Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll/archive2

Part 1 Discussion

Part 1 opens

We're opening Part 1: Principle. This is the generic form of the convention, not terms for individual states. This is discussion only, not voting (yet). Also, we potentially have three admins and need two more. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

State road list pages

Should we also include a naming convention for state road list pages as part of this poll? --TMF ^{T - C} 17:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are only one page per state - I don't see the point. We're going to be doing it separately by state anyway. --SPUI (T - C) 17:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the number of people that don't understand simple naming conventions, this process is flawed

See Talk:List of numbered highways in Ohio. A number of people, many of which are involved here, are "voting" to move List of numbered highways in Ohio to List of Ohio State Highways because the latter "sounds better" and is "more consistent", despite no evidence of "Ohio State Highways" being a formal term that should be capitalized. This is why voting is evil - people engage in groupthink with no consideration for the way things actually work. --SPUI (T - C) 06:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Correctness should not be sacrificed for "sounding better" or even consistency. --Polaron | Talk 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This process is flawed, yes, as your example has shown us. But isn't it inevitable? The last time we aimed for "correctness" about this issue (I'm not saying anyone's wrong, by the way), Wikipedia ended up in this quagmire. But if you can think up a process that is better than this AND fulfills this requirement, then we can discuss it.

I hope I didn't open a Pandora's Box. --physicq210 17:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving of discussion

Should we move the discussion from the proposal page to the talkpage (here)? It's getting way too cluttered and confusing. Format will be preserved to the best of ability. --physicq210 23:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine, to be honest. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Out for a while

Now that we have admins things look good, so if they get out of hand someone will look in on things. I'm on wikibreak for a while. I'll return sometime before voting ends though. If you have an urgent matter email me.

Oh yeah to start the voting process: once the voting begins, insert a header labeled "votes for this principle" under principles 1 and 2 (0 if you desire). You must have 100 edits to vote.

Take care and I'll return around the 31st. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have 6 admins but I think an extra judge will cause no harm. It's a place to start. Ashibaka tock 01:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, unless there's a tie. Just hope that doesn't happen. --physicq210 01:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Common name indentification

I strongly believe in of using common names for everything. However I don't understand the use of a general Google search to identify common names in this instance. The best way to find this info is to selectivly Googling the websites of local newspapers for things like 'auto accident' and 'road construction' along with a known three digit road number.[1] [2] The key is to avoid "looking" for a specific designation. Actually Googling the entire web for the names you are considering is a horrible method of discovering a common name. I would imagine road designations would be one of the easiest common names to identify as they are likely to appear in newspapers every single day.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting open

Since it was the 18th, I opened the voting. I listed 2 choices since I believe those are what is being discussed. If I left any out, feel free to add them. Vegaswikian 20:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is "Louisiana Highway XX " an example under both principles? I thought that was just for Principle 1. An example for Principle 2 would be "Highway XX (Louisiana)" wouldn't it? Am I wrong again? --TinMan 21:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been fixed by Phy. --TinMan 22:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Principle 2 is mischaracterized. It is [commonly used official road name] XX (disambiguation information if necessary). Principle 2 does not require the state name be in parentheses if the state name in front is a commonly used designation. --Polaron 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should add a "Principle 3" to show the difference between the two? --TinMan 21:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the Principle 2 voting option to more accurately reflect the actual principle. --Polaron | Talk 22:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've further edited it. "Common" and "official" can be paradoxical terms (such as the California highways). --physicq210 22:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Under the Principle 1 examples, I don't think "Michigan M-XX" is correct. Wouldn't it be "Michigan Route XX" (or replace route with some other word)? or am I wrong? --TinMan 04:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe you would be correct as the "M" in the abbreviation is intended to mean Michigan. What the correct name would be (possibly "Michigan Trunk Highway XX" or some equivalent), I do not know. --TMF ^{T - C} 04:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Principle 2 lists 'M-XX (Michigan highway)'. Should this be 'M-XX (Michigan)' or 'M-XX (highway)' or more likely 'M-XX' since those route names probably don't need disambiguation for the most part and those that do would be 'M-XX (Michigan)' or 'M-XX (highway)'? Vegaswikian 08:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There are Mxx highways in the UK and some other parts of the world. So the disambiguation needs both the what and the where part. --Polaron | Talk 13:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Europe uses Mnn, from M1, for the ones I saw and not M-nn so there is not need to dab these from the other roads. Vegaswikian 00:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Michigan seems to be a special case for these principles. They may have to have their own convention or something that's close to the chosen principle. --TinMan 00:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, why is "New York State Route XX" an example for both? I know you might think they would be formatted the same under both proposals, but it doesn't fit with what I thought is the explanation of Principle 2. I thought under Principle 2, it should be "State Route XX (New York)". If not, then that defeats the entire purpose of coming to a uniform or semi-uniform standard... and we're right back to square one. I know Polaron said earlier that it's "commonly-used official name", but who decides what's official and what's not? This has been argued over and over with no concensus. So to get to my point, if the vote is a tie, then essentially Principle 2 wins because that's what is being used now: individual states deciding their own format with some, but very little uniformity. Principle 2 encompasses Principle 1 for states that decide that Principle 1 is also a "offical/common name". Am I understanding this correctly? --TinMan 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

(To the second half of the paragraph) TinMan, you just mirrored my argument here. I agree with you 110%. This process is flawed beyond comprehension, but I've begrudingly accepted that fact.

If principle II is chosen, there's really no point in continuing with the rest of the timeline for this "poll", as principle two would leave us, as myself and TinMan have said, at status quo/square one.

As for NY, the official name of a NY state-maintained road is New York State Touring Route. No one in the state uses "Touring" (but they, as well as the DOT, do use everything else), so the common name is New York State Route.

To answer your question, you are understanding this correctly. --TMF ^{T - C} 02:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If Principle II wins or if the poll reaches a tie, we will essentially have 51 different/competing naming conventions for a state highway. --physicq210 02:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And this is a problem for what reason? We have state-dependent naming conventions for lots of other things. States are sovereign entities and independent actors, so a good deal of disagreement on what to call things is expected. Any issues of "confusing to the reader" can be solved with redirects.

But actually, we won't be "back where we started". We'll have agreement that this is how it's going to be, so hopefully there won't be anymore RFAr's on matters so bloody trivial as whether or not highway names in New York should be similar to highway names in Montana. --EngineerScotty 03:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess that is true (to your second paragraph). Not much, but I guess it's something. So basically this is a vote between semi-uniformity and complete diversity. At least in the next step, each state will get to decide once and for all what thier articles should be called. That's the part that will really move us forward. --TinMan 02:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So if what I said above is true, there shouldn't be a Principle III; Principle 2 takes its place. --TinMan 02:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This problem in perspective of the broadcast station standard

The current broadcast standard should be considered as it shows the impact on users over the confusion for a name. Since the names of the stations are 3 or 4 characters, the ability to redirect is limited since there are usually dab pages involved, so the problem here is not quite the same. The problem there is that a station could be listed as Wxxx or Wxxx-FM or Wxxx (FM) as one example. The first two are used based on which one is registered with the FCC. The third one is used to dab the first when required. This is hard for many editors to understand since we think that there is a standard that would produce a consistent result. The naming convention does not do that. I think that most editors would rather see a standard that has a format that is predictable. If the second were always used, then everyone would be able to predict the article title, but in some cases we would not be using the official name. It would also eliminate the need to disambiguate.

