not on the list of members for WP:OHSH) was proposing the renaming of all articles to a Principle II format without consultation or consensus. I wasn't even greatly involved yet – and subsequently these proposals were removed. And Ohio was never referred to in any of the debates as being, for lack of a better term, a "high-issue" project. All members of WP:OHSH who voted in Part 1 chose Principle I, and no one on the project has expressed issue with this principle. My point was that this controversy that surfaced before the actual debate started was the minor issue, and that I just want to get through Part 2 so that we can fully continue working on the project once changes (if any are needed) are complete. — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I think you lot are completely sorted then, as they say in the UK. If you all voted for P1, if you're currently AT P1, adn no one is in controversy about it anyway (which doesn't matter, you're already at P1 anyway), it seems to me you should go on about voting on part 2, and implement the result and be on your merry way. If you need admins to certify the outcome, I don't see why that can't be done for your state once it's time regardless of whether there are lags for states not currently in P1 or not wanting to be in P1 or arguing about whether they are arguing or not, or whatever... no need to wait in my view. Helps? ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It helps – I'm just counting on the stability that I hoped would be created by the outcome of Part 1 to solidify the OHSH project, so that the issue that occurred prior to August doesn't happen again. The person who started that issue is a huge proponent of P2. My fear, I guess, is that with all this nonsense continuing on and on, that someone's going to come along and blow this whole thing away, and we'll be left to our own devices once again. I just want us to be able to have this as a basis for moving forward in the direction we're already heading. Does that make sense? I'm trying not to stir the pot, trying not to create ire...I'm trying to patiently wait for the aftershocks to end, that's all. — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 20:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have sent a headsup to the other judging admins that they need to start reading these threads more closely as we are now almost at the deadline I imposed and I don't see the consensus yet. Until we admins actually start voting, you could still sneak a consensus in under our noses though! ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Find mutually acceptable solutions in conflicts"

To quote from the lead paragraph of WP:NBD, "In order to reach the best possible decisions, we hold it important to listen carefully to each other's arguments, and to try to find mutually acceptable solutions in conflicts. Polls are the exception and not the rule, and where they do exist they are not binding [emphasis in original]". I'm also tired of the bickering and have offered Principle III: Those states with a demonstrable, agreed-upon alternative standard may retain such standard, as long as redirects meeting Principle I and/or Principle II are provided for all roadways in such state as a means of achieving consenus. Every single article for every single existing road in New Jersey is already accessible via redirect to the titles dictated by both Principle I and Principle II. We only gain as a group by achieving a genuine consensus that can be accepted by a far greater majority than the existing "consensus". Alansohn 22:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the consensus you mention is most likely not possible to attain due to the current environment. Hence we have to work with an arbitrary decision, as told by WP:ANI and a member of ArbCom. --physicq210 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm only being realistic here. I like your idea, but it really can't be achieved if everyone's tempers were flaring only months ago. --physicq210 23:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why can't it? If it also includes the notion that over time there will be migration to principle I for articles, just not right away, wouldn't that do? Why would that not satisfy everyone and allow us to move on? ++Lar: t/c 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any migration principle is acceptable, if it's stated as an immutable fait accompli. I believe that if we stipulate that beginning in 90 days, a discussion will be opened up among state WikiProjects with stable naming conventions as to whether or not they'd like to change their names to fit Principle 1, that accomplishes what we're trying to do. Simply saying "we'll do all this moving whether you like it or not, but we might do it later" is not particularly a compromise in my opinion. Nor is it likely to assuage any fears. We are dealing with separate issues here. One is the idea of imposing new standards on states which cannot themselves agree on their road names without dissolving into move wars and ArbCom cases. That, I believe, is an idea with which none of us disagree because it finally settles existing battles. The further idea, that we should begin imposing these new outside standards on states which have existing longstanding and uncontroversial standard naming policies, I believe, is a far more contentious issue which presents us with the prospect of more conflict and inflamed passions. We ought to let sleeping dogs lie. FCYTravis 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As I stated, the reason why we want to change every state, stable or not, is that we don't want this mess to be brought up again in the future. Perhaps someday a future Wikipedian editor may come by and say "hey, look, New Jersey has a different convention than other states, why don't we change Wisconsin too? And, hey, look, since there's an 'exception' and 'this violates WP:NC(CN),' let's just chuck the entire convention out the window!" What we will create here is a snowball effect that will only postpone anarchy to some date in the not-to-distant future. --physicq210 00:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But this fundamentally misrepresents the nature of consensus and how wikis work. If people come along a year from now and question the (IMO incredibly narrow-minded) decision represented by the poll, they would have every right to do so and could very well establish a consensus for overturning or refining what was decided. A fear of what might happen is a bad rationale for imposing change where none is needed. older ≠ wiser 00:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

physicq210, future Wikipedia editors will have every right to question and challenge this decision. The idea that virtually no decision is immutable and that everything can be questioned is a fundamental part of Wikipedia thinking. This well might be brought up again in the future, and we can deal with it in the future. For now, let's settle the issues that can clearly be settled - rename state highway pages with contentious, disputed and move-warred names based on Principle 1. FCYTravis 01:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see your points. I stand corrected. --physicq210 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My proposal

New Jersey, and New Jersey only, will be allowed to remain at the current standard for the short term (3-6 months). If Principle I will fall apart, it will fall apart by then. After this, New Jersey must migrate to P1, but may request the help of others. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So essentially, a postponement of implementation? --physicq210 03:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You might as well do it when everyone else has to implement it. And, as far as I'm concerned, there's no reason why ANYONE has to follow Principle I anyway. There's NBD, so what's the point? --myselfalso 03:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Then again, if you want this to end, I think New Jersey should be granted exception entirely. This will fall apart then, when this comes back up . . . if it survives. --myselfalso 03:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to get this to end in a peaceful way (or as much as possible at this point) while still maintaining what the people voted for. As seen above, the NJ people are unwilling to accept the admin-deemed consensus that took place here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes and no, because I read P1 again (see Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part1 and it's not clear to me one way or the other whether it does, or doesn't, mandate conversion of all states, or whether that conversion happens now, later, maybe, only if people feel like it, etc. Those that charge that this poll was imperfect have a point. But tough noogies. I adjudge that there needs to be an agreement on something (in what, 18 hours or so) or the judges will make a decision. I'll give you a preview.. it's likely to be the decision that's easiest to implement, meaning the one that we think most people will go along with rather than the one that's technically easiest because I don't see the technical part as the hard part. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there was room for improvement. Since I usually have difficulty giving directions I think I'll have someone else (like a judging admin) review the poll before it opens next time... Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on the New Jersey thing, as the person who started WP:NJSCR. Alansohn is slightly incorrect when he says that the Route XX (New Jersey) convention was accepted by consensus months/years ago. Most of the articles that were created before that point were titled New Jersey State Highway XX (ex. [7] [8]). These were then moved by SPUI without objection, but also without a consensus building discussion. I have no problem with moving New Jersey's articles to Principle I except for the fact that it would cause inconsistency with the county routes in New Jersey, which cannot be moved to Principle I in the same way. IMHO, consistency within the state in this way would be more important than consistency across states, but if I am disagreed with, that is fine by me. -- NORTH ^talk 05:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that last year all the state highways were at the "<State name> State Highway X" convention. This name is clearly wrong for New Jersey and the existing articles then were indeed all moved by SPUI to the correct names. But this was before any move debates at California and Washington happened. Since the move, (as far as I know), no one who works on the NJ state highways said the new New Jersey names were wrong. That seems like a non-controversial move to me. --Polaron | Talk 13:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is non-controversial in the sense that the term "State Highway" was clearly wrong for the state of New Jersey, and should have been "Route" instead. The controversial part is whether the disambiguating "New Jersey" should go in parentheses or before the name (the current convention Route XX (New Jersey), or the P1 convention New Jersey Route XX. In making that batch of mass moves, he made a non-controversial move and a controversial one all at once. Clever that. -- NORTH ^talk 18:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

To all...

