| Revision as of 22:43, 25 September 2006 editSPUI (talk | contribs)75,418 edits →Minnesota← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:19, 19 November 2024 edit undoRaladic (talk | contribs)11,167 edits Closing requested move; not moved using Move+ |
| (767 intermediate revisions by 75 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{shortcut|]}} |
|
{{talk header|search=yes|WT:USSH}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(31d) |
|
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{notice|The established state highway naming conventions were established through previous debates (see ]) and any proposals to change such conventions would be contentious (see also the ]).}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{old move|date=12 November 2024|destination=Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (U.S. state highways)|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1256991163#Requested move}} |
|
== Discussion == |
|
|
I have commented out the style guide box and put the shortcut template in for now, so teh shortcut still shows but this is not a style guide yet, and won't be unless it is widely accepted. I note a small revert struggle just happened, and I'd warn both parties to discuss here rather than revert again. Make the case that it should be a guide even when unaccepted, if you think you can. ++]: ]/] 03:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Funny, wide acceptance wasn't necessary for principle I. But my intent here was never to call it a guideline but a proposed guideline - I see the proposed tag as modifying whatever's below it. --] (] - ]) 05:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::This is indeed a slight issue with the "proposal" template. It might perhaps be cloned or parameterised so as to make explicit "proposed policy", "proposed guidelines", etc. Or as a brutal hack, subst: it, and edit the text down by hand. ] 05:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Requested move == |
|
By the way, this is basically what ]. --] (] - ]) 05:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Diff? I don't see it in that link. He said a lot of things in there. I have no problem with this existing, and with it capturing the final result but it's proposed, not a style guide yet. putting it in the style guide category is '''disruptive''' and you should know better. Don't do it again. ++]: ]/] 05:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, inherit); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
::Right at the top, in the numbered list. --] (] - ]) 05:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> ] (]) 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
::and what is this : if you KNEW this was PROPOSED why on earth would you put it in the guide to centralised discussion??? Out it goes. Dont' add it again. ++]: ]/] 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (U.S. state highways)}} – The ] in the ] are primarily called '''states'''. ] (]) 00:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Centralized discussion is for proposals. ] is marked as proposed but is clearly listed there. --] (] - ]) 05:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:'''Oppose'''—proposed title is under-inclusive since this page also covers highways in the territories. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''] ]'''</span> 00:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Oppose''' per @]. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::: Why are you arguing whether or not it is '''proposed''' or '''final'''? The difference between the two, is that the former indicates that the article (in this case) '''is being formed through a centralized idea based on a consensus''', and the latter indicates that the article (in this case) has solid standing. The final version is '''not complete''' and will not be until the voting ends for all the parts. Therefore, it is still proposed, and since it is cut short and is incomplete, I can't even see how this can even be considered a done-deal. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 06:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
|
|
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div> |
|
:::::I know this is proposed - I marked it as such. Lar removed it from {{tl|cent}}, claiming that is not for proposals. --] (] - ]) 06:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::(After edit conflict. I hate edit conflicts. Get me a decent wiki-engine, this one is broken.) The criticism in this case seems to be one of "venue-shopping". I agree that it's addressing a technically different area of concern, but since the fur's still flying at the first poll, perhaps let things lie there for a while before going into high gear on the "damage limitation exercise". ] 06:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yes, after edit conflicts half the time I just give up and don't post. I wish there was some way you could get an auto conflict resolver where when two people comment in different places the wiki automatically fixes it. But anyway... yeah let's let this one lie until Part 3 or so. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 06:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Yup, and for example ] for one thing does exactly this, without problems. (Ironically enough I run a pm-powered wiki that sees so little use that this is never an issue, and meanwhile people are tearing their hair out by the dozen over these things here....) Even semi-automated ("I've tried to fix your ec, this look OK to you? fix by hand if not") would be something. ] 06:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think it is inevitable that we will have a page documenting how roads should be named, but generally I think it should wait until that has been fully worked out. And while I appreciate the irony in SPUI ''not'' parenthetically disambiguating, this page should probably follow the precedent of the other sub-pages of ] like ], ], and so forth. The title seems to imply more a 'manual of style' type guide than strictly a naming guide... which would also make sense if there are going to be significant issues beyond the names. If it's just how the names are linked to then I think that could probably be incorporated into a naming convention document. --] 07:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::This is a manual of style-type page, not a naming convention, though I could see it merged into a naming convention. --] (] - ]) 07:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Oh, and it would probably be at ] :P --] (] - ]) 07:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Would or should this page include every state's/territory's/district's decided convention (when part 2 is finished)? It would seem beneficial to compile all that here instead of all over Misplaced Pages at individual WikiProjects... if that wasn't the plan already. --] 07:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree that it should, this page should be a guide to all of US state highway writing, and that's definitely a part of it. --] 16:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
