Talk:Virginia State Route 66

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. (non-admin closure) Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Virginia State Route 66 → Route 66 (Virginia) – To reflect scope., which seems ti include any "Route 66" in Virgina. Unless there's something I'm missing here, I-66 is not, nor has it ever been designated VA 66. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not definitely sure if disambiguation pages like this also fall under the Arbcom ruling involving the naming of U.S. state route pages. That Arbcom case was the result of a very heated page naming dispute involving U.S. state route articles, and the ruling stated that consensus come up with what is now WP:USSH. Per the guideline, "Virginia State Route X" is the format used for Virginia State Highways. Now although officially not designated as "Virginia State Route 66", it (or "State Route 66 (Virginia)", "Virgina Route 66" or the other various formats involved in the previous Arbcom dispute) could be considered common, alternate names for "Interstate 66 in Virginia". Like it is in other U.S. states, Virginia does not officially designate a separate "Virginia State Route 66" to avoid confusion with "Interstate 66". But this may result in several people referring to "Interstate 66" in Virginia as "Route 66" or "Highway 66" anyway (including this reliable news source which uses "Route 66" and "Interstate 66" interchangeably). Furthermore, per Interstate Highway System#Financing, the actual maintenance of interstate highways is generally the responsibility of the state, as if they were also state highway routes. So if both "Virginia State Route 66" and "Route 66 (Virginia)" are acceptable as common, alternate names for "Interstate 66" in Virgina, then, as of now, I would not recommend a page move over the redirect per the Arbcom case and the USSH guideline. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course I-66 can be called "Route 66" or "Highway 66". "Route" and "Highway" can be used for any type of Highway: Interstate, US, State, County, etc.; showing that those terms are used for I-66 proves nothing. There's no source here that the term "Virginia State Route 66" is used for I-66, and even if it were it would be a incorrect name. State route naming conventions shouldn't apply here, because this is not a state route page; this page lists any Route 66 in Virgina regardless of whether it's a state route. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support per nom. At the current title, I-66 really shouldn't be included. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• Move to List of roads in Virginia named Route 66, as normal for a set index that isn't at the base name. WP:SETINDEX -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:USSH. I have no reason to believe that USSH would not cover disambiguations/set indices. Zzyzx11 is correct that while I-66 displays a blue-and-red interstate shield, it is still a state route. Also, "Route 66 (Virginia)" would still violate USSH as it should be "State Route 66 (Virginia)". –Fredddie™ 23:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways, WP:SRNC, and WP:USSH. As this is an arbitration case-related issue, this is a special circumstance. --Rschen7754 23:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:USSH; based on the contentious history surrounding the topic in the past, anything that disturbs the status quo needs to be done on a higher level than a single page move. Imzadi 1979 → 23:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - WP:USSH. TCN7JM 23:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:USSH. Dough4872 01:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Is there any source that I-66 is a state route; it's article clearly identifies it as a Interstate and says nothing about it being a state route. Unless I-66 is a State Route, all arguments relying on WP:USSH's instruction for state routes are invalid. Route 66 (for example) is not titled "State Route 66" per WP:USSH because it's scope is not limited to State Routes. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • All Interstates are also parts of the respective state highway systems. For the situation in Michigan, see Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, which states that all of the Interstates and US Highways are also state trunkline highways; the analog will be true for the remainder of the states. Imzadi 1979 → 02:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something here that wouldn't make I-66 be "Virginia State Route 66" anymore then Interstate 12 would be "Louisiana Highway 12". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the state: in California they're all "State Route X" in the California Streets & Highway Code, regardless of the externally presented designation. Yes, legally I-80 in California is "State Route 80", and it isn't unreasonable for someone to apply that convention toward other states, even if it might be rare or uncommon. In Michigan, all of the current two-digit Interstates have an unrelated state trunkline sibling sharing the number, and like M-75 (Michigan highway), those sister highways have hatnotes to point to the Interstates. Ditto the duplication between U.S. Route 24 in Michigan and M-24 (Michigan highway). Imzadi 1979 → 06:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