There comes a time when the disadvantages of having so many stressed out and leaving knowlegdable users outweigh the disadvantages of having a bad naming convention. I think that time is coming. Just keep that in mind. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to stop dealing with this highway article stuff until everything settles down. In the meantime, everyone should ask themselves what the primary purpose of the this poll was. Was it to stop the endless naming debates and move warring? Or was it to create an arbitrary universal naming convention? Please think about that and decide whether it is worth fighting with WikiProjects that have not had any naming issues but happen to have names inconsistent with the chosen principle and who prefer to keep their current names. Which is more important to you, peace or universal consistency? I originally suggested this soon after the poll closed but was immediately shot down. I don't understand the need to bring conflict to areas where there was none before. To those who still have the will to stay in this quagmire, good luck. --Polaron | Talk 04:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It was to get something done. Like half the CA articles were at "State Route x (California)" and half were at California State Route x. Something had to be done. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But could this compromise of leaving states that have no controversy alone, except for creating redirects, (and agreeing perhaps to revisit later) work? Would this allow this process to move on? That's my question. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But how do you define "no controversy"? As I pointed out above, to say that there is non-controversial consensus to name articles dealing with state routes in New Jersey Route XX (New Jersey) is actually a misconception. The only reason the New Jersey articles are titled as such is because SPUI performed the same mass moves there that he did in California and Washington; the only difference being that he did not meet such fierce opposition. The lack of such opposition is an indication only that there was not a WikiProject at the time with active users managing the articles; it is not an indication of consensus or lack of controversy. -- NORTH ^talk 11:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the question. Is there a consensus at New Jersey or not? There's controversy right now over New Jersey, and this stuff won't be solved until something is decided on that state. And I don't imagine SPUI will let us know about that supposed mass-move. --TinMan 12:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose there is a consensus, but the fact is is that SPUI moved all the pages from P1 to P2 way back in November, without any kind of debate about it. Of course, there wasn't a NJSR wikiproject either. The structure convention for NJ was established by Alansohn, 22:30, 29 June 2006; that's over six months after the moves. Alansohn is not correct by saying that there is an agreed upon convention; no one has just brought it up to debate because that's just the way it was, because SPUI made the changes long before. When I established WP:PASH, I established the convetion Pennsylvania State Route x. We had a discussion about the naming convention after the project got off the ground, and it was refined to Pennsylvania Route x. This process never happened in NJ. And I'm not saying that it needed to happen either, but the fact is is that it never happened. And if you look at the talk page, you can see that SPUI was making changes despite protests not to make changes. See:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Jersey_State_and_County_Routes --myselfalso 13:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But there was no recorded consensus at the time of SPUI's mass-moves. There was no discussion, no talk, no vote. Not even a nod. This was for the reason you stated above: NJSR Wikiproject was not established. To make a discussion on one route's talk page would have been moot because so few would have seen it. Without the NJSR WP around to engage debates and discussions, SPUI took advantage of a lack of coordination. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No controversy = no complaints at all from any of the regular editors of the articles. I suppose that one could get around this if some of the listed participants of the Project start complaining about the names now, then one could say "see there is controversy in New Jersey so we should definitely apply Principle I." That would then make all this discussion about exempting New Jersey moot. --Polaron | Talk 14:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But why would there be a discussion in the first place? SPUI made the changes long before NJSR existed. When it was established, that was already the convention because SPUI made it the convention before the project existed. And why would anyone care, really? It's just a name. But it became an issue because of SPUI's edit/move wars. And then we had to decide between P1, P2, and P3. So it's an issue for me because I like P1 better than the other two. That's why I voted for P1. At WP:PASH there was a discussion about our convention because ours was too wordy. There was no concept of doing Route 39 (Pennsylvania) and even SPUI didn't propose using that principle for the PASH names. --myselfalso 15:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then, let me explain what happened so we can render all this discussion about New Jersey moot. Prior to the Arbcom case, I staunchly supported naming conventions similar to Principle I in all debates. During the cases, I made my opinion less extreme -- not because I was being convinced of Principle II, but because I wanted to tone things down to be able to discuss things civilly with other editors. I did not vote in Part I of the poll, but do still weakly support Principle I.

I (not Alansohn) created WP:NJSCR in June shortly after the closure of the Arbcom case. Because I didn't feel up to further debate, when creating the structure, I simply maintained the status quo. I am confident that if another editor such as Rschen or JohnnyBGood had created the WikiProject, a debate would have been opened, and the lack of consensus would be more evident.

Possibly every state here has controversy because SPUI mass-moved pages in multiple states. These mass page moves were what caused the original controversy in California and Washington. Just because the controversy is not made blatantly evident does not mean that it does not exist.

See, there is controversy in New Jersey so we should definitely apply Principle I. -- NORTH ^talk 15:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Do the people there NOW think there is controversy? Can we get a quick canvass of that? If the people there now (let that project define "there" or "in good standing" or whatever, however they like) think there is no controversy then the "no controversy" exception to P1 would apply. (assuming people go along with that idea or assuming we admins impose that exception on you) but if there isn't, I'd tend to think NJ would have to convert to P1. The problem with that is that someone that was very rabidly P1 could agitate in a state, "generate" controversy, and then P1 gets imposed. So maybe a snapshot? was there controversy YESTERDAY? if not, new controversy doesn't count... Is any of this making sense? Again, I just want to see you all come to something rather than we impose something, if at all possible. ++Lar: t/c 15:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Define "controversy". The controversy that I describe above has been there since SPUI made his mass page moves in November 2005. Just because new editors to the topic blindly accepted the status quo is not a reason for us to continue to blindly accept it.

Also as I explain above, if I were as vocal as I had been prior to the Arbcom case, then yes, there would be ugly controversy. As it is, there is not-ugly controversy.

I am a person there NOW and I think there is controversy. -- NORTH ^talk 15:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you go, problem solved. There is controversy with the New Jersey highway names so the chosen principle must be applied. Seriously, though, all this could have been avoided if Rschen took on a more diplomatic approach in dealing with Alansohn. Instead of summarily applying Principle I to those non-controversial states, how about we ask the regular editors of those articles to discuss among themselves and decide if they want to keep their current names or not. If they unanimously want to keep their names (i.e. no controversy) then let them. If there is any dissent, then apply Principle I. Does this sound reasonable? --Polaron | Talk 16:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable, but as long as a SPUI mass page move occurred in that state, I would contend that there is controversy. <sarcasm>I suppose it's fortunate then that I'm only a regular editor in Washington, New Jersey, and (to a lesser extent) North Carolina.</sarcasm> -- NORTH ^talk 18:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that unless we are prepared to enforce P1 across the board (which is a possible outcome), what is done is done, and contention in the past is not contention now. It is a Hobson's choice to a certain extent, to say "if there is no controversy, you slide, but if anyone pops up and says you are in controversy, of whatever kind, BANG, you get P1 imposed" But it sort of does suggest that being mellow means avoiding work (by someone...) As TinMan says, is NJ in controversy or not? If you say it is, are you SURE??? because then you get P1 (under this possible plan) whether you want it or not. ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that yes, New Jersey is in controversy, and yes, I am sure of my belief.