With these roads, a portion of the name is not predictable without knowledge since the use of route or highway or other terms will vary by state. If the location of the state in the name, or if you prefer the use of the state as a disambiguation, moved it would tend to confuse and make it appear as if there is no standard for the names. Choosing an option that at least had the state in the same place would tend to reduce at least some of the appearance of no standard. If the name were placed at the beginning, it would eliminate the need to disambiguate. So the choice may be a convention that requires disambiguation or one that does not. Vegaswikian 05:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That pretty much sums up the difference between the two proposals: principle I would provide that semblance of a standard by placing the state name in the same location and eliminating disambiguation while principle II would not and would require disambiguation. --TMF ^{T - C} 06:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Standardization doesn't always make sense. For example, why aren't the U.S. states titled Washington, United States or New York, United States or Washington State or New York State (they are all redirects). Using Georgia, United States for example would eliminate the Georgia (U.S. state) construction that some people dislike. This "state, United States" construction is a so-called "more complete name" and removes ambiguity and makes every name consistent. Would you support that? Why is New York City not at New York, New York which is the convention used for US cities? --Polaron | Talk 13:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As you said, standardization doesn't always make sense. However, I think your mentioned cases (absent NYC) are actually examples of standardization, rather than cases where it isn't used. We don't use New York State as the article title because our convention is to use just the official name of the state, minus any descriptive title (i.e., "State of New York" or "Commonwealth of Massachusetts"). Georgia is an unfortunate case in which we do have to disambiguate; since using "Georgia, United States" would be incongruous with the other 49 states, we use parenthetical disambiguation instead. And, the fact that standardization doesn't always make sense doesn't mean it never makes sense; in this case I believe it does. Powers ^T 21:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. We should apply the same principles to state roads and remove any descriptive title (e.g. the state name) if it is not part of the name. --Polaron | Talk 22:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

But that's a false comparison. If we had two states named "New York" and one was a "State" and the other was a "Commonwealth", and this was a common occurence among states, then we absolutely should use those descriptive titles as disambiguation. Powers ^T 13:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And even then, it would be Commonwealth of New York and State of New York, rather than New York (U.S. State) and New York (U.S. Commonwealth), I think, since this would probably be how the majority of the public would distinguish the two in common speech. --Tckma 20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel like a broken record here, but would you search for Route 146 or, e.g. Rhode Island Route 146? Sometimes disambiguation is necessary. --Tckma 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would likely search for Highway 146. I have no idea what the roads in RI are called, nor should I as somoene looking for information. Once I get the article it should educate me. Vegaswikian 16:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, you'd search for "Highway 146," knowing there are potentially 50 Highway 146s in the U.S. alone? OK, granted, if you didn't know we called them "routes" here on the East Coast, you'd probably look for Rhode Island Highway 146, which would then redirect you to the commonly-used local name of Rhode Island Route 146. That I agree with. But you'd probably put the state name first. --Tckma 20:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd add the state name if I got too many hits. If I was looking in NY, I'd try Route 146, only because I lived 100 feet from a NYS route, not 146, for 25 years or so. Vegaswikian 22:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Tcmka, I would search with the state name. Apparently many people don't do this, referencing to earlier comments. --TinMan 20:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

U.S. Interstate 95 isn't even a redirect, by the way (though it would be a decent one if anyone cares to create it). And "U.S. Interstate X" is sometimes used by newspapers, unlike "California State Route". --SPUI (T - C) 00:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the second time I've seen Emerson quoted in this discussion, as if it actually constitutes an argument. It's a borderline personal attack, to boot, as it implies that anyone who disagrees with you, SPUI, on this issue has a "little mind". Powers ^T 13:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but "Interstate" is a term that applies only in the U.S. Just like you'll only find an "Autoroute" in Québec or a "Motorway" in the U.K. I just don't feel that disambiguation by country is necessary here. Find me an Interstate highway that is called as such in a country other than the U.S. and I would be inclined to agree with you then. --Tckma 16:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So next we will have Interstate 95 (U.S.)? Your analogy doesn't apply. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus and a result

Exactly what determines the outcome of the vote? My understanding is that after the vote by editors, the final decision will be made by the admin judges. With 6 participating, I'm further assuming that a vote by 4 of them would be required to establish consensus support for any decision. Vegaswikian 05:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in both regards (at least, that's how I interpret the timeline instructions as well). --TMF ^{T - C} 05:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. However, if its close I expect there will be some protest. --TinMan 16:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting violation

User:Nnnnnnnhytr does not have 100 edits, so that vote should be disqualified according to the poll rules. This is evidenced by this edit count (Essjay's). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooday.1 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. One of the admins should be notified. --TMF ^{T - C} 22:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I see it has been taken care of. --TMF ^{T - C} 22:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There was an unsigned comment on Principle 1 from an IP... I assume that was from someone who didn't log in? Could someone check? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It was me, sorry. I saw Essjay and thought my name. --TinMan 02:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe Rschen was referring to the unsigned IP vote on the main project page. =) --TMF ^{T - C} 03:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The IP vote was from the person that didn't log in: [3]. No violation here. --physicq210 03:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Another voting violation: too few edits. As of 02:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC) voter #30 on the Principle 1 side, User:FairHair, has 52 edits, 48 short of the required amount to vote. This is evidenced by this edit count (Essjay's) --TinMan 02:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote struck out. --physicq210 02:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

People commenting when voting

Discussion

This may be just me, but it irks me to see comments next to the votes of others in the poll, especially when we have not only the discussion section above the voting area, but also this page. I remember the voting instructions (placed in code by Master son physicq210 in the voting section when the voting began) stated to use #~~~ when voting, not # Comment. --~~~~. Again, this is probably just me, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyway.