What about Virginia, is there a source that Virginia designates it's Interstates "State Route [Interstate number]"? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose stronger than diamond—this was a really, really contentious issue in 2006, and it should not be revisited without a really good reason. Better to remove the entries that are out-of-scope or delete this page than to risk upsetting the 7-year peace that we've had since then. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out Route 66 is not titled "State Route 66" per WP:USSH because it's scope is not limited to State Routes. That has not upset the 7-year peace, why should this be any different? Your argument contradicts WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY which states "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. [...] Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.". This is worse than that, even tightly sticking to the rule retarding state route titles would not make it apply to non-state route pages (e.g. Route 66). Leaving the page at this title would set a terrible precedent. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't care. Don't want to have a discussion on highway naming conventions ever again. No matter how bad a precedent this sets, it's better than revisiting this topic. Last time it was discussed we had blocks handed out to several editors (at least one of them was an admin), an edit war that spread to thousands of pages, and it resulted in about a dozen people quitting the project. Whatever benefit there would be in trying to make this change isn't worth that happening again. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, your argument has two problems.

1. In the case of the former US 66, it had its name truncated in popular culture (music, songs, etc) from its full name, . Where the comparison ends is simple: the articles on the former highway segments all follow the USSH naming conventions, not the popular culture name.
2. WP:USSH doesn't specify "State Route 66" as an article title without a state specific identifier in front of the name. With the exceptions of Kansas and Michigan, all other single-state state highways have the state name preceding the rest of the highway name, as this page does currently.

You're essentially basing an request for a page move contrary to an ArbCom-mandated settlement on an exception that doesn't apply. Please, just put the lid back on this before it turns into a can of worms. Any page moves of this sort are contentious based on the past history, and we're telling you that it is just best to leave it all alone. Imzadi 1979 → 06:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Route 66 is not about US 66 specifiably. "Route 66" is about any "Route 66" like how this page is about any "Route 66" in Virgina. The articles about the individual Route 66's in Virgina also follow USSH naming conventions. Based on the arguments made here I could just as easily argue that per WP:USSH this page should be named Interstate 66 in Virginia (disambiguation); It'd be about as accurate scene this page contains both Virgina state routs and Virgina Interstates. Also, I could be wrong, but I get the impression that I-66 has truncated popular culture much more so then any of the former SR 66's.

As far as I can tell WP:USSH is silent on the title of pages that are cover both State Route and Interstates. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Note - I have removed Interstate 66 from the set index because it did not fit the scope. As that leaves both remaining occupants of the list former "State Route 66"s, I propose we try to get this discussion closed. TCN7JM 06:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it, I-66 has been in this article since this pages creation in 2006. Just because people for bureaucratic reasons don't want the title to match the scope doesn't change the scope. Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that USSH does prevent the title from matching the scope, it's USSH that needs to be "changed" (or more accurately be re-interpreted at an RFC), not the scope of this page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It already was interpreted. Seven years ago. By ArbCom. How many times must we explain this to you? There's been valid consensus to keep this the way it is and there's no adequately explained reason to change the consensus. TCN7JM 06:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say that pages that are about both Virgina State Routes and Virgina Interstates should be titled "Virginia State Route X". I see whare USSH says that pages that are about Virgina State Routes should be titled "Virginia State Route X", and I see where USSH says that pages that are about Interstates (Virgina or otherwise) should be titled "Interstate X in [state]", but I don't see where it says that pages that are about both Virgina State Routes and Virgina Interstates should be titled "Virginia State Route X". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, this is wikilawyering at best, and disruptive at worst - please just drop the WP:STICK. I don't think you understand how volatile of an issue this is. --Rschen7754 07:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The situation with this DAB page is similar to the one at M-4 (Michigan highway), if we look past the I-66 vs. SR 66 issue. The M-4 example is at the title one would expect for a single M-4. Given the comments above where the I- vs. US vs. SR/SH/etc distinctions get muddied by those not versed in the distinctions, including I-66 on this page isn't the game-changer it is purported to be. (Remember that an Interstate and a US Highway are just state highways numbered according to a national scheme using special sets of markers.) In short: nothing needs to be changed. Imzadi 1979 → 07:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:USSH —  VC  20:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.