Independently of that, I also believe that New Jersey should adopt P1, partly because I lean ever-so-slightly towards supporting P1 in general, but mostly because P3 -- leaving decisions up to the states -- was an option given to the voters and was soundly rejected. P1 on the other hand was approved by more of a majority than Clinton or either Bush had. I know Wikipedia is not a democracy, but this is the closest to consensus we have had on this issue. -- NORTH ^talk 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Why change states with a stable consensus

History is history, but then there's reality. I did not create WP:NJSCR, (Northenglish did), and I encourage any participant in this discussion to pop over to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes#Naming convention and confirm for yourself that we have a standard that WP:NJSCR is following for every single article that has been created: "Articles for state routes are titled Route X (New Jersey). Articles for 500-series county routes are titled County Route X (New Jersey). Articles for other county routes are titled County Route X (Whichcounty County, New Jersey)." This is the standard that we were asked for and that I entered at WP:SRNC and that User:Rschen7754 insisted was incorrect. We have achieved a stable consensus in which every single article for every existing state highway has been created (with every conceivable redirect included). You can even click on Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes/Completion list to see how far we've made it in addressing articles and all redirects. We argue on the talk page, not about the state highway naming convention but about how many junctions to include in infoboxes. In 99% of all articles where these highways are referenced, a link that appears as Route XX leaves no ambiguity as to the fact that it's a New Jersey State Highway. In the extremely limited number of cases where roads cross borders (see some of the upper Delaware River bridge articles or on the NJ/NY border), we refer to the highways as NJ XX meets PA XX, and any ambiguity is addressed. I love the two proposals for those states with no published statndard and/or where edit wars have been occurring. But other than foolish consistency, how does Wikipedia or its users benefit by imposing a standard on those states like New Jersey that gains nothing and will only create additional internal problems and conflict. Let's achive real consensus by adding Principle III: Those states with a demonstrable, agreed-upon alternative standard may retain such standard, as long as redirects meeting Principle I and/or Principle II are provided for all roadways in such state. Alansohn 15:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This would have been more useful on August 8th. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why the admin judges should not impose this? Put this another way, given what I said above about P1 being moot during voting about what states it did or did not apply to and when, letting apparent ambiguity in, why would not this be ultimately less contentious than "P1-KS,MI and everyone else has to convert, not just redirect" ??? I'm not seeing any arguments from anyone against setting up P1 style redirects. Thus casual users would always find their route articles for any state using a common pattern, right? ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I get, this whole thing, as insane as it may be, is about the actual title of the articles adopting a common standard. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 16:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. but I'm asking why the admins shouldn't impose what is in effect, in some ways, P3 and P1 blended? Also, if you can, please try to preserve the discussion order (as evidenced by the timestamps...) you've placed one of your comments in front of an earlier one. No big deal but it does help. ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry bout that, got an edit conflict when I typed that in. As my opinion on your question, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 20:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying that we achieved a "stable consensus" is, as I have explained above, a misconception. Washington also has what could be perceived as a "stable consensus": all articles except for four are located at the Principle II title. However, in Washington this was achieved by Freakofnurture mass moving the pages, and no one could mass move them back because the Arbcom case was in progress and if they did so, they would be blocked. Similarly, we have what could be perceived as a "stable consensus" in New Jersey because SPUI mass moved the pages, and they were not mass moved back because there was a lack of active editors in New Jersey at the time. To repeat myself, just because we've blindly accepted the status quo in the past is not a reason to continue to do so.

Principle III was proposed. It received three votes. -- NORTH ^talk 16:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that 2 of the 3 also had votes for P2. For giggles [9] both Alai and Tjstrf voted for P2 before supporting P3, so P3 only really got one vote. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I, too, thought that the purpose of this whole debate was to gain a common standard across projects. I wish now that P3 had garnered more support than it did, as then, perhaps, we wouldn't be hashing it out like it's a new after-the-fact idea. I would like to see a common, across-the-board standard, but I'm not going to fight tooth-and-nail to get it. Ultimately, I just want to debate to stop, so we can move on with our respective projects with whatever standard is adopted. — Homefryes ^Say•_Do 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting for both also nullifies their vote! hehehe Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I fail to understand how there is a controversy, as Northenglish seems to be advocating. Northenglish created WP:NJSCR and published the standard that he is now indicating is controversial. Regardless of what happened in the past, no one -- not even Northenglish -- can deny that there is a stable standard for every single road in New Jersey. The statndard works and does so effectively. The theatrics are marvelous -- the last minute disclosure that all is not well and good in New Jersey -- but the facts are that Northenglish had the opportunity to revisit this standard when he himself created WP:NJSCR and claiming that there is controversy seems to be a way to manufacture a way to rationalize the failure to reach a real consensus on this matter. As long as articles exist with the titles mandated by ~~Proposals~~ Principals I/II what are we gaining by this entire process other than the imposition of a foolish consistency? Alansohn 17:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have already explained why the current convention at New Jersey does not reflect "stable consensus", and why I did not start debate on the naming convention when I first created the WikiProject.

When you say "as long as articles exist with the titles mandated by Proposals I/II", the problem is that Proposal II was voted on and rejected. By stonewalling this poll by demanding that New Jersey be allowed to follow Principle II instead, what we are losing is the ability to finally put this whole mess behind us. -- NORTH ^talk 17:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And that leads to a point I stated earlier. None of this arguing will ever stop until New Jersey converts to P1. Even if it is granted an exception now, later down the road I'm sure this debate will ensue once again. If the creator of NJ project is insisting on a change to P1 (who is more influential in this case than SPUI or Rschen, etc because he actually founded the project), and another NJ project member disagrees, then we have a controversy. Therefore, NJ does not have a stable consensus and P1 should be imposed. As unfair as it may sound to the dissenters of New Jersey, it's the only fair choice for the proponents around the nation. But like I said earlier, I don't care. Keep your P2 for all I care; just remember that eventually you'll have to give in if you want this madness to stop. Why not do it now rather than later? --TinMan 14:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you give in and stop the madness? Really, it sounds to me like you care more about "winning" this debate than finding solutions. FCYTravis 17:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerns about applying a single uniform convention to all states

It was never made explicitly clear whether the outcome of the poll would apply to all states or only to those with naming debates. Several people have indicated their concern about blindly applying a single convention to all states particularly those with non-contentious names. Here are some examples:

Why don't we just ask the regular editors of those state highway articles with non-contentious names whether they prefer to keep their current names or go with the chosen principle? Asking nicely and not threatening people with being blocked for disruption would go a long way in achieving consensus. --Polaron | Talk 18:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, once the discussion reaches the slightest hint of "inability to reach consensus", it should be closed and Principle I should be adopted. -- NORTH ^talk 18:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Could this canvassing be done relatively quickly? seems like a lot of people to ask. But I'm willing to try anything to avoid imposing, if I can, as long as we can move things along at some pace or another and not get bogged. ++Lar: t/c 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. Canvassing individual WikiProjects to see if they'd like to keep their P2 article titles totally circumvents this poll. We voted. P3 (leaving it up to the states) didn't fly all that well. The editors voted to use P1 for all states. While the announcement posted on users' talk pages was admittedly vague, the poll page itself did make it explicitly clear that this was to apply to all states, including those that already had a set naming convention. See WP:SRNC#Frequently asked questions:

Q: What if a state already has a stable convention?

A: It depends on your definition of "stable." Washington has a "stable" convention because its pages were mass-moved there, and then the move restrictions came, banning further moves. But if you're referring to states such as Maryland that have a convention already discussed.... if the convention follows the new principle then it will ~~most likely~~ be the convention adopted if you can link to a discussion. If it does not, then modifications may be in store.