This rant is addressed at voters on both sides of the poll. After all, who goes into the polling station at elections and talks to the voting machine before casting their vote? =) --TMF ^{T - C} 23:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that note. Apparently, I forgot to say "no comments please" in the note. But people don't read the notice or pay attention to it anyway; some of the signatures (on both sides) have dates, implying that they typed four tildes, not three. --physicq210 23:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. See vote #24 for principle II. An admin should really take care of this for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier comment. --TMF ^{T - C} 00:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Talking to a voting machine, haha. I agree, the comments should be struck thru or deleted or something. It's a rule that you shouldn't comment there and it annoys me that I can't have a rebuttal, so please stop on both sides. --TinMan 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've notified Ashibaka of this issue, so we'll see what happens. --TMF ^{T - C} 03:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I commented out the people's "last words", since it's not like they're meant for actual discussion. Maybe I led them to that mistake by telling them on the Community Bulletin Board to discuss this issue on this page. Anyway, now that all the votes have the comments removed it should be more evident that they're separate sections. Ashibaka tock 05:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The comments were restored. Apparently, the person restoring didn't realize that one the the judging admins removed them and wasn't reading this section. And apparently, only one side's comments were restored, leading to an imbalance. I'm unwilling to touch the comments, lest I be accused of "vandalism." --physicq210 22:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, now it looks like the Principle II side is campaigning at the ballot box. --physicq210 22:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Vegaswikian 22:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the comments are unnecessary. Discussion is discussion (agree or disagree), and voting is voting. Homefryes ^Say•_Do 21:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fine, let's vote on it if that's what we need to prove a concensus. All those in favor of removing the comments on the individual votes, let it me known by saying "Aye"; all those opposed can just say "Nay". --TinMan 22:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, four votes seems good enough for me... Ashibaka tock 03:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Now its five, if you consider my "Yea" vote "Aye." --physicq210 04:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so now, if anyone reverts it, you can charge them with tampering with the votes. =) --TinMan 15:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's an idea: if people insist on adding comments, then their vote can be nullified for not following directions. :P --TMF ^{T - C} 21:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Or get them temporarily banned for vandalism. =) It's the same as spray painting a polling booth! --TinMan 21:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just remove them and any extra baggage they want to hold on their vote. Discussions do not belong in the vote itself. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a rule. It's clearly stated in the process. And I quote: "Do not discuss principles or otherwise leave comments here. Please discuss in the relevant sections above." You can comment anywhere else on the article except in the process rules and in the voting section. We can't argue your comment when you put it down there and it's not in the right area. Like I said, it's a rule, and it should be enforced just like all the other rules. If I can't break it, neither should you. The vote below is just to prove that that truly is a rule and it should be enforced. I can't believe there's an argument on this; in fact, this is really silly. --TinMan 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the user who continually insists on placing his comment in the voting section has done so once again after being warned numerous times, including on his talk page, I think that he won't mind if his vote is officially nullified for violating the voting procedure. --TMF ^{T - C} 02:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that. He has tained the voting pool with his off-hand remark that is incorrectly placed, despite numerous warnings and attempts to remove it. He has engaged in an edit war and vandalised the page by ignoring the basic rules that are set up to protect this type of process. He has ignored the administrator's polite request to move the comment to the approperiate place, therefore, I make a move that we move the comment for the user and strike his vote from the ballot permanently. This is evident by his other remarks he has made after two messages were left on his [User_talk:Rory096 talk page].

I'm curious if he does this during the national elections. It's not as if you go into a voting booth and leave comments on the walls for others to read while they vote... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We're going to need an admin to strike out the vote, if we are actually going to go this far. We don't want some random editor striking it out and cause a massive controversy. --physicq210 04:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. See Syrthiss admin page for my comment. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether it be Ashibaka, who was the first admin involved in this issue, or Syrthiss, an admin needs to be notified so that the vote can be cancelled. Perhaps another admin (Nightstallion maybe?) should be contacted to be impartial? --TMF ^{T - C} 04:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree by the way. If I had done what he did, my vote should be struck as well... but I didn't. =) --TinMan 11:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Procedure: Add in your vote by typing '''Aye.''' or '''Nay.''' and then proceed to add four ~~~~ . Result will be '''Aye.'''~~~~ or '''Nay.'''~~~~ Do not add comments, they will be erased.

Aye. --TinMan 22:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Aye. atanamir 23:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Aye. physicq210 23:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Aye. --TMF ^{T - C} 03:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Aye. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongest possible nay. These are supposed to be for gathering consensus, not counting votes. You judge consensus by seeing what people say, not just seeing what side they take. --Rory096 21:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The voting and discussion are two different processess. The discussion started before the voting and some of us have not yet voted since we are watching the discussion. Also remember that the vote is not what will determine the outcome here. That is for the judges to decide. So even if the editors were to vote a tie, the judges could still reach a consensus. In the end we will have consensus (unless the judges tie) and we can put this all behind us. At least after we agree on the state naming conventions. Vegaswikian 22:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because there's a separate place for discussion doesn't mean that people should be banned from justifying their vote. What if they didn't participate in the discussion, and only wanted to leave a short comment? That comment is then removed, and so all they're giving is their name. That's not very helpful if you're trying to gather consensus. --Rory096 23:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone wishes to help build a consensus here, then just jumping in and voting is not the best approach. They really should be involved in the discussions. I could comment on some of the comments but would probably find myself in violation of several guidelines and policies. Given the intensity of emotion on the various sides, keeping the vote simply a vote avoids more problems then it might create. This is not simply to gather consensus, it's to end an edit war in a reasonable way. Vegaswikian 23:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Because people should read the Discussions first, come to a conclusion on how they want to react, and then vote. So, do you go to voting booths, plaster up some last minute "VOTE FOR ME" posters on the booth itself, and claim that it is approperiate? Also, see your [talk page] - comments in the voting for Part 1 need to be moved to Discussion as approperiate. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you participate in the discussion? If you can take the time to vote, you can also take the time to comment in the appropriate places. To reiterate the point I made above, voting is voting and discussion is discussion. Homefryes ^Say•_Do 23:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why can't you just put it in the discussion section? You have a good argument: we don't say Tv Series 24, we say 24 (TV Series). In fact, I've actually used that example on the Virginia debate. I'd like to comment on your argument, but I can't if it's under your name. That's why it should fall under discussion. Voting is just that, voting. When you go into a poll booth, you don't have to give a reason why you voted like you did, you just check the box. If you did write on it, I'm pretty sure they'd cast your ballot out. I understand your desire for final comments, but they don't need to be said on your vote; just put it SOMEWHERE on the discussion page. Discussion is NOT over and won't be over until the end of voting. So, just put it there. It gets messy when you comment in the voting section and makes everyone want to do it like a competition, disrupting the fairness of the poll, which will be used by the admins to form a decision. --TinMan 23:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's already been done for me. I've put other similar arguments in the discussion section, and this wasn't necessary. I just wanted to add a short reason of why I voted the way I did, because since the judges are supposed to be the ones deciding the consensus, rather than vote counting, it would probably be helpful to explain why I voted the way I did so that they can judge how much my opinion is worth. If I just voted with no explanation, how do you know I'm not just a meatpuppet recruited by the side I voted for? And really, should we be banning "sway[ing] any user 'at the last moment?'" Arguments are just as relevant at any time during the process, and whether someone is convinced that one side is right at the last moment or right when the discussion begins doesn't matter- the person still agrees with that side because of their arguments, that's not unfair at all. How have I "tained[sic] the voting pool?" I never introduced any new arguments in my comment, and even if I had, does it matter? I've tainted the voting pool by trying to convince people to agree with me? Last time I checked, that's the whole point of a discussion. But I digress. You clearly have larger numbers, so you win every vote you insist on calling. I'm striking my own vote as it is useless against greater numbers and faulty reasoning. I won't participate in such an anti-Wikipedian process. --Rory096 17:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason why we ask people not to put comments in the voting section is because:

1. It is similar to having the last word. No one can discuss it, no one can debate it. You have all the space to debate and argue above the voting section. Is it so necessary to shelter your comments from criticism?
2. It is equivalent to posting campaign posters at the voting booth. A voting booth is a place to vote, not a place for last-minute campaigning or proselytizing.

