Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbered highways)

I'm not the greatest fan of this proposal. I can't imagine a standard Wikipedia user specifically searching out the article "State Route 9", which then becomes a disambiguation page to all 40 State Route 9 entries. More likely the user would look for "Indiana State Route 9", or "Indiana State Highway 9", or even "Indiana 9", all of which would be redirects to how InDOT would name it, most likely "Indiana State Highway 9". It doesn't pass the "this is what disambiguation is for" test for me. —Rob (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Then we make redirects, coordinated with a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey/State Routes. You'd be surprised at the amount of people that just type in stuff like Highway 50, given that I've seen articles about specific roads at those locations. [1] By the way, in Indiana the roads are named "State Route X". No Indiana before. [2] Of course they usually use SR, [3] but that's an obvious abbreviation, so we write it in full. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Also at the Caltrans page they might just use "State Route" for short. Like whose state routes would they be talking about? Calif'ornia's of course. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal (as stated elsewhere), altho I also see the problem with searching for State Name Route N or even SA Route N (state abbrev.), but there are many ways to search for a route number, so I'm not sure we can cover all options with the atricle name. I think it's better to use the existing disambiguation convention and provide redirects/disambiguations. --Censorwolf 14:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Related naming issues

• See User:Censorwolf/Roadlists for list of current State Road/Routes/Highways List naming patterns.
• See User:Censorwolf/Roadcats for list of current State Road/Routes/Highways Category naming patterns.

--Censorwolf 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Tested the pipe trick for the double disambiguation on "State Road 50 (Florida) (west)" as

Florida Route 50 (Western part)

And it works fine. --Censorwolf 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not how the pipe trick works. State Road 50 - yep, failure. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's not what I thought you meant (ie using only the pipe char). However, the format I used above (supplying the displayed anchor) does work ok. --Censorwolf 17:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

On Oklahoma

Officially, in Oklahoma, the numbered routes are "State Highways", and are officially abbreviated as such, e.g. a small green sign on a stoplight pole will usually read "SH 9" or "SH-9" or something to that effect. U.S. routes are abbreviated on signage as "US-77" or "US 77" (more often than not, with no dots). Interstates are abbreviated in text form as I-35 or whatever. (Note that this is just what I have observed on signs, I have no clue what ODOT calls them internally.)

In common usage around here, people will use I-xx for Interstates, and then call everything else Highway whatever. For instance, Highway 9, Highway 77, etc. I have also heard people refer to highways just using the number, such as go down 74, turn right onto 74B, etc. Route is practically unused here, except with the number 66, which is former alignment of U.S. Route 66.

That means that if the state name is required to go at the end of the title, we'll have names which are about 3 characters longer, like State Highway 74 (Oklahoma). Possibly we could get by with Highway 3 (Oklahoma), but it is a state highway that belongs to Oklahoma. There really is no "common usage", I've heard "Highway 74" and "74" and also "That one road that runs past Thomas Feed". The only highway with a universal name that I know of is Highway 9...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 20:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Category Names

(Discussion moved from project page) --Censorwolf 13:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories should be named: "Category:State_Name_state_highways"

example: Category:New_York_state_highways

I very much disagree. Possibly "state highways in State", but that isn't even always correct - for instance in Massachusetts the category would not be for state highways - roads maintained by the state - but for state-numbered routes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

SPUI - I have no problem with what the name should be. I was using what the defacto standard is (36 are using this naming pattern - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/U.S._state_highway_naming_conventions#Table_of_current_conventions ). Alaska is the only one currently using that naming pattern you suggest. Should we NOT have a std naming pattern for categories of numbered highways in the US then, and have it tailored for each state? --Censorwolf 17:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't about how things currently are, but a proposal to fix things. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Understood that from the beginning, and I was suggesting using the current format. So, in your opinion, should we have a naming convention for categories of numbered highways? --Censorwolf 21:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Right now I'm more interested in the article names. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with SPUI. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: "Numbered Routes in State Name". This would be more in line with the proposed article titles "Route N (State Name)". This covers Interstates, US numbered routes, state numbered routes and even if wanted, county numbered routes. Currently some of the the categories, and some of the lists include not just routes numbered by the named state, so these inclusive categories/lists might be better titled just "Numbered Routes in..." (BTW: shouldn't all this discussion be moved to the talk-page?)--Censorwolf 15:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I think that may be too broad. I can't speak for other states but there is too big a distinction between state highways and county routes for them to share a category.Gateman1997 17:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That is way too broad. We need "State Highways in New York" or "State Routes in California" (whatever the state uses). Besides we already have a separate WP and cat for CA County Routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"Numbered routes" would take in all numbered routes within a state. Interstates, US Routes, state routes and county routes. If you are thinking of having a category that would just be for the state-numbered routes then the category should probably be "State numbered routes in New York", or just "State routes in New York" since "numbered" is then superfluous. SO: I guess we need to go on a state-by-state basis then, and have no system-wide convention? But we could have a standard like "State DOT-convention in State Name", where DOT-convention would vary by state, so for instance in NY it would be routes since that is how NYSDOT refers to the state-numbered roads. In other states, the equivalent of the NYSDOT must each have some formal name that can be used. --Censorwolf 16:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