Emphasis mine of course. -- NORTH ^talk 20:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Washington is a different case than New Jersey. New Jersey had a convention even before any of these naming problems came up. None of the regular editors complained at the time it was moved and none of them complained at any time after that. Also, no proposals to adopt a different name were made when the WikiProject was started. It was mass moved but it was uncontroversial. What if a particular state only had a handful of existing articles? Would that be a mass move? Also note that P3 was not included until late into the voting so that is a flaw in the poll right there. That Q&A does not specifically address states that had their convention set before all this Arbitration stuff came along. --Polaron | Talk 20:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't comparing New Jersey to Washington there; I was actually comparing it to Maryland (which had their convention set before Arbcom came along). (Look at the words I stressed.) The convention in New Jersey, even if we pretend that it was discussed and has consensus, does not follow the new principle, and thus modifications are in store. -- NORTH ^talk 20:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It says "may be in store" so it is not obvious that it has to be moved. Since there was no WikiProject for NJ back then, there was no convenient place for a full discussion. The lack of any hint of opposition from regular editors says that the moves were uncontroversial. Nobody ever asked or attempted to move it back at any time either. Also, what about states where essentially only one person edits the articles? Who should he/she discuss renaming the articles with? In any case, I think NJ has already become controversial since Northenglish (a major NJ editor) prefers to move to a P1-style name. --Polaron | Talk 20:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, I glossed over the word "may", the use of which was inappropriate in this context. In retrospect, it was a mistake to leave the design of this poll up to a single editor with a vested interest in the issue. However, I'm still far from sure that the mistake is major enough to call into question the validity of applying P1 nationwide.

I speak only for myself, but it was very clear to me from the beginning that this poll was to create a naming convention nationwide; not only to end the move wars in California and Washington, but also to prevent those wars from spreading to other states. -- NORTH ^talk 00:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

After further thought, the use of the word "may" actually was correct at the time it was written, as it was before it was clear we were actually going to follow this process through. "May be in store" meant "will be in store if this process goes as planned". -- NORTH ^talk 02:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the reason people 'vote for P2 before voting for P3' was that P3 was not included in the poll from the start. It was added after 68% of the 'votes' had already been cast and thus all this 'it only got three (or one) votes' stuff is not a true reflection of the level of support it has (as evidenced by the discussion on this page). --CBD 11:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Big Picture

When I go back and look at all the discussion that's arisen regarding this debate, it is still unbelievable to me that there is like 50 pages of discussion on something so damn trivial. I understand why the poll came about, I understand the position by those who selected Principle 1, I understand the position by those who selected Principle 2, I even understand the position taken by those who did (and now) support Principle 3. I even understand the compromises that have been made in the process to help bridge the gap between those who selected P1 and P2. I understand the desires of the majority of us who want this to end. I understand the steadfastness of those who are set in their ways. I understand why SPUI mass moved all those articles. I understand why others disputed his moves.

What I don't understand is how something this unimportant managed to polarize nearly 100 highway article editors into a bitter, drag-the-feet, no holds barred, take no prisoners war. Holy crap. This is like having a debate over the best way to eat an Oreo...who the hell cares? just eat the damn thing. Everyone's bitches and concerns during this whole debate basically boils down to what shows up in the bold black letters at the top of an article...WTF? In retrospect, I wish I had proposed Principle IV which would have been to get over ourselves, but it probably would have only got one vote.

Maybe the fact of the matter is highways (or routes) aren't a terribly exciting genre of article, like powertools, action movies, explosions, wars, Three's Company; so we had to stir up some drama in order to make it feel edgy. And the reason the debate is dragging on...and on...and on....and on..........and on...........and on...is that once the debate is closed, policy (or convention, whatever) is drafted, what are we going to do then? Probably what most of us set out on here to do in the first place, uh, edit articles. What a wonderful place that would be. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 17:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly a candidate for WP:LAME. older ≠ wiser 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is also a very boring subject. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Three cheers for Stratosphere! Can I vote for Principle IV? I never voted for any of the Principles... -- NORTH ^talk 17:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweet, we got 2 votes...that's technically 1 more than Principle 3 ;) Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 17:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you already voted for Principle 1, so you can't vote for P4. Technically technically it's a 1-1 tie. -- NORTH ^talk 02:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

gah! touché -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha, Stratosphere. I'm laughing because you said the same thing I did before this poll began on the WT:NCSH: "We're not talking about whether people can find an article, becuase a person can type in either format and still get to the same page; no, instead we're debating what the big black letters at the top of the article should say." A lot has changed since then, but that truth remains. I just had to say that. --TinMan 04:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, can we stay focused here? There are only a few more hours before the deadline I arbitrarily, unfairly and unilaterally imposed on you all to reach an amicable agreement, before I take it to the other admins for us to adjudge and impose a solution to this point. If you want to spend it this way, fine by me but I keep thinking there is the glimmer of a solution here somewhere if you can just compromise with each other long enough to agree to it. Please? ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Shame on you, Lar. Stratosphere was merely trying to lighten the mood, something that is sorely needed here, as it often is. There are several sections above where we are focused on trying to reach a solution. -- NORTH ^talk 18:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Shame on me? No. Shame on you all for having let it get to this point, where threats of blocking and actual blocks are the only way that apparently works to get things moving when they get stuck, which they do, depressingly often. I'm watching the "several sections above" and I'm not seeing the solution emerging yet. But I'd be glad to be wrong about that. Very glad indeed. So.. sorry if I sounded snippy (a section called the big picture seems a logical place to see serious collection of where things are, not a place for a humorous commentary... which to my eyes I didn't see on first reading of the first part). Some sort of collation of what has been agreed to would be a very useful thing to see in 3 hours or so when the deadline is up. ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, shame on you for going "gonzo". --SPUI (T - C) 23:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If it keeps users from making obstructive comments to this process, I'm all for his "gonzo"-ness. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but throwing gonzoism in randomly when Stratosphere was only trying to lighten mood (not an obstructive comment) does not do that. Gonzoism and obstructive comments are both very bad things. -- NORTH ^talk 00:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to obstructive comments, such as what SPUI was blocked twice over. Not referring to humorous comments that try and lighten the mood on this senseless merry-go-round of debate. I will agree with you that going "gonzo" on Stratosphere would have very bad consequences. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreement makes me happy, and I agree with you here, Seicer. -- NORTH ^talk 01:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, it was intended to be a slighly humorous commentary as an aside to those of us involved in this whose heads are going to explode. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 18:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

P5 - Why do any road names have to be consistent with each other? Let each article name be free to express its own individuality... 'Michigan MI-5 (Michigan)', 'New Jersey Stoplight Farm 10', 'New Parking Lot 9A (York)', et cetera. --CBD 11:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have route shields made for the New Parking Lots? -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 14:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. So K-9 would be "Canine"? ;) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is going on too long

I don't have the time to spend on reading this much discussion. =) In the interest of resolving this debate, I withdraw all of my objections to any proposal that would end the debate. That includes the proposal to let New Jersey articles stay where they are. I don't like it, but I like this argument less. Powers ^T 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Partially agree. Not all of my objections =). But, I don't care what the heck y'all do with New Jersey anymore. --TinMan 04:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I, too, haven't the time to read all this crap, what with having a job, a house, a new roommate, and a life. I edited some of the highway articles because I'm interested in roads, highways, cars, license plates, and that sort of thing. As I have been requested to be here, I speak my mind and I have voted... but if I appear to miss something that was discussed in here, please forgive me. -- Tckma 13:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Status update

Anyone have a summary of where we are at? I've seen some further movement toward compromise but before the admins decide loose ends it might be good to know what they are (or if they all get cleaned up before the decision, that's cool too!) ++Lar: t/c 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Adjudication which everyone is welcome to watch, but only the 6 judging administrators may edit, or I will go gonzo :) on you. Feel free to COMMENT on it here or on its own talk page, of course, but please do not fiddle with the votes and stuff, thanks! ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is freaking outrageous. Obviously this poll has been an utter failure. Suddenly no one is sure what people were voting on, when it's always been clear to me that this poll was to solve problems nationwide (even though in some cases the solution would be preemptive). Apparently it's been clear to the judging administrators, too, as both of those who have voted on this adjudication page say that this was the intent, but that doesn't matter, let's apply it only to those states where there's controversy!