One thing that we need on this page is a good reason for our choice of principle 1 - something we can point people to when they ask why highways don't follow ] and are not located at the place they are easiest to link to. I haven't seen one yet. --] (] - ]) 16:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think that a significant number of people for some reason just can't stand parentheses in the title. The reason for choosing principle 1 is probably related to why we have city articles like ] instead of ]. A lot of reasons are "for consistency" or "that's the current naming style" or "people might get confused if you don't include the containing place". --] | ] 16:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::We include the containing place in both examples here. It basically boils down to "parentheses are ugly" plus a few other lightweight arguments that have their match on the other side. --] (] - ]) 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Agreed. But the rigid format of Principle I was the one that was chosen. Let's try and make the most of it for now and work on the style guide and see how it goes. --] | ] 17:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Just adding that almost all the articles for US cities also do not conform to ] because of the comma convention so naming conventions that don't conform to common names are not unusual. I think the only way for people to follow common names more is to elevate that to a policy. --] | ] 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::City, State is a pretty common name - kind of like State Route vs. Route in some states - Route is more common but State Route is still somewhat common. --] (] - ]) 17:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:You might want to use the reasons listed at ]. --] 17:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::None of which are good reasons. "We" need something to convince people not to come back later and argue this again. Is there such a thing? I haven't seen it. --] (] - ]) 17:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Oh, that'd be something like "Everyone is agreed that this convention is imperfect, but after numerous contentious debates, it's been accepted as the best we can do." ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 21:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't "we need a good reason to explain this and I haven't seen one" just another form of "I don't like this idea and I am going to resist it at every turn in every way I can?" I think "we decided to do it this way" is a good enough reason. Or alternatively "after a long and contentious struggle over what is ultimately a pointless question, in which certain elemeents resisted at every turn, we decided to do it this way since there was no other choice" might be the way to go. But do we want to expose our dirty laundry that much? ++]: ]/] 21:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I knew this would happen; the people who didn't win are pissed and the people who won are bragging. <sarcasm>Isn't this fun?</sarcasm> Now as for the good reason... I don't care if you make a list or not; all I know is that I don't have time to go searching for every argument. Wouldn't a link to ] suffice? --] 06:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Just to be picky, we don't have to justify "why highways don't follow ]", since we seem to have no idea at this point ''what'' the common names actually are, so this is only going to happen if the questioner comes armed with such evidence him/herself. (I certainly won't be voting for any "part two" options (SPUI-style or otherwise) unless there's actual ''evidence'' as to the common name.) City names in the US are a bad counterexample to NC(CN), because it appears to me to follow it perfectly well. ] is, if not a "more complete name" as such, then at least a rather common reference to it. If someone can argue as much for "California State Route 12", or its various siblings, then (CN) is perfectly happy, and That Poll hasn't overridden it, it's merely exercised a systematic preference between its various clauses. ] 01:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Too bad you can't "vote" for P2-type names. --] (] - ]) 04:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::<sarcasm> Yeah... too bad. </sarcasm>. As I said earlier, I would say "California State Route 12" so someone would know which state I was talking about... but I am an individual. Now if I could make a website and put that on there, then would I be credible? Or what about if I flew to California and added an extension to the sign? Heck, the California shields have "Califonria" written on them half the time; I just need to spray paint "State Route" under thate in small letters, right? Face it, nobody really knows what they're doing, but everyone thinks they do. Just make the best of it and quit with the attitude if you would please, all of ya. =) --] 06:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::See ]. ] 22:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== POV in a style guide == |
|
|
|
|
|
This section: |
|
|
{{cquote2|"Note that most disambiguation is not done in the standard parenthetical manner; the only current exceptions are Kansas and Michigan. This is because of the state route naming conventions poll, which was seen as the resolution of a long-standing naming dispute. Despite the disputed lack of consensus by the traditional definition, with only 59% in favor of this style, enough people agreed to accept this rather than a continued standoff."}} |
|
|
ought to be struck in mhy view (along with the footnote) as it's highly POV, presenting a rather biased and disruptive view of why this sorry mess exists in the first place. ++]: ]/] 19:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I'll agree with this. ] <small>(]) (])</small> 19:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agreed. I tried to make it say "alleged lack of consensus" but was reverted. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 03:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agreed. The "parenthetical manner" is perhaps "usual" but not "standard", per ArbCom ruling, and violating it not unusual enough to require commentary. ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 14:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==There hasn't been much activity here== |
|
|
Hopefully that means people agree with this - since this is part of the naming conventions poll. Are there any objections, or should I upgrade it to a style guide once we get at least placeholder standards lists? --] (] - ]) 03:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:This is technically part 3 in the poll, so I would wait until it's all over so the judges can add the tag. --] 02:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Names of highways for each individual state == |
|
|
|
|
|
Should we create a table listing the name(s) each state/territory uses? The correct usage of the name can then be referenced here. --] 02:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sounds good to me. We can put all the little tweaks that each state has in that table. --] 12:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::In fact, I think there should be a table just listing everything: State Name, Article Title, Common Name, Infobox Name, Secondary Route Article Title, Seondary Route Common Name, Secondary Route Infobox Name, exceptions... etc. I don't know how wide that would be though. Maybe that would be too big to mess with. --] 15:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Perhaps a table as originally suggested, with links to each state's highway WP, where all of the secondary information you mentioned should be available. — ] <sup>]</sup>•<sub>]</sub> 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Proposals == |
