Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:USSH)
Jump to: navigation, search

"U.S." vs. "US" in article titles[edit]

There was a discussion back in October 2017 about the usage of "U.S." vs. "US" in the MOS section (MOS:US) in terms of what the MOS recommends. The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.) has recommended dropping the periods for eight years now, and based on the survey of other major style guides given as a part of the discussion, our MOS was updated to encourage "US" as the default over "U.S." for commonality reasons, while allowing the continuing usage of the latter.

Should we update this naming convention for article titles to drop the periods, moving U.S. Route 66 to US Route 66, et al.? We need not worry at this time about any technical issues with moving pages; we can enlist bots, etc. to assist with the actual work. Imzadi 1979  15:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Honestly I don't care whether or not we use periods in "U.S." If we are gonna change the article titles, while the bots can do all the moving of pages we are also gonna need to drop the periods from prose mentions and I'm not sure a bot can do that. My concern is that we may need a lot of human work to change instances of "U.S." to "US" in articles. Dough4872 17:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
In many articles, the abbreviated form is already "US #" while the full name spelled out is "U.S. Highway/Route X", and it wouldn't actually be that hard for a bot to change all instances of "U.S." to "US" within the text of an article. Again, let's not dwell on technical issues as there are bots that can handle all of this. Imzadi 1979  18:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
If that's the case, I don't care about what we do. We can keep the status quo or we can drop the periods from the article titles and prose mentions, I'll be fine with either option. Dough4872 18:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
There should be no issue with a find and replace of "U.S." to "US". The only human check would be for when the dotted abbreviation is also the end of a sentence. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Is that MOS discussion fairly settled now? It seems like it started by one editor being BOLD. --Rschen7754 19:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The change was made to the MOS page in October, and that change has been left in place at MOS:US. Imzadi 1979  19:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I've found this to be one of the worst inconsistencies both in US articles as well as Canadian connecting articles. Dotting abbreviations in general seems to be something that's dropped away, so... to use one, we should do this ASAP, and not A.S.A.P. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would say this is a case where the U.S. nomenclature is established, which is fine per MOS:US. It just seems like a lot of work, even as performed by bots, just for something that's essentially a cosmetic change. If this were 2005 when USRD was starting up, I'd support moving everything to US, but not today. –Fredddie 22:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support because I think that we should be consistent with MOS, and I don't think it would be too difficult to move the pages (post-SRNC was much worse). With that being said, I would request that this discussion remain open for at least 30 days as this could be a contentious change, and possibly consider adding a RFC tag for increased visibility. --Rschen7754 02:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral - If we wanna change the abbreviations to match, that's fine. But I'm fine if we do nothing and leave it as is. Dough4872 03:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)