So where is there controversy? The votes on NJ are hilarious and at the same time very, very depressing. "NJ IS in controversy, but I am ... 'pretending' it is not." "Yes NJ is in controversy ... This should be taken as NJ = No."

Here's my proposal for what needs to happen in order for what little faith I originally had in this process to be restored. Voting on Part II on the main page should be suspended until we resolve the issue of how broadly we are going to apply Principle 1. In order to resolve that issue, the voting on the first part of the adjudication should be open to all editors, not just the judging admins. Then, once we've resolved that, if it turns out we're not applying P1 across the country, then as part of the Part II voting we can decide which states aren't in controversy and can keep their pre-determined non-P1 conventions.

And by the way, Polaron [21] and TinMan [22] agree with me that NJ is in controversy. -- NORTH ^talk 21:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's bad enough that Northenglish has falsely claimed that there is a controversy in New Jersey. After all, he was the one who created the Naming Convention when he himself inauguraated WP:NJSCR, and he was the one who wrote that "Articles for state routes are titled Route X (New Jersey)." (see the last of Northenglish's edits creating Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes). It's patently naive to try to claim that there are two editors who "agree with me that NJ is in controversy", when all that the two edits he has provided above demonstrate is that these two people agree that Northenglish believes there is a controversy. Northenglish has never attempted to change his own standard, nor has he ever commented on WT:NJSCR that he ever had an issue with his own standard. I think we need to hear an explanation from Northenglish accounting for the discrepancy between his creation of the New Jersey naming convention and his sudden conversion to a belief that his own standard is controversial, with his logic being based on the fact that he himself disagrees with his own creation. Other than that, Northenglish's claim that he himself disagrees with the New Jersey naming convention is entirely untenable. Alansohn 03:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

How about taking it to your own talk pages because it does not belong here. Petty drama goes elsewhere. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given the explanation Alansohn requests several (at least three) times. I created the project, but I did not create the naming convention, I merely formalized it. SPUI created it approximately seven months before. I avoided opening debate so shortly after the closure of the Arbcom case because I did not feel like creating drama unnecessarily. -- NORTH ^talk 05:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to halt this entire process over one (or three if you include KS and MI) state. It's just not worth it. From Part II, I gather that many states are already coming to an agreement on how to apply P1. I don't really see any close-calls. Let's move forward. The only thing slowing us down is the "states that already have a stable consensus" clause, which to me, only seems to affecting at most 3 states. Let's take our plane tickets and get onboard. NJ, KS, and MI can catch the next flight if bad comes to worse. --TinMan 21:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And it is true, I believe NJ is in controversy, but I've lost nearly all care for that state's convention. Just pick one; do eeney meeney miney mo if you have to. --TinMan 21:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we don't need to drop everything. But my worry is that the only state WP that has come here and complained is NJ (Wisconsin made a case earlier, but acquiesced), and yet suddenly we're thinking about not applying the convention nationwide. That would also be halting the entire process over one state. -- NORTH ^talk 23:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I really don't see the point why people are dragging this entire "but it wasn't consensus" issue up in the first place. While you may discuss the principles, there really is no point whining about the result of the poll NOW. If you wanted to make objections, why didn't you do so earlier? We're not going to stop the entire process because now they bring the issue up. --physicq210 00:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Exemption

Can PASH be given an exemption? --myselfalso 02:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, I meant on the main article space (i.e. under the Pennsylvania heading, not here. Sorry if I confused you. --physicq210 02:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's cool. I wasn't sure where to ask for an exemption/speedy close. --myselfalso 11:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing States

I'm sorry, but what ever happened to California? Why is there not a section for that state? I would of thought that would have been one of the biggest debates. Are they exempt? Anyone know? --TinMan 04:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any debate over what it should be - California State Route 23, etc. FCYTravis 04:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Check the entire table of contents and - poof! - it magically appears! --physicq210 04:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so it wasn't magical. But yes, we put it at the bootom of the poll because it was uncontested (i.e. had [actual] consensus in every definition of the word) and (overemphasis needed) it complies with P1. --physicq210 04:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah ^^ there's a section below the voting for states that had uncontested formats that followed/will follow P1 or were granted special exemption -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 04:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that explains a lot. =) This is a really long page. --TinMan 04:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Which page? Talkpage, or voting page? --physicq210 04:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly though, I was quite surprised to find it there. With Washington, there was never any argument over what the term should be, the pages have always been located at either State Route XX (Washington) or Washington State Route XX. However with California, in addition the "disambiguation move wars", there was also a move war on the

page regarding whether it should be California State Route 17 or California State Highway 17 (its current location). I would have thought that if they truly had reached a consensus-determining discussion, someone would have been bold and moved that page to a "state route" title (with or without parentheses). -- NORTH ^talk 05:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, there was one user who thought that there should be no consistency in naming highway articles. i.e. "California State Route 16", "California State Highway 17", "California Route 18", etc. And unfortunately, the WP:RM to fix that failed. I put WA in the poll since it does not have a discussion that has a consensus. I doubt that the convention will fail. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason they probably didn't be bold and move it is because of the ArbCom restriction on renaming highway articles until this gets settled. [23] Yes? -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 06:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

But if the RM failed, isn't that proof that there's not consensus that all California articles should be titled "State Route"? -- NORTH ^talk 05:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I recall, the

move war was before Arbcom and largely irrelevant to Arbcom. Even if it was during/after Arbcom, if the move were made from California State Highway 17 to California State Route 17 with the backing of consensus, it's my understanding that blocks would not be handed down. -- NORTH ^talk 06:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, here we go. How about everyone just forget I even mentioned the word "California". I don't want to make this worse than it already is. I screwed up and didn't realize it was listed at the bottom of the main page. Thanks for clarifying that. --TinMan 21:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I also apologize for making a big deal out of nothing. I certainly believe that the correct term for California is State Route, and given that the only user who advocated State Highway hasn't edited a highway-related article since May, I do believe that there is consensus. I was just surprised to see California listed in the bottom half when its consensus is no more proven (and in many cases a great deal less proven) than the states listed at the top. -- NORTH ^talk 22:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually with regard to California State Highway 17, shouldn't it be kept where it is regardless of what happens here? I'm no expert, but it appears after the last RM there was a solid consensus and majority to leave it at California State Highway 17. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. If you read that RM discussion, there was certainly no consensus to keep it where it was, there just wasn't consensus to complete the proposed move to State Route 17 (California). The confounding variable was that the debate took place during the peak of the parentheses controversy, and a number of editors who voted to not move did so only because the proposal contained parentheses, and would have voted differently if the proposal were California State Route 17 instead. Consensus can change, and there is clear consensus now to name all articles within a state using the same term. -- NORTH ^talk 23:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Closing Part 2

Part 2 will be closing Monday. At that time, the admins will be voting on the state conventions. (If any states are to be left at P2, now is the time to vote that way).