Any additions, omissions, or corrections? --physicq210 18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This drama is just a symptom of the decision to vote. "Polling encourages the community to remain divided by avoiding that discourse; participants don't interact with the other voters, but merely choose camps." My goal has always been to convince others with the logic of my arguments. I have seen people change sides, often when they realize how the pipe trick actually works in conjunction with our parenthetical disambiguation methods (hell, that's why I changed sides back before this shit started), and it's a lot nicer than seeing them trapped on the losing side of a vote (yes, there have been places, like on Talk:Michigan highway system, where a vote would have likely given consensus for parenthetical disambiguation).

Don't take this as a vote for or against allowing comments in the vote. If you must take it as a vote, call it a vote against the vote. --SPUI (T - C) 04:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your "voting is evil" rhetoric belongs in the section below. And you still have not offered any alternative solutions to this problem. --physicq210 04:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a solution - everyone thinks long and hard about this, and maybe realizes why parenthetical disambiguation works. I've seen it happen before. I haven't seen anyone change away from that side. --SPUI (T - C) 04:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We did think about it "long and hard." That's why we oppose it. --physicq210 05:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny, that's why I support it. --SPUI (T - C) 05:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we just see it differently. --physicq210 05:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

He supposedly encourages self-thinking, but that's only as long as you agree with him in points of debate. If you don't, you're wrong. Homefryes ^Say•_Do 10:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if the voting was going in his favour, he would be supporting this vote. But since he is down by a few, he's pulling out the "voting is evil" card (see, I told you!) and trying his damn best to get this legit process stopped so he can have his way. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 11:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the pipe trick is great. Really. But it works fine with redirects. Therefore, while still a potential reason for supporting Principle II, its impact is much lessened in my mind, by the fact that Principle I doesn't prevent its use. I've thought "long and hard" about it and realized that parenthetical disambiguation doesn't seem like the best choice in this situation. That you seem to think those who disagree with you just haven't thought about it enough is disappointing. Powers ^T 14:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The "voting is evil" excuse

For quite some time, I've noticed that many editors have thrown out the "voting is evil" excuse. Frankly, I am forced to ask: so what other solution do you have? If not voting on this, then what do you want? I've been asking this question for weeks upon end, but no one has answered it except with more "voting is evil" propaganda. --physicq210 22:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For changes like this, I'm inclined to say that 'voting is evil' because many people would prefer the status quo, or would not want to vote for something that seems unfamiliar to them. In this case, most of the people who say "voting is evil" is on the side of principle II (as am I). To us, this is a issue of correct vs. incorrect, and hence we shouldn't have to vote to change something that is currently in a incorrect state to a better and correct new state. atanamir 22:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So, it's like Wikipedia is unprepared for such a massive change? --physicq210 22:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

not wikipedia, but rather a bunch of editors (if it was wikipedia being unready, the vote would be more like 49-2). However, because people "aren't ready" doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed to what is correct. It is an encyclopedia, after all. atanamir 22:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that whenever there is a vote that is taking place that one person does not agree with in part or in whole, the "voting is evil" card is thrown out with little or no discussion taking place stemming from that. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't dished out voting is evil myself, but i'm trying to explain the thinking behind it in this case. atanamir 23:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least someone took the time to explain the rationale behind it. Thanks! --physicq210 00:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting is evil, but it is a lesser evil to continous edit warring. IMHO when it comes to a vote it means the community has failed to be reasonble. The real question for those who refuse to vote is whether or not voting is more evil than limiting the community to people who refuse to edit war. If this is really the greater question I would rather vote. Unfortuanately there are far too few people who can avoid getting drawn in to these kind of conflicts. So in conclusion voting should be avoided when at all possible, but in some cases things become so unreasonable that the only way to move forward is through voting (or massively banning the editors involved). --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As a joke and a counterpoint to meta:voting is evil, see WP:VINE. --physicq210 02:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation or a clearly defined style?

I have been looking at this more as a style guide for an encylopedia where editors have a constant form to follow that is predicatable. Yet most of the discussions seem to be about the correct way to disambiguate. What is wrong with a style format that does not require disambiguation? Yes, it may be longer or not legally accurate, but it is always predictable and definitive. The article can always clear up any legal issues with the name. It would also eliminate the need for so many redirect pages and there is never a requirement to disambiguate for the article name. I guess the requirement to disambiguate is why I'm having a problem with Principal II. Vegaswikian 05:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Using an incorrect name as a title propagates the use of the incorrect name because many editors create links using the title. And even if you create links using the correct name which happend to be a redirect, other editors come along and "fix" the redirects. The parentheses makes rendering the disambiguation information invisilbe very easy to do. --Polaron | Talk 05:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

But this is all based on using a sytle for naming these articles that creates the problem. Even if Principal II is selected, some number of the articles will follow the sytle of Principal I. The problem I have is selecting a style that creates a problem that needs to be dealt with. Principal I seems to create no dab problems. I guess my problem is a choice that is sometimes going to be completly correct or always creating a name that is predictable and clear and only incorrect for some experts. A title can not be incorrect if it follows an accepted style. Vegaswikian 05:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As Vegaswikian stated, who cares what the "expert defined" name of the state road is at this point in time? Each side has had ample time to make their case, and each side has made a compelling case, rendering each other's arguments moot point for point. This poll is no longer a debate of what the appropriate disambiguation is, it has become a poll between developing a consistent naming convention format or leaving the current system in place, which will just lead to more debates later in time and, in all likelihood with the way things are going, another poll like this one in another six months. When ArbCom ruled in July that the community had to come to a formal policy, I don't think they had seven (which I believe will be the appx. number of different NC format variations under principle II) formats in mind. Plus, I don't see how principle II, which leaves the entire NC up to debate, is a "formal policy". What's more, the best way to reduce conflict, which that same ArbCom ruling stressed, would be to create a consistent naming format across the country, eliminating move wars over naming. --TMF ^{T - C} 06:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think Principle II leave the NC up for debate any more than Principle I. These are just the general formats. The actual names will be decided on a state-by-state basis per the plan [4] In any event roads will be one of easiest things there is to determine the common names of as I explained above. I do not believe there can be much room for contention about what the common names are in these cases. If you would like to give me a few example articles, I can give you evidence of what the common name is.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, rendering the disambiguating information invisible is equally easy under both proposals thanks to the magic of redirects. If editors are "fixing" those redirects, we need only tell them that it's unnecessary and in fact undesirable in some cases. The main thing I like about Principle I is that it will make pages like Route 15 much easier to scan, and that's something we can't fix with redirects (at least not without changing the Manual of style section on disambiguation). Powers ^T 14:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the proposals are basically equal, the whole issue here is really just a matter of preference. I prefer Principle II's emphasis on the common name, but if Principle I is adopted it will work just as well. Also there is no reason the disambiguation pages must start each choice with the actual title. Below is an a completely made-up example (I am not suggesting these would be the acutal title for MI or NY):

