Talk:Bird Road

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: Consensus is to not move. The opposition argument is well reasoned, rejecting the support argument's claim that the move is necessary to comply with WP:USSH. Bobrayner also notes that WP:COMMONNAME is clear that WP prefers commonly used names to "official" names when there is a conflict. This is to make the titles meet the recognizable WP:CRITERIA better. I will also note that the fact that the more recognizable names will continue to redirect to these articles is no excuse to use a less recognizable title for the article. (non-admin closure) B2C 17:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Bird Road → Florida State Road 976
• Coral Reef Drive → Florida State Road 992
• Coral Way (street) → Florida State Road 972
• Flagler Street → Florida State Road 968
• Galloway Road → Florida State Road 973
• Kendall Drive → Florida State Road 94
• Le Jeune Road → Florida State Road 953
• Sunset Drive → Florida State Road 986

– To align with Wikipedia naming policy set forth at WP:USSH. Also see discussion thread on WP:RM here. DyluckTRocket (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Moving all these pages to the state road names would make the page unidentifiable. No one knows these streets by the state road number. The street name (Bird Road, Kendall Drive, etc.) is by far the common name.--Comayagua99 (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The current article names would act as redirects to the new article names. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose without specific rationale for each case. As the nominator noted here, the number designations do not even cover the entirety of the roads in question. A more general problem is that WP:USSH, a guideline, is applied in contradiction of WP:UCN (use common names), a policy. In similar move discussions, interested parties have often applied the argument for a need for consistency (not a guideline or a policy) to the extreme. (Also note the essay at WP:OFFICIALNAMES.) —  AjaxSmack  15:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose to all. WP:UCN totes exists for a reason. I defy anyone to tell me that the common name for Le Jeune Road is actually Florida State Road 953. Red Slash 21:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Question: What do sources commonly call these roads? I am skeptical that all sources fall neatly in line with an internal en.wiki guideline, but I'm open to suggestions... bobrayner (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. As AjaxSmack noted, the number designations do not cover the entirety of the roads in question. These articles could be considered in compliance with WP:USRD/NT#Combined articles, where, for example, the numbered segment of Bird Road and the non-numbered segment "are so tightly related that it would be difficult to write non-redundant articles about each". Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support because the roads themselves don't seem nearly notable enough for their own articles, and if they are, that isn't asserted in the articles. I propose removing the info about the roads outside the highway designations and renaming the articles. TCN7JM 02:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I am having difficulty understanding how you'd fix a notability problem by moving to a less-common title and then narrowing the scope even further. Surely that would make the subjects even less notable? Can you explain? bobrayner (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Gladly. The most common name is not notable. Take away the State Road designations and the roads themselves aren't notable whatsoever. That's why the articles need to be moved and all of the information about the non-notable roads needs to be removed. The State Road portions are the only portions of the road that are notable because they are State Roads, which means they are government maintained. TCN7JM 03:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
      • How does the source of funding make them more notable? The GNG says no such thing (quite rightly), and reducing the scope of the article to exclude parts which are currently covered by independent sources would directly contradict the GNG's stance. The government itself may be notable, but that is not inherited by every single thing that the government does; and even if it were, the greater extent of the road would surely still be more notable than individual portions which are government-maintained. bobrayner (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:USSH says Official nicknames for highways... may be used if the DOT uses it. It makes sense to use the official nickname (as those are). Swim900 (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  That makes no sense. The official name of the highways are "Florida State Road Foo", and leaving the names of these few as non-notable roads is inconsistent and nonsensical. TCN7JM 00:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  Policy is quite clear on this point; when the official name is different to the common name, we use the common name, not the official name. bobrayner (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bird Road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140306153400/http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/Straight-linesOnlineGIS/ to http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/Straight-linesOnlineGIS/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)