Isn't the poll closing on Tuesday, not Monday? September 12 is a Tuesday. --physicq210 04:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC

Probably. :) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

(Begin my opinion) Now for the states with only one vote: Evidently, there aren't that many articles or editors for these states. It's probably safe to assume "consensus" there and move on. If there's problems later, we can get the policy changed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Where should we vote on whether we're going to keep P2 or not? As part of the Part II voting? -- NORTH ^talk 03:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

P2? As in Principle 2? Or Part 2? --physicq210 04:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Principle 2. Rschen said, "If any states are to be left at P2, now is the time to vote that way." Where is that vote supposed to occur? -- NORTH ^talk 04:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, ask him for clarification. I don't get that statement either. --physicq210 04:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Aggh my bad. That was to the admins. If they want to intervene and give a state P2, that's the time to do it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, okay. -- NORTH ^talk 04:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is voting on whether they are keeping P2. P1 is the standard except where states are already completely at a different convention and there is no controversy about it. In which case they are invited, but not required, to switch. ++Lar: t/c 04:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, by "there is no controversy over it" what do you mean? There's a consensus for it, or noone said anything about it since there were no other editors? And what do you mean by the word "eventually" below? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. That does make perfect sense. I guess all debate on New Jersey then should end here and be picked up at WT:NJSCR instead. -- NORTH ^talk 05:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Rschen7754 I like your list, I'll suggest that we annotate those states that we think are in controversy. ++Lar: t/c 06:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Road humor

Why not? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

because we're a serious bunch? :P -- Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 03:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Result of Adjudication

Please see Wikipedia:State_route_naming_conventions_poll/Adjudication#Issues. Summarising: P1 is in effect for all states that are in controversy. Other states not already at P1 are invited to switch. States not at P1 must set up redirects immediately on the conclusion of the part 2 poll determining which flavour of P1 is in effect for them. States in controversy must switch to P1 "eventually" and must set up redirects now. States asking for help should be given it, or they can postpone implementation till they get it. Any state with a mixed naming convention must switch to P1 "immediately" on conclusion of part 2 for that state. NJ is arbitrarily declared not in controversy and does not have to switch until it wants to. ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

When you say "until it wants to", does that mean "until/if there is consensus to do so", or can one person say "OK, I want them moved, so now there's controversy and let's move them"? --SPUI (T - C) 05:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

IF one person did that, purely to force controversy where otherwise there was none, they'd be being a wanker ... you connect the dots but you've seen me go off already. We haven't suspended consensus completely. A project with 9 members saying one thing and 1 another is not necessarily out of consensus though. ++Lar: t/c 06:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is a list of all the states at P2. Any state marked with * has articles at both conventions, although there could be only one article that does not follow the others. (c) means that I believe there was controversy over this. (mm) means the articles were mass-moved by one editor with no discussion, but at the time there were few or no other highway editors for this state (in other words, the P2 may have been forced on them).

Oregon* (mm)
Virginia* (c)(mm)
California* (c)
Washington* (c)
Florida*
Michigan (excepted)
Oklahoma
Massachusetts (mm)
Arizona (mm)
Texas
New Jersey
Maine (c)(mm)
Delaware*(mm)
Connecticut
Alabama (mm)
Colorado* (mm)
Kansas (excepted)
Arkansas* (mm)
Rhode Island (mm)
Utah (c?)
Nevada* (mm)
Tennessee* (mm)
Indiana* (mm)
Georgia*
Ohio* (c)
Wisconsin

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Rhode Island was moved with consensus of everyone who had done significant work - Analogdemon and me. Thus it is not in controversy and never has been. --SPUI (T - C) 05:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Rschen didn't say it was in controversy, he said it was (mm) -- "means the articles were mass-moved by one editor with no discussion, but at the time there were few or no other highway editors for this state". He was slightly incorrect, since there was obviously some discussion, but he did not say that they were in controversy. -- NORTH ^talk 06:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. BTW, I may not be 100% correct with the stuff above, since well I can't remember the status of all 50 states. But I tried to make it accurate. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I tagged Florida with an asterisk because of the existence of Florida State Road 55, and also, while not P1, Route 4B (Florida). -- NORTH ^talk 06:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

and added Georgia, it's about half and half. -- NORTH ^talk 06:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
New York has no P2 articles. -- NORTH ^talk 06:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Ohio has ~~two~~ one articles titled at P2, tagged with a (c) because the WikiProject isn't sure what the term is yet.
Wisconsin is entirely at P2. I refrained from tagging it with a (c) even though unlike NJ, there is a discussion here that shows there was no consensus for the page moves to the P2 convention. -- NORTH ^talk 07:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have moved Florida State Road 55 if I was allowed to by the ArbCom. --SPUI (T - C) 06:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

*shrugs shoulders* The judging admins will probably be more than willing to make an exception in that case, since it's just the one article. I'm just going through the categories and editing the list for matters of completeness. -- NORTH ^talk 06:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I could be bribed. :)... but my thinking was that one article was enough to force FL to P1... ++Lar: t/c 06:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So all a P1 supporter has to do is make one P1 article in a P2 state and it's forced to switch? --SPUI (T - C) 07:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not now, no. That one article was from before. NOW, doing that, without talking about it, without saying "hey, I'm here to do all of them for you" is disruption. Note that we are not forcing non P1 states to switch, not because we think they are right about not being in P1 (with the two exception), but rather because we don't want to force a proeject to do work it doesn't have to. Also, see elsewhere in this page where I say that one person coming in and arguing against something doesn't suddenly place it in controversy if there is general consensus. ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Things that need clarification

What does "eventually" mean in the sentence, "States in controversy must switch to P1 eventually and must set up redirects now"? Is there a guideline as to how soon this is to be done? And how do those states decide whether or not to meet that guideline?
As SPUI said, what does "until it wants to" mean in the sentence, "NJ is arbitrarily declared not in controversy and does not have to switch until it wants to"? Does "want" mean that it has consensus, or that one person literally wants to? And what is it? Does it refer to WP:NJSCR? Does that include only people actually listed as participants, only people who actually contribute to articles, or anyone and everyone who wants to participate in a discussion on WT:NJSCR?

-- NORTH ^talk 06:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Eventually is "whenever they feel like it, but not 'never'" If anyone wants to see a state switch to P1 sooner than when the state project members feel like it, all they have to do is turn up at that state's project and say "hey, I'm here to do the work, stand back" and do it.
We arbitrarily adjudge NJ to not be in conflict as of right now, this moment, today. If bickering breaks out at WT:NJSCR, or elsewhere, about NJ's naming, that may not be true tomorrow. If bickering breaks out because one person started it purely to force NJ to not be in consensus and thus be forced to do P1, I'll go gonzo on them for it, because that's gaming the system. As to who's in or out of "participants", we'll decide that capriciously and based on whim.