Route 15, or Highway 15, can refer to:

. . .

Michigan: M-15 is a north-south highway crossing the entire state

New York: Route 15 (New York) is toll highway from Foo to Foobar

So if Principle II is adopted we can still fix the disambig pages for scanning.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How did I miss your last sentance there? Well I think something like this should be allowed, I imagine it would be useful elsewhere even if it becomes irrelevant in this case. (i.e. Jefferson County)--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should've been more blunt when I made my comment above. What's more important: a "common name" title or a consistent format? That's what this comes down to. --TMF ^{T - C} 22:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. I support both "common name" and "consistent format" and think Principle I best combines both, under the assertion that "<State> <Highway/Route/Whatever> <Number>" is the most common phrasing outside of the state (we can't use the in-state term because that produced ambiguity). Powers ^T 15:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't we need some evidence that that assertion actually "checks", though? If it's true, I'd agree. (However your parenthical remark suggests a different principle, which as noted elsewhere, I'd very much disagree with.) Alai 00:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, you would need a poll of some kind. And there will always be exceptions, like PCH instead of Route 1. Vegaswikian 00:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

To a first approximation, I'd be happy with a root-mean-square idea of the common name for all the routes in a given state, meexed up in a beeg bucket with a dooble 'elping of paté. Once we have a convention, then we can worry about special pleading for the exceptions. I certainly find SPUI's zero google news hits for "California State Route" a little concerning in that regard (and come to that, it doesn't get a very large number of google hits in the wild). But maybe people don't just write about SRs in other states very much... Alai 01:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that is the problem. The state routes get written about only locally so there is no need to worry about the state. So we may have a unique problem that we need to solve in a reasonable way. Vegaswikian 02:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely not quite unique, but it does make the research task that much harder. Alai 02:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't have phrased it as an assertion, since it may not actually be true (although I honestly can't imagine what other option there might be). But since we're talking about the difference between "California State Route 948" and "State Route 948 (California)", I'm not sure how looking at popularity is going to be instructive, since I don't think anyone uses the latter anywhere, and we've already established that almost no one uses the former. Or are there other options I'm forgetting? Powers ^T 12:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying no one uses "State Route 948"? Remember, the parenthetical is not part of the name of the thing. older ≠ wiser 13:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit Conflict)I don't understand what you are getting at here you say no one uses "State Route 948 (California)" but I think you must mean "as typed" including the parenthetical disambiguation. Are you implying that none of the titles in WP using parenthetical disambiguation should be counted as being the common name? Do you think all such articles would more appropriate if they were titled with a name that was actually used as typed even if it less common than a more ambiguous name? Am I completely misunderstanding you?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that I find it odd to say that "State Route 948 (California)" is better than "California State Route 948" solely on the basis of usage, because both include disambiguation terms in them. That one is in parentheses doesn't mean the other isn't also a disambiguation term that isn't part of the common name. Powers ^T 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and I agree with you. Just because a word is in parentheses doesn't mean it isn't said or read. It becomes part of the phrase, whether you want it to or not. When dealing with dozens of State Route X's, why is it better to put the state in parentheses rather than make it part of the name? It also follows what has been said when talking about routes that cross state borders. Doesn't make much sense in those cases to leave the state names out, or to just dab with parentheses, as they become an integral part of the routes' names, IMHO. Homefryes ^Say•_Do 21:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The 3-digit Interstate Highway articles already use the parentheses convention and nobody seems to mind. Do people think we should use the state name in front there as well? If you answer no, then you have answered exactly why in some states it is not suitable to use the state name in front. 2-digit state specific Interstate Highway articles, on the other hand, use Interstate X in State instead. For people who hate parentheses, would that style be an acceptable alternative for those states that do not use the state name in front? --Polaron | Talk 21:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

But people actually call it "California State Route x", but they don't call it "California Interstate 405". This is a comparison of apples to oranges. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and "State Route 224 in California" is a lot of typing for a link. There you can't even use the pipe trick. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point. I don't know about California, but CT, MA and RI for example virtually never use the state name in front. Same reason that you said. And no I don't actually like "road in X" either. Just trying to find out what people's reasons are for insisting a universal state name in front scheme. --Polaron | Talk 22:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The main reason is that is what is common usage. I assume that people are not dumb and realize that there is more than one State Route 34 and when they search they will type in "California State Route 34" rather than "State Route 34 (California)" (especially users who are not familiar with Wikipedia.) Also note that the ArbCom case states that the use of prentheses "is not a required method" and " there is more than one way to do things on Wikipedia." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't people also search for "New Jersey Interstate 295" because they know there are quite a few of them? If what people search for is your concern, you should also be advocating moving the 3-digit Interstates as well to what people might search for. Searching is easily overcome with the appropriate redirects. We should not create uncommon names to just "be consistent" with some guideline. --Polaron | Talk 22:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just the 295 that they do that with. Most don't, and thus we use parentheses. But really, Interstate highways are not state highways (for our purposes here). You're comparing apples to oranges here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What makes state highways special? Why not name county routes using the style you prefer? Why not California County Route G2 or New Jersey County Route 505? Why are state highways specifically singled out to be inconsistent with the "Use common names" principle? If your answer again is that people don't call those highways these names then you have answered exactly why the state name in front doesn't work for some states. I'm not claiming we should do this for all states, just those that almost never use the state name in front. --Polaron | Talk 23:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We tried that. Except well it's the county so it would be San Diego County Route S22. But it was too much of a mess. So we went to parenthetics. But it really is not the same, as in CA the county routes often go between counties. So we have Imperial County Route S22 as well but it's the same as the SD one. Which county gets the article? Again it's really not a fair comparison. We can't call it California County Route S22 because it's not owned by the state. Really County Route S21 (California) isn't effective for that reason either. But it goes to show you that you can't compare county routes to state routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey seems to have solved this problem handily, see County Routes in New Jersey. However, NJ is unique in that it has a special statewide numbering convention for county routes that only one county has chosen not to follow. --Tckma 18:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

