This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SPUI (talk | contribs) at 16:02, 5 September 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

Discussion of the old poll (which is now at Misplaced Pages:State route naming conventions poll/Old) is here: Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:How to create policy and Misplaced Pages: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 •_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 Misplaced Pages-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 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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? 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 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 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 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 •_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, Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

--TinMan 15:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)==Slightly different format?== We should be determining the common name for Misplaced Pages:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways. How about "voting" on options like " 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 ]? And if <Virginia> Route X wins will links in an article be ] ?? Thanks again. Stratosphere 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 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, Highway 001 or American Samoa Highway 001. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. --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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages 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. --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)

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)