|
|
|
|
|
Just a couple small proposals: |
|
|
*On the table of state highway names, could we have a link to each state's list of state highways (if there is one), such as ]? |
|
|
*Could there be a standardised state highway infobox, or would this be impractical? |
|
|
Not sure whether these ideas would be good, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to propose. ] 00:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think including links to more info (list of highways, wikiproject for that state, et cetera) in the table is a good idea. For an infobox... there is already an {{]}} which is used on alot of articles. That could probably be tweaked if there is some additional info which is needed. |
|
|
:Once this page is finalized there should probably be a subection added to ] with just a link to ]. --] 12:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Namespace quirks == |
|
|
|
|
|
There are a few things that sort-of but not quite fit in the naming convention. |
|
|
|
|
|
# The defunct ] have a P2-like naming convention. They are outside the scope of ], not being state routes, but with the move of state routes to P1, they will become an oddity. |
|
|
# Some of the preceding (8, 9, 10, 12, 26) do interact with SRNC, because state-level articles got merged into them. As a result, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire will have some stray P2 names, unless we recreate the state-specific articles at their P1 names. |
|
|
# ] got split into two pieces, currently ] and ]. I personally don't think we should have multiple articles for different pieces of a single state route, but there are some who disagree. If they stay split, they will need a naming convention (] and ], I presume). There are also {{tl|split}} tags on ] (4 pieces) and ] (2 pieces), although no split action has been taken on them. |
|
|
] 05:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:For the particular case of MA 3A, there is a "silent multiplex" between the two segments according to MassGIS data. These articles should probably be merged back. I believe the same is true for MA 1A. For MA 8A, the two segments are actually treated as distinct routes (with separate mile markers unlike 3A) and are referred to internally by MassHighway as Rt. 8A-U and Rt. 8A-L. These might be better as separate articles. --] | ] 05:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Despite said "silent concurrency", they are two different routes. The FHWA lists both I-76s, I-88s, etc like they are one route in their mileage tables, but they are different routes. --] (] - ]) 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:The New England routes should be moved to P1, since the NE articles are composed of state routes covered by ], at least that's my interpretation. --] <sup>] - ]</sup> 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agreed. If it doesn't happen this time since we didn't vote on those then we can get it changed later. --'''] (] - ]) ''' 03:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Voting to pass this== |
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:State route naming conventions poll/Part3/Vote}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Minnesota== |
|
|
Jonathunder Minnesota's common name from State Highway X to Minnesota State Highway X based on ]. However, that section implies that on ], it was decided that this was the common name, when it was actually accepted there that only State Highway X should be bolded. This was also the form used on the vote until . Thus I am changing Minnesota back to State Highway X. --] (] - ]) 18:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:It was in the previous round that Minnesota is not dropped from the bolded text because it is part of the common name, as the Minnesota project decided. ] 18:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Read the comments at the Minnesota project - they decided not to bold Minnesota. Part 2 only came up with "Minnesota State Highway X" because you changed it to "<Minnesota> State Highway X" after there were comments, and no one realized that until now. --] (] - ]) 18:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You have to put these sorts of things in perspective. If SPUI did something like that, he'd be blocked. Instead, though, we'll probably just wait around for replies like "I don't know what you're talking about" and that will be that. It's a dirty war, but it's the only one we've got, right guys? —<tt class="plainlinks">''']()'''</tt> 19:04, Sep. 25, 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
SPUI, you were told on the MN project page "Minnesota State Highway X" is common use: |
|
|
::::"Minnesota State Highway X" is common usage? --] (] - ]) 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Actually, yes.{{fact}} --'''](] - ]) ''' 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Here are some citations for this usage.] 02:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
In Round 2, this was agreed to. ] 19:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:No - two of the three comments were for <Minnesota> State Highway X. You then changed the title to make it seem like they were for Minnesota State Highway X. --] (] - ]) 22:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Strongly disagree. Kablamo did report the result of the Minnesota project accurately, with Minnesota bolded. When I made the title reflect what he had, in fact, said, since there was initially uncertainty about what the <> meant, I explicitly noted "the word Minnesota is not dropped" and "the proposal is exactly as Kablamo wrote". Minnesota had been bolded from the very beginning, because this is what the project agreed. ] 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Go back to ] and read Kablammo's comments. He specifically bolded State Highway but not Minnesota. --] (] - ]) 22:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: is the edit where Kablamo began that section. Minnesota is included in the bolded text. It was for the entire duration of the poll. ] 22:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Maybe he thought he was saying what the page name would be - there was certainly no agreement for the common name being "Minnesota State Highway X" at the Wikiproject. --] (] - ]) 22:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion keeping "Minnesota" is a good idea. There may be cases where it is helpful to avoid confusion where roads cross state lines. ] 21:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Dude. We discussed all this. Read the project page of this - ]. "Direct links using the article title can be used for situations where the context is not clear or for describing highways ending at state lines." --] (] - ]) 22:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