On the three-di Interstates, I do answer "no", because no state actually names them that way. If no state named their state routes with the state name in front, then I wouldn't care how they were disambiguated. But because many states do put the state name in front of their state routes, I think they all should for consistency when browsing. Powers ^T 00:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with LtPowers here and say that the 3di articles should continue to be dabbed with the state name in parentheses. Often the 3di's span multiple states, for example Interstate 195 (Massachusetts) starts in Rhode Island. You will hear no one, and I mean NO ONE, ever say "Massachusetts Interstate 195." It's more feasible to hear someone say "New York Route 7," for example. --Tckma

I guess my main point is that if Principle I is chosen, it should not be blindly appplied to every state highway system. We should make sure that there is significant usage of the pre-disambiguated name. If it can be shown convincingly that the state name in front is very rarely used, then exceptions have to be allowed for. Remember that this is a naming guideline and not binding policy. --Polaron | Talk 23:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The only exception that is really even close to being practical is Kansas and Michigan, in my opinion. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem with Principle 1: it determines that a lego-block assemblage of common components be used, without regard to actual commonness of the final result. "Use a common name" is certainly not consistent with using names that are almost never used (even given Wikipedia's pollution of google results), and come to that merely "avoid using names that are almost never used" is an unreasonable weakening of it. (Of course, it's only a guideline to be borne in mind while compiling another guideline, but I imagine the ArbCom would be pretty fed up to see a "State route naming conventions resumed dispute", and in their position I'd be pretty keen on seeing a decision complied with (even if I personally thought the result was a poor one), for the sake of putting an ultimately fairly minor issue to bed one way or another.) Alai 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Above (and so far above I'm not going to even try and preserve the indentation), LtPowers writes: But since we're talking about the difference between "California State Route 948" and "State Route 948 (California)". I think I can help you out there: no, we're not, we're talking about difference between actual usage of "California State Route 948" and of "State Route 948", here to be disambiguated as necessary. To argue otherwise is basically to rail against any use of parenthical disambuation, in favour of a "natural" descriptive phrase, regardless of whether it's ever used as a name. Parenthical disambiguation does not purport to be the common name, or give the impression of doing so: that's the whole point. Thus, as has already been pointed out, on the basis of the arguments advanced in favour of Principle 1, we'd have Dr Dre's 2001 or 2001, the hip hop CD, and not 2001 (album). (Though the very fact that this has beem pointed out before argues for the futility of pointing it out again; oh well.) Alai 03:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above. My dislike of Principle I is that I love the the "use common names" policy. I worry that this will just be used as a precedent to further weaken that policy. I understand the arguments being used for Principle I but I cannot help thinking we are here to write a comprehensive encyclopedia not the ultimate guide to US roadways. We need to adopt conventions that scale across the whole of WP rather than use conventions which best fit a small sub-section. I know this isn't the first time such a convention would be adopted but I still feel we should have as few such conventions as possible. And it would be a real shame to do so in this case where common names are so easy to determine.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. The actual name is "State Route 948" in both cases; in one case, it's disambiguated with the state name in front; in the other, it's disambiguated with the state name in parentheses. Frankly, I don't see any advantage to using the latter; "use common names" doesn't apply because the "common name" is the same in both cases -- the only difference is where we put the disambiguation. And I use semicolons too often. Powers ^T 15:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're wrong. I would definately have "2001 (album)" instead of "2001, album" or something like that. "2001" is the offical title of the album, as is (for example), "North Carolina Highway x". Those are both official and common titles. Shortening to "Highway x" and adding a parentheses disamiguation is just incorrect for that state. Now, California and other places may be different, but I don't think they have the right to strip the rest of the states' routes of their official/common titles. By putting the state name in front, you disambiguate easily, avioiding parentheses (which is encouraged). Everybody can relate and understand and none of the article titles are incorrect in a worldly sense. Despite what anyone else may think, I still believe "California State Route x" is a common name; I've been using that format in language for a long time so everyone knows what state and what type of highway I'm talking about. --TinMan 16:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

But Principle 2 is not requiring highway names for states that do have significant usage of the state name in front to be "stripped" of the state name. North Carolina is one of those states and would not be at all affected by whatever principle is chosen. But there are states like Rhode Island that do not do that. Why should they be forced to use an almost never used name for their roads? Principle 2 just says find a name in common use and disambiguate if necessary. If the common name has the state name in front, then that's what the names of the articles would be. --Polaron | Talk 16:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Then you get people interpreting the policy liberally and messing up states like California and Washington. And get more controversy over "California State Route 22" versus "State Route 22 (California)". End of story. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what we should be doing is come to an agreement about how to determine objectively whether a name is common or not. Then most of the debates would be resolved. --Polaron | Talk 18:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If that was going to work I would consider it. But a Google test is not the answer for everything. People will push that and then the NC will be all screwed up. I'm not going for it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Then it becomes a style guide and not a disambiguation question. The style guide unifies the look of the encylopedia. It is not mearly disambiguation, but does address it. It sets the look and feel. It means that someone will know how to find or include something in the text. If means that the encylopedia has the look and feel of being written by one person and not something thrown together by hundreds of editors. If you consider this a sytle sheet discussion, then the answer should be clear on how to vote. If you want to make it a disambiguation discussion, as we apparently do, then we are going to have a split vote. Personally this should be a vote on the sytle sheet for the encylopedia, but I guess I'm in the minority here. Vegaswikian 18:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct, and we simply cannot remember 50 naming conventions. Even the "Route" versus "Highway" is difficult enough. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should go back to when all the state highway articles were at "State name State Highway X" from a year or two ago. That would make the look and feel the same across the board. --Polaron | Talk 18:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I wish we could do that but then people want "Route" or "State Route." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to characterise as "disambiguation" an arbitrary prefix to a name, which completely fails to distinguish between the actual name, and the "disambiguator". That we have people arguing for the same thing, on mutually contradictory grounds (that it's just a style of disambig, and that it's actually the common name (in all cases?)) is rather concerning. The argument that we should choose a bad principle, because people would misapply the good principle, doesn't hold a lot of water. Isn't Part 2 supposed to determine the correct name in each instance? What room does that leave for "liberal" application? One can only hope that people will be as quick to disregard "Principle 1" when it gets down to specifics, as they were to disregard "use common names" in voting for P#1 in the first place. BirgitteSB says, "I worry that this will just be used as a precedent to further weaken that policy". That's about right, though rather than being cited as a precedent as such, it's more likely we'll just get more conventions being created on the basis of "we've decided that we've prefer such-and-such a style", in a broadly similar fashion. The (names and titles) situation already contains elements of the same trend. Alai 05:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation: The removal of ambiguity. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about "disambiguation" within the sense of WP:DAB and the applicable naming conventions, not playing dicdef corner. Alai 05:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And the other thing. Why does it say at the ArbCom Highways case that the use of parentheses is not required? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Because that's also what WP:DAB says, perhaps. However, the ArbCom did not go on to say "ignore WP:DAB entirely and 'vote' your personal preference". And if a state name prefix is being to "disambiguate" that is not part of a (common) name for the object described (which is what LtPowers is explicitly arguing on the basis of, and what I was responding to), that's not consistent with any of the means of disambiguation specified therein. (To wit: more complete name, disambiguating word or phrase in parentheses, or "rarely", an added adjective.) Alai 06:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In reference to all this 'common vs standard' discussion I have been curious how Principle I will work with situations where there is a near universally used 'common name' and the numeric value is virtually unknown. Will Garden State Parkway and New Jersey Turnpike become New Jersey Route 444 and New Jersey Route 700? --CBD 11:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Could names possibly be piped? Nyttend 11:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with linking to a redirect. --SPUI (T - C) 11:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that this is about numbered routes. If a name (or a different number - like Interstate 305/State Route 51 vs. Interstate 80 Business) is more commonly used, at least even by official agencies (in many cases because the number is not signed), then it is typically better to put the article at the name rather than the number. --SPUI (T - C) 11:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting ending tomorrow

