Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll/Old

This is overly simplistic - for instance Illinois does actually use "Illinois Route X". --SPUI (T - C) 20:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I added that in too. Please keep in mind it will eventually turn into a "poll" but the debate is going to end up heavily influencing how that turns up, so if you have some compelling arguments to make you really should make them within the next week. --Cyde↔Weys 20:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't understand - Illinois should be Illinois Route X but Washington should be State Route X (Washington). --SPUI (T - C) 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be kind of nice if someone would put a brief summary of the dispute at the top for newcomers. --InShaneee 20:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've heard this song before

I want to begin by saying that I welcome any and all efforts to bring this unbelievably stupid dispute to some kind of resolution. However, there have been substantially identical attempts to settle this through community discussion here, here, here, here, and on a number of different user talk pages. It's not clear to me how this discussion should be considered any more definitive than any of the others, and may only serve to muddy the issue further now that the matter is pending arbitration.

I would also point out yet again that every editor on all sides of this dispute has appeared receptive (at least to some degree) to resolving this matter through a forum such as this one, with the sole exception of SPUI. It is because of SPUI, and only because of SPUI, that no resolution that depends on the voluntary cooperation of everyone involved can possibly succeed, and that only binding mediation with actual penalties for violation will bring the matter to a close. —phh (^t/_c) 21:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need a pre-poll, to see if we can gain consensus for the idea that such a poll can and will be binding, even if the poll itself won't see a consensus level of agreement. If we can agree that making the poll binding is a good idea, then we can have admins enforce it as need be. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. You want to start it over on the project page? --Cyde↔Weys 21:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, are you sure you want to rush into a pre-poll without any sort of preparation? Maybe we should take a pre-pre-poll to see if that's a good idea. :) All kidding aside, I think the best possible outcome at this point would be for the ArbCom to send the matter to binding mediation with a trusted mediator, and rule that failure to abide by the outcome should be considered disruption and dealt with accordingly. Voting being evil and all, there's a lot of potential for grief here just in trying not to leave anyone out, as quite a few people have chimed in with their opinions over the past few months on the four pages I listed above as well as on countless others.

Still, I suppose anything binding would be a step forward at this point. I'd just hate to see the arbitration process get short-circuited for something that may make matters worse. —phh (^t/_c) 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a poll/discussion on the project page to gauge consensus on the whole idea. Polls are evil, so please *explain* your thoughts rather than just voting; let's see if there's real consensus. (It seems like some members of ArbCom are extremely hesitant about expanding their jurisdiction by accepting the case for a binding content decision.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it seems they're hesitant, but one has come out and said that naming conventions are separate from content disputes, and none have chosen to reject or abstain. I'm content patiently waiting for Arbcom on this. -- Northenglish 21:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the RFC. But many have not wanted a poll, name SPUI and others on my talk page. Doubt it will change. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highway option

How about an option for "STATE_NAME Highway NUMBER"? For example, "California Highway 41".

Here are the unique Google search results for four variations, excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors.

"California Highway 41" - 51
"California State Highway 41" - 15
"California Route 41" - 8
"California State Route 41" 9

Total Google results for two variations with two examples.

California "Highway 41" - 195,000
California "Route 41" - 34,000
California "Highway 46" - 126,000
California "Route 46" - 69,500

I think that "highway" is more common than "route", at least in California. Before Wikipedia, I didn't know anyone said "route". :-) Also, perhaps the same style isn't appropriate for all states and should be decided on a state by state basis. -- Kjkolb 01:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is covered in one of the two "Use official name" options. --Cyde↔Weys 02:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gdanzig all over again?

I'm a bit worried about the "binding", "enforced by block" and "simple majority" aspects of the meta-poll: anyone else still wincing at the fallout from Gdansk/Vote? When this gets down to the substantiative issue, though, let's pay at least lip-service to the existing applicable guideline, untrendy as I know that is on both sides. Alai 02:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, now, doing something crazy like reading Wikipedia:Naming conventions would never occur to me. Apparently. ;-) Thanks, Alai. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A binding decision across all states? No thanks.

Sorry if I'm mistaken, but it seems like the attempt here is to come up with a standard that will be applied to all states in the U.S. Roads Wikiproject. Why try and come up with a standard that all subprojects have to adopt, when some of them have not even been caught up in this massive edit war? In fact, I have managed to peacefully switch over the Maryland naming convention, and there is nothing binding about it, so if someone later proposes a new convention and a consensus is reached from the project members, we can change it.

