Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll

Discussion of the old poll (which is now at Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Old) is here: Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll/Old. This page is for discussion of the current poll, as per the project page. Powers 21:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Archives

---

• Preliminary discussion
• Part I Discussion

Part 2 Discussion

Getting the page ready

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. howcheng {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)

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)

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)

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)

Another user has been scared off due to this madness

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

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

Problems with Principle II

1. People are unlikely to type a road name then parentheses into the search bar, making it harder to find the article.
2. 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).
3. Less consistent between states.
4. 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)

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)