At 23:59 UTC on Aug 31 (I think it's 5 PM Pacific, 8 PM Eastern) voting will be closed (preferably by an admin). Use some thing that marks it as a closed debate (with the nice background color). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting for part 1 can be closed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Closed, page protected. Teke ^(talk) 02:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom clearly encouraged consensus on this matter, not a majority-wins poll. There is a clear lack of consensus here. --SPUI (T - C) 05:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We have to have some convention. 41% isn't consensus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We know this may not be the best choice available, but what do you want us to do then? --physicq210 06:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It may not have consensus support, and it may have been conducted almost entirely in terms of preference, rather than trying to follow disambiguation and common name practice. But it's best "turnout", and the numerically clearest outcome of any such discussion, and as I said before, I very much doubt the ArbCom would be thrilled to have "lack of a clear consensus" construed as "licence to resume move-warring". Alai 06:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I second that. --physicq210 06:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have consensus?

As I stated in my vote (and now see others have said above) ArbCom charged us with demonstrating a consensus... not a majority. However, I believe we are close and would like to see whether others affirm that. While Principle I is the standard preferred by the majority, I believe that there is also widespread agreement on the following;

1. We should have a page with a name something like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (roads) spelling out all the details of naming standards for roads.
2. Those standards should include the practice of always making a 'Principle II style' redirect to the page.
3. The page should also contain explanation of the 'pipe trick' and examples of how to use it with road names. For example, [[Route 15 (Florida)|]] being the preferred way to create a "Route 15" link if the state is clear from the context... but [[Florida Route 15]] being the preferred link format if the article context doesn't make the state obvious.

• Supporters of Principle I, please tell me if you object to the above.
• Supporters of Principle II, please tell me if you find the Principle I standard at least acceptable with these additions.

Obviously we can't give everyone their preference, but a solution acceptable to almost all IS a consensus and I hope we have that here. --CBD 10:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Read my comment at [5]. Even if all of us can somehow agree that what we use the actual name when writing text, which I somehow doubt (Rschen7754 in particular has recently made many changes to re-add the state name in the text), we'll have non-highway editors writing redundant or incorrect prose in other articles that talk about the highways. We'd basically need a notice at the top of the article saying "the article is at Michigan State Highway 1 but the name is actually M-1, so please use the latter in text". --SPUI (T - C) 10:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but during the discussion many 'P I' supporters said, 'oh but you can do that with a P II redirect'. Which would be an odd thing to say if they weren't actually willing to accept the use of the 'pipe tricked' links they were saying you could make. While it is obviously not as good for your purposes as having the main name be parenthecially disambiguated I ask you if having that be a standard redirect and written up as common usage for links in a road naming policy you can point people to might not be 'good enough' to at least give it a try? Obviously if there isn't really as much 'P I' acceptance of this as shown in the discussion then it's a non-issue and we have a problem, but if it could really be written up that way might that be at least workable or worth trying to see if it could be made to work? --CBD 11:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's my issue:

NWOhiodude, an editor from the Toledo, Ohio area, is expanding the article about Hudson, Michigan, a small town near the Ohio border. He's been there a few times and wants to help with the article.

NWOhiodude looks at a map and sees a state highway numbered 34 passing through the town. He knows that in Ohio, state highways are called State Route X, but doesn't know the Michigan standard. So he goes to Michigan highway system and finds the link to 34.

NWOhiodude clicks on 34 and gets to Michigan State Highway 34 or another Principle I name. He sees that in the text, M-34 (the actual name) is bolded, but he doesn't know if this is the full name or an abbreviation. So he assumes (wrongly) that Michigan State Highway 34 is the full name, and writes "Michigan State Highway 34 passes through Hudson on Main Street."

I see no way to fix this without adopting Principle II. --SPUI (T - C) 12:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What he did seems fine to me. I still don't think Michigan State Highway 34 is necessarily incorrect in a worldly sense. It is State Highway 34, in Michigan, not Wisconsin or South Dakota. Even if it's not all that common among the locals, it's disambiguated so you don't have Wisconsin State Highway 34 going through Hudson. Yes, of course, Wisconsin routes don't go into Michigan, but that needs to be clarified. You would say U.S. Route 1 goes through Trenton, New Jersey wouldn't you and not just "Route 1", so why not put the state name in there. I know somebody has to. Well it's in the hands of the admins now. We shall see what the smoothie tastes like when they put all this information in a blender. =) --TinMan 12:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Route 1 is the correct name; Michigan State Highway 34 isn't. Its like putting shyt grammer an speling their. --SPUI (T - C) 12:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If NWOhioDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) writes something about Michigan State Highway 34, or does anything else wrong with the title, then he would get a {{bv-n}} notice on his page. Any further edits like that would result in a block for disruption. We do that with other article vandals, so why would highways be any different? --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 14:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that comment (or similar ones by you elsewhere) is helpful. If, once we have an accepted proposal (either consensus on one, or consensus to accept majority vote for one), people do things that aren't quite in conformance, then fix them. Templates explaining the naming convention ought to be developed and placed in strategic places (on highway article talks, in various state project talks, in city talk pages if it's a problem, etc). But your comment smacks of WP:POINT or trolling or sarcasm or something so please consider another approach, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems a good idea to me on all three points. By all means, include the explanation of piping; I have no idea of how to do this. I suppose I could stop being lazy and go look it up... Nyttend 11:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Pipe trick. You can type [[State Road 50 (Florida)|]] and it expands to State Road 50 on saving. This is one of the main arguments for principle 2. --SPUI (T - C) 11:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree on all your points, CDB. Also, I agree with SPUI, we need some way to show the correct terminology to use in each article's body, so we don't have people editing back and forth between "State Route x", "M-X", etc. (That's what got us to this poll anyway) Each state should come up with which format they want to use for the body of the article as well as the terms to use for the title of the article. I think in many cases, they would be different. So, should each state address both of these in the next part of the process (depending on the admins' decision, obviously) or should there be a one-format-all-the-time? --TinMan 12:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with CBD's proposal. The solution reached here has been done to put an end to a long-standing and very specific problem. Never was this disscusion handled as if it was about general naming conventions for roads. Things aggreed to here do not necessarily scale to other roads. I think everyone knew that this process was not the optimal solution but rather the lesser of two evils (this or edit wars). To make take this non-optimal solution and try and make it scale outside of the specific area it was developed for is a mistake.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