++Lar: t/c 06:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So basically, if a state is in controversy, it needs to be moved eventually -- which basically means by November 22nd, the date listed on the project page. However, if the controversy is so bad that it has led to an inconsistent convention within the state (i.e. the asterisked states above), the moves should be done sooner rather than later (i.e. immediately). Do I have it right? -- NORTH ^talk 06:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say "right now" is by Nov 22nd. "eventually" is .. whenever... At some point in the future. 2009? whenever... Other than that it seems right to me. The key here is that we're not (perhaps because we're chicken?) embracing the idea advanced by some that P1 has to apply to every state. We think that is too controversial. (it should have been explicit in the poll statement but wasn't. We agree that's probably what the poll writer intended but it's not necessarily what the poll voters interpreted it to mean) We'd like to see every state switch though. A way to do that is, beleive it or not, to turn up at a project and offer to do it for that project so the locals don't have to do the work. Just like SPUI did way back when, only this time with discussion first and in the direction just about everyone has either agreed is correct, or has agreed to accept. ++Lar: t/c 07:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I humbly disagree (prefer my interpretation of the two words), but understand and accept. :-D -- NORTH ^talk 07:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Aagh, that list was correct at the end of Arbitration... and there should have been no changes, right? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The Wisconsin WikiProject was created after the closing of the Arbcom case. Highway XX (Wisconsin) was listed as the naming convention on WP:WISH when it was created, even though that may not have reflected what articles were actually named at the time. Then, after the closure of Arbcom, a whole bunch of new Wisconsin articles were created and titled under the P2 convention. Then, at the beginning of August, a user who was not under Arbcom probation nor a "participant to this dispute" moved the remaining P1 articles to the accepted convention, and was not nor should have been blocked for it.

Just because Arbcom came down with a debatably-iron fist does not mean things have remained static since then. -- NORTH ^talk 20:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So really, it's just Connecticut, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Texas that could remain at P2. (Well Kansas and Michigan too... )--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Texas?! Why Texas? In April, the Texas articles were mass-moved without discussion on their project page to what is now called P2: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas State Highways. Just look at basically any Texas Highway article's history and you'll see. Some were moved by SPUI and others by Freakofnature, etc. Additionally, on the main page of this poll, there seems to be agreement on a convention. For Texas to remain at P2 is just wrong. They are not like New Jersey or the New England states. --TinMan 00:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a discussion regarding this? Then we could mark it as controversial and it will be fixed. Bellhalla's comment made me think it was not controversial, but maybe I was wrong. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

As one of the main contributors of the Texas project, I will add in my two cents. There is not a controversy over the name and I would prefer the articles to stay where they are. I certainly won't be helping move them if it is decided they need to be moved, I have better things to do with my time. Regarding TinMan's comment on this poll. This poll is over the state specific naming convention such as State Highway, State Road, ect... Agreed there is no dispute here, it is State Highway. We are discussing whether it should be Texas State Highway X or State Highway X (Texas). --Holderca1 16:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oklahoma should be added to this list. -- NORTH ^talk 22:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Colorado should, too. If i'm the only one working on colorado and most of the articles are at P2, does that mean there is no controversy? atanamir 00:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

wait just kiddingm it's right there. I guess my second question still stands. atanamir 00:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

One mor ecomment i just noticed again (i'm slow today). It says colorado was "mass moved". They were not. I created most of the articles at P2 and left the existing 2 articles at P1 alone. atanamir 00:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The list I was referring to was the list of states that are entirely P2 and have no controversy, mentioned by Rschen in the last non-indented post. That list is:

New Jersey
Connecticut
Wisconsin
Texas
Oklahoma

These states will be allowed to remain at Principle 2 after this poll takes effect. Colorado will not for two reasons. First, the state is not entirely Principle 2. Second, on August 8, the pages that are currently at Principle 2 were mass moved to P1 by FLWfan (ex. [24]), then mass moved back to P2 by JoanneB (ex. [25]). Thus Colorado clearly has some semblance of controversy. -- NORTH ^talk 01:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

However, FLWFan has done no work at all on any of the Colorado articles that I have seen. atanamir 04:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply because people manufacture controversy, that doesn't mean there actually is controversy. --SPUI (T - C) 13:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I've clearly been disproven on that point, hence my use of the words "some semblance" of controversy. But regardless, Colorado is about half P1 and half P2, thus cannot remain at P2, since it's not there in the first place. -- NORTH ^talk 22:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's all eventually going to be P1 anyway. It's just how long we want to wait before we change it. "Can we change it now?" "Nope." "How about now?" "Nope." "How about now?" "Nope." "What about now?" "Yeah, I guess so." And another thing: something that this poll has done is expose which articles have been mass-moved in the past. So, by doing so, we've created controversy for actions in the past that we didn't know about until recently. Now that we know all this information, why is "controversy" that is started now being ignored? The whole argument seems really weak to me. It's just asking for an "ignore all rules" move anyway. It's like having an army surrounded just waiting on their surrender. --TinMan 22:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Manufactured controversy" as SPUI is calling it, and which I humbly admit that I myself was guilty of, is being ignored for precisely the reason you stated yourself, because it is being started now. Starting controversy where it doesn't exist for the sole purpose of getting your way is gaming the system, and not in the spirit of gaining consensus in either direction. -- NORTH ^talk 23:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Every state, every single one, with the sole exceptions of KS and MI, (but NOT including CT, NJ, TX or WI) should end up at P1 "eventually". The exceptions granted are "right now" exceptions, not forever exceptions, in my view. If a project is in harmony, isn't squabbling, and no "editor and his bot" has shown up to say "I'm here to do the move for you" the state doesn't have to move "yet". but "eventually" it does (either when it starts squabbling, or when the editor and his bot show up). The controversy question is just a "when do we force the project to do the work" question, as far as I am concerned. When is eventually? "whenever someone feels like doing the work" ++Lar: t/c 04:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is quite opposite of what you've said before. At the top of this section you said that the states that have to move "eventually" are ones that are in controversy, but do have a consistent naming convention. (Ones with an inconsistent convention have to move right away.) However, New Jersey-type states, which are not in controversy, you said are invited, but not required, to switch.

Please do not respond here, but rather two sections down where we have an identical conversation going. -- NORTH ^talk 06:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(I have to put this comment here in response to your comment, just so you understand.) Well all controversy is manufactured in some way. I understand and agree that "creating controversy" just to get your way is wrong... so what type of controversy do we need to have to get anything changed? Essentially what you're saying is that any argument with the disputed states in the future is void because you are just "creating" controversy to get your way. So, therefore, P1 could never be imposed unless all those who liked P2 just gave up... or like I said, surrendered. Right now, I don't see a reason why they would do that. This is where the argument two sections down comes into play. Now it seems that the purpose and the original intent of this poll has changed drastically. Instead of trying to come up with a uniform standard, we're trying to make all the states "stable". Is this necessarily bad? No, not really. The edit wars will stop, but essentially we have P2 anyway (no uniformity), even though most voted for P1. It all depends on what is decided two sections down: "Who can move the articles and when and with what authority?" --TinMan 14:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the original intent of this poll was not to come up with a uniform standard, it was to end the move wars in Washington and California and to prevent them from spreading to other states, thus making all the states stable. It was deemed that the easiest was to make them stable would be to come up with a uniform standard, but this has been disproven, as imposing a standard where it's not wanted just makes things less stable -- which is bad. -- NORTH ^talk 16:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico has its first highway article!

Of course it's named incorrectly at PR-52. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Handling the state votes

OK, rather than creating a new page or set of pages I think if the admins just use "endorsed" in the existing vote sections it will be clear enough which way is which. For many states there will be more admin "endorsed" statements than there were votes. Anyone have problem with that?