I think the best thing would be for each project to decide and/or change its convention individually, keeping in mind Wikipedia's "Use common names" policy, allow the convention to be changed again if necessary, and leave the other projects alone. Doing so would lead to much less stress for alot of people.-Jeff ^(talk) 05:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this to the extent that these things need to be decided on a state-by-state basis. Or rather, region-by-region, e.g. we also have Route 10 (New England), Route 1 (Hong Kong), etc. — May. 28, '06 [05:26] <freak|talk>

I think a sensible level of "bindingness" would be that if it does establish a clear consensus (hopefully clearly scoped as to which cases are at issue, and which not), people refrain from making edits and moves contrary to until such time as a different consensus is established (and implicitly, that re-opening issues settled thereby for a matter of months afterward would normally be regarded as at any rate, a tad declasse'). Whether such edits would rise to the level of "disruption" would most appropriate be left as a matter of judgement: writing special cases to the blocking policy (or supposed exceptions to the 3RR, as per the case mentioned above) isn't a very sensible option, I don't think. If there's no clear consensus, it's that much less likely to settle anything for very long, but a majority would at least indicate a "good enough for now" solution. In neither case should "binding" mean "for all time" (though if the arbcom starts issuing decrees on naming conventions, that may transpire to be exactly what we get). Alai 05:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so there's been some confusion on my part over the exact meaning of the word "binding" in this case. So, the naming convention would not be permanently binding but would be "enforced" and a consensus would be required to change it. Works for me. However, like I said, this has to happen on a state-by-state basis, there is no point dragging in the states that have not had any edit wars over thier naming conventions.-Jeff ^(talk) 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In practice that'd be necessary in any case, since a determination as to what's either "common" (in reliable sources), or come to that as to what's "official", would have to be done on state by state basis. (Unless the "convention" were a wholly arbitrary one-size-fits-all scheme.) So as-needed would seem to make sense, though once there's any measure of agreement as to what classes of sources to accept as the basis, I'd imagine it'll all get a lot easier from there on. Alai 15:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting question

Why "Washington State Route X"? This is incorrect grammar - shouldn't it be "Washingtonian State Route X" or "Washington's State Route X"? --SPUI (T - C) 17:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you've never heard of the United States Congress? Because I've certainly never heard of the American Congress. It's perfectly reasonable to use a proper noun as an adjective in certain situations.

Google results:

"washington state route" 23,400 [1]
"washington's state route" 12 [2]
"washingtonian state route" 0 [3]

You'd know this already if you read and responded to my comments at Talk:List of Washington State Routes as I'd asked. -- Northenglish 19:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that "United States Congress" is the term used "officially". On the other hand, "Washington State Route X" is just a shitty way of disambiguating - one that we don't use. --SPUI (T - C) 15:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Constitution of the United States, the name is actually "Congress of the United States". Clearly we need to move that article (sarcasm). Furthermore, parentheses are NOT the only way to disambiguate on Wikipedia. WP:D: When there is a more complete name, that should be used. To quote myself, please stop saying this over and over again after you've been disproven. -- Northenglish 17:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell, "Washington State Route X" is not a more complete name because it is not a common or official name. --SPUI (T - C) 18:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is one of my major issues with using a name that is not common or official for the article. --SPUI (T - C) 18:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, it's the common name (though ironically, it's bold-titled as "Congress of the United States" in our article, which seems to be more "official-sounding", rather than actually-official). On the correctness of this as grammar (in either case): Attributive#Adjectival_use_of_nouns. Didn't stop the blanket move of categories away from the "United States [np]" form, though... Alai 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's actually not the common name.~~ --SPUI (T - C) 18:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I suppose not, I suppose most people inside the United States refer to it simply as Congress, but Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, so we use the name that people outside the United States use--which is disambiguation by putting the country before the noun, which we do use. -- Northenglish 18:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - I thought Alai was talking about "Washington State Route X". --SPUI (T - C) 18:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comment still stands. -- Northenglish 20:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'm making no claim as to what's the common name of the road-formerly-known-as-

, just expressing the hope that a determination as to what is be made. Alai 20:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. -- Northenglish 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... another discussion that just fizzled out. --SPUI (T - C) 08:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert wars regarding the reject tag

As much as I hate to say it, I'm with SPUI here. This proposal has been rejected. The boundary was not 14 days as PHenry cites, it was 7 days for discussion, then 7 days for voting. We are now in the 12th day--the 7 days of discussion ended with 9 Oppose, 8 Support. We voted not to vote. I'm putting the reject tag back on, please don't remove it. -- Northenglish 22:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. THat's what happens when you've been gone for so long... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm a little slow at catching up at the moment as well. -- Northenglish 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]