CBD's proposal makes sense to me but I am not changing my vote because I was under the impression we were just choosing how to title the actual article, not how the policy would be written. Ashibaka tock 15:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting anything about 'other roads' so I'm not sure what you are talking about. I was citing statements made by people in this discussion and trying to see if they were widely agreed to and could indicate a broader consensus than is implied by the numbers alone. As to 'how to title the article' vs 'how the policy would be written'... is there a difference? Clearly the policy is going to say how to title the article. In the discussion people had also said things about supporting redirects, which seemed a possible partial compromise. --CBD 17:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

One is a superset of the other :) Ashibaka tock 19:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How about stepping back a bit and seeing if we have consensus that, at least where there's no chance of ambiguity, the actual name rather than a Principle I title should be used in text? In other words, that Hudson, Michigan should say "M-34" in the text. I'd do this but I don't know where and this process is running like a train out of control. --SPUI (T - C) 15:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, this is another thing which I thought was out of the scope of the process... Ashibaka tock 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what happens when one person sets up a rigid process and others play along. --SPUI (T - C) 15:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Or it can be seen as what happens when editors disrupt the normal process of consensus by edit warring and force the community to chose between adopting a rigid proccess or wholesale bans. Anyone involved in the arbcom case should be happy that they decided on the rigid process, although uninvolved parties may feel differently.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually a lot of people purposefully left themselves out of the mess too. And seeing the madness going on at highways they are probably glad to see some resolution. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I meant some people who were not involved in the mess may have been happier if a resolution had been reached by mass bans rather than rigid process. Those who were involved should definately be happy rigid process was chosen. And I think that complaints the process was too rigid, by someone who took part in forcing the communities hand in this are in bad taste.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of CBD's points. I think that using the official name in the article is going a little too far as the context will not necessarily be obvious. (For example, an Interstate article?) Yes, I wish that there was more of a consensus, but this is better than edit warring, where whoever has the fastest Internet connection wins. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 90's east end is at Route 1A in East Boston, Massachusetts. What's the problem there?

Actually if I'm not mistaken it's end is at Logan Airport itself. The interstate stops a few hundred yards short of 1A. Or at least that's how it appeared when I flew in there last year. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope - it's ended at Route 1A since they finished it. --SPUI (T - C) 18:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

They finished a road project in Boston?!? Color me shocked. Now lets just hope it doesn't fall down like the roof of Interstate 93 and the Mass Pike. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, do you agree that wherever the context is obvious (which always includes the bolded text, since you should say "is a state highway in the U.S. state of Foo" or something similar) you should use the actual name?

If so, how do you propose to let NWOhiodude in my example above figure out that the article title is not actually what should be written? --SPUI (T - C) 17:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not just use the infobox and have the official name in there? Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 22:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

We've made WP:ANI

Apparently there are many admins who are sick of this and want to block the next offender they see. Just warning you all. And I personally am not sure how ordinary courteous contributors can be turned into trolls. I'd suggest that NO INFLAMMATORY COMMENTS BE MADE AT THIS PAGE OR WP:ANI, or you risk being blocked by many. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone is sick of it. 59% isn't perfect, but it's a very clear definition of the will of Wikipedia and the admins agree. The issue should be resolved if a certain single editor opposing this would drop it as has been suggested he do at WP:AN/I by multiple admins. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Page protected

I've protected the page. However, the process will continue as scheduled unless ArbCom or the judging admins object. (Part 2 will not be affected since it is a separate page that will be transcluded onto the main.) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah somebody unprotected it since it was a "conflict of interest." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Inflammatory edits

Many inflammatory edits have been made on this very talk page (see Part 2 below), WP:ANI, WP:VPP, WT:NC, etc. I am proposing that any more such edits be blockable on sight. Could the judging admins please weigh in? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Inflammatory edits are not edits which you disagree with. --SPUI (T - C) 18:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone else phrased it better: "I think everyone is sick of it. 59% isn't perfect, but it's a very clear definition of the will of Wikipedia and the admins agree. The issue should be resolved if a certain single editor opposing this would drop it as has been suggested he do at WP:AN/I by multiple admins." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I will agree on this. My comment left on ANI:

I can't believe it even made it this far. I'm sorry to say that, as a result of this naming mess, we have loss a great number of contributors to the highway projects because of edit warring, mass page renames, and attacks on character as a result of only one or two people on Wikipedia. It's very sad that these warring individuals spend so much time worrying about something so trivial that it devolves the quality of the encylopedia, through contributors leaving, rather than improve upon it. As a result, many articles are no longer being formed or created out of fear that their contributions will be made meaningless as a result of a shift in the page, or a renaming that makes it inaccessible, or whatever is their reason.

I am sick of this as well and would like to see a consensus made once and for all, even if it upsets one or two heavy contributors. These same opposers to this legitimate vote are also the most vocal, sadly, but they are merely editors as we are all. And as such, I will agree with Lar, that no one person is indispensible to the highway project (or editing on Wikipedia in general), that any disruption in the process of this vote, or disruption after a consensus has been reached (through edit warring) should be blocked and that this nightmare be put behind us.

Regardless if you disagree with this whole process, it is not up to you to make the call whether or not consensus has been reached. Applying "rejected" to the whole process and making a whole scene out of it because the vote did not go in your favour is only doing more harm to the project than good. Anyone who disrupts this legit process in a vein effort to push their stance, should be blocked from further votes and discussions. Let's keep this civil and keep the process going; it's process is not flawed, just the few characters who wish to bring it down are. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Break period

I anticipated that we would all be stressed after Part I. So there is a rest period from now until September 4. Take a break, catch up on other stuff. Set up any transclusions, etc. Discuss more stuff on this page. But we're not officially going to voting or anything until September 4. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)