Also, any other oustanding issues/loose ends?++Lar: t/c 18:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I came in on this at the tail end of it unfortunately (well I guess that all depends on how you look at it.) I misunderstood the whole reason for part I of this thing. I had thought it was just for those states that were in dispute. As far as I can tell no one from the Texas project even participated. I don't really understand why part I wasn't voted by state as has part II. You eliminate the bias of those projects that have large numbers of members. For example, say that 35 of the states favor P2 and only 15 favor P1, but the overall majority of Wiki members favor P1. In this case more projects favor P2. This is just hypothetical and I didn't sort and count the votes by project. Also, I don't understand why the states that do not have a contoversy on the naming convention and are currently at P2 on all of their articles need to change. Texas for example has every article at State Highway XX (Texas) and has a redirect for each highway at Texas State Highway XX. It would seem like a complete waste of time to go through and move all the articles and fix all the redirects. Gives me a headache even thinking about it. I don't think people understand how tedious it is going to be, especially with a state with many highways. --Holderca1 18:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

P2 states need to change... eventually.... But "eventually" means when someone turns up to do the work, and not before, no forcing. If they're not in controversy they only have to set up redirects that fit P1, which you are saying that Texas, for example, already has. If they are IN controversy, they have to change to P1 "right away". This is an incentive to not be in controversy. ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but just as long as those that show up to do the work don't simply move the pages to P1 from P2 without fixing double redirects and redirects. It's the moving the pages that is easy, the tedious part if fixing redirects. --Holderca1 18:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional question. What if a month from now, a new contributor creates an article at P1. For the sake of consistency within the same project, would it be okay to move that one article to P2 until a person comes along to move them all? --Holderca1 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say bots should be used to fix things including redirects, and that new articles should be created correctly. that is, in P1. ++Lar: t/c 01:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole point is hat there's consensus to keep states like New Jersey at P2 - and unless said consensus changes, articles should be created correctly, that is, in P2. --SPUI (T - C) 13:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SPUI. If a state has been granted an exception to stay at P2, then the naming convention for that state is Principle 2 until it formally changes, and new articles should be created following that naming convention. -- NORTH ^talk 22:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with that. One editor with a bot turning up at a P2 state, saying "here I am, are you ready for a conversion now, I'm gonna do all the work" is enough to get it to P1, why make the work harder? New articles are fine to be created at P1, and further, those states ought to be picking which P1 they are going to go to. There are only 2 states for which this is not true, and WI, CT, TX, OK are not among them. ++Lar: t/c 04:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what?!? I thought that the whole point was that NJ and friends were going to stay at P2 because that's what they wanted. To quote yourself:

P1 is the standard except where states are already completely at a different convention and there is no controversy about it. In which case they are invited, but not required, to switch.

NJ is arbitrarily declared not in controversy and does not have to switch until it wants to.

I realize I've been totally flip-flopping throughout this discussion, but so are you, and to have the judging admins do it is slightly more disconcerting. -- NORTH ^talk 06:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, sorry if it seems like a flip flop (and on rereading, it does). What I mean by a guy and his bot is someone who turns up to do the work... he would then be part of that states project. As long as no one in the state project wanted to change, they wouldn't have to. I think "not required to switch" was a bad choice of words without the qualifier of "at any specific time"... Gaa. Sorry if I've muddied things. ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, things are muddied a bit. Just to clarify, every state (except MI and KS) must follow P1 at some point in the future (that point varies depending on the situation in the state). States that will temporarily remain at P2 (NJ, CT, WI, TX, and OK) can be moved once someone is willing to do the work -- even if that person is from outside the project, and even if the project objects. Do I have it down? -- NORTH ^talk 16:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've started by following the 'endorsed' suggestion above on the sections where there was unanimous agreement from several users. Barring disagreement / concerns being raised in discussion I'll probably go through and endorse those with 'unanimous' support from just one or two people and those where there is some disagreement but a clear consensus this afternoon. I'll try to sort out the disputed ones tomorrow based on the 'votes' and any further discussion. --CBD 12:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like most of the sections are uncontroversial, but there are fifteen which have had varying degrees of dispute. Some of these seem to have a consensus and a few just a bare majority. Based on the discussions I'm currently reading them as; AK 2.2.4, AR 2.4.2 (barely), CT 2.6.1, DE 2.7.2, HI 2.10.3, IA 2.14.3, KT 2.15.1, ME 2.17.1 (barely), NJ 2.25.1, NC 2.28.1, OR 2.31.3, PR 2.32.2 (barely), TX 2.37.1, VA 2.40.8, WV 2.42.2 (barely). Scream now if one or more of these don't have general support... many of them, especially the ones marked '(barely)' seem to have minimal support OR opposition and thus this becomes largely a matter of picking an arbitrary standard to reduce future dissent. --CBD 10:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Alaska has full consensus - the second is just a clarification of the first. I don't understand how you're seeing no consensus on states like Connecticut and New Jersey, unless you're counting votes for P2 - in which case count all my votes for every state with angle brackets as P2. --SPUI (T - C) 13:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The standard I was looking at wasn't "no consensus", but rather 'no dispute'. There were various different ideas for some of the states. In most cases they seem to have gotten worked out, but I was just giving people a chance to comment if my reading of the resolutions wasn't on par. --CBD 10:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Break Period for Revisions?

Ok, I'm wondering if we should use this "break period" prior to the final admin votes on the 14th to revise our votes if need be. I know a lot of new conventions were created, altered, etc. within the last day or so and a lot of votes were stuck through and relocated. Does anyone feel that we need another day for relocations of votes in hopes of establishing stronger consensus? I assume few check on this poll multiple times during the day... and a lot has changed in the last minutes of Part II with facts and analysis. Voting itself is closed, so no new votes would be added, obviously. Just the existing votes could be moved around. --TinMan 03:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically the 'judging' has begun and is supposed to finish by the 14th, but I don't think we want to establish a 'consensus' of what people used to think... SO, I'll try to start off with the straightforward sections. Discussion of the ones where different ideas have been being explored can continue and possibly reach some stronger conclusion. --CBD 11:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like all states except Mississippi, Ohio, and Wisconsin have garnered four (out of six max) endorsements and have thus officially 'passed'. The remaining states have three endorsements each and thus technically haven't 'passed' yet, but I'm guessing that's more of an oversight than dispute and assume these will also be ratified. --CBD 11:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, until I noticed an edit by CBD to the page late yesterday I hadn't realized admin votes were needed. I dropped a message last night / this morning to Lar (who I see had endorsed now), Ashibaka (whose talk page says they are intermittantly here), and Nightstallion. Syrthiss 11:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I adjusted the timeline since we haven't quite finished with the votes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Adjusted again. Although we could just move on... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Nightstallion gives endorsement. So let's go on. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:LAME

Has this been nominated for it yet? I don't know anything that deserves it more. As much time that has been wasted on this, I think we could of rewrote the entire Wikipedia twice. Lets just end this thing and never bring it up again. If you want it named something else, than create a freaking redirect. --Holderca1 14:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone mentioned it earlier. I would go back and find who, but that would take to long. I would nominate it after we're complete with all the parts. We don't quite know how far this will take us. This definately qualifies though. --TinMan 16:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that any user who goes back and tries to find it in the dungeons of this poll should be hearby nominated for WP:LAME :P Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

See here. It wasn't that hard to find. :-P -- NORTH ^talk 01:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You have nominated yourself for WP:LAME :P Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Congrats NORTH on your lamemanship. :P --TinMan 01:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, shush. I didn't even have to *look* for it. It's just good memory skills, and finding the correct section header in the table of contents. -- NORTH ^talk 01:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the issue more deserving of WP:LAME is the circumstances leading to this lame poll (edit wars, etc.). --physicq210 02:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't really think efforts to end the lameness should be considered lame. -- NORTH ^talk 02:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the whole thing. Edit wars, naming conventions, polls, arguments, etc etc etc. --TinMan 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The lame thing, if any, is that it all came to this. If I had my druthers it never would have. Casting aspersions isn't going to make it less lame though. Not that anyone is. :P ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Wikipedia archives