All please refer to WP naming conventions, and Discussion on NewYork-State-Highway-stub name where Alai makes points on the whole topic of capitalization relevant to this discussion. --Censorwolf 18:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What to do now?

Well there are three issues that we need settled before we start gaining consensus.

1. Do we have State Route 15 (California) or California State Route 15?
2. Do we have a uniform convention? In other words, can we have California State Highway 17 when all the other articles are at California State Route 24?
3. Do we use capitals in the template, stub, category, and list forms?

A uniform convention is a must though. I'd prefer to have California State Route 15 and List of California State Routes, but we may need to go to a state-by-state basis. That may have to occur. But if we settle on something we all can defend then I think we're all set. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think that looks like shit. I will not support any model that does not include the current infobox.Gateman1997 06:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And to answer the questions

1. I say stay with California State Route XX
2. Yes we can have an exception or two as they do not cause any confusion and are based on common use principles
3. And yes we should use capitals.Gateman1997 06:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Which box specifically is poorly designed? Suggested corrections please?

1. I prefer using accepted WP disambiguation rules so in this order:

• Route 15 (California State) - there might also be Route 15 (Orange County California)
• State Route 15 (California) - then also County Route 15 (Orange California) or (Orange County California)
• California State Route 15 - then also Orange County California Route 15

I used "Orange County" in these examples because there is more than one Orange County in the U.S. I can certainly see the merits of using the third option as a preference because of the way someone might search for a route. However, I don't believe that article names should be determined by any search engine weakness.

2. Each state should have uniformly named articles, which should be named according to the naming convention used by that state's DOT or similar governmental body.

3. Capitalization should be done according to English language proper noun rules. Categories and lists, and stubs are not titles.

--Censorwolf 14:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The new design all around is poorly designed, hence I've reverted it. There is no need to redesign any of the CA state route articles. The infoboxes are fine the way they are, and any changes to those is just people creating work for the sake of working. The debate should remain focused on the names, not a massive redesign of the pages that is totally not needed. I also oppose all of your ideas for the names, including the ones related to California County Routes. They are California County Routes first... ie Santa Clara County Route G2. They are not County Route G2 (Santa Clara County) according to the state. Gateman1997 16:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I had to look at your contributions for the answer to my question since you weren't specific about what was poorly designed. I see you have reduced the sizes of the signage images on a few CR pages. I'm still not sure what new design you are referring to, unless you mean "Template:Routeboxca2". Your comments in regard to infoboxes seem misplaced for this discussion. You can see I haven't edited those pages nor have I discussed them. I was just using the same examples Rschen7754 had started with above.

As far as the names (which is the subject here) of articles, categories, stubs and lists, I was refering to the accepted guideline for disambiguation. You may not agree with this guideline in general and/or you may not agree with it specifically for roads, but it is the accepted wiki guideline. Or can you point out why roads should be exempt from the guideline? After all it is only a guideline.

This naming discussion was not my suggestion, and at first I was thinking it wasn't a good move, but have changed my mind after researching the disambiguation guidelines. Specifically I started the WikiProject_New_York_State_routes, and since almost all of the NY Route articles are mis-named "New York State Highway N" (They are not called "highways", but rather "New York State Route N"), a discussion on article names was called for, but a general naming discusion was already under way here, so I participated to find out what we should call the NY route pages. So anyway, please spell out your reason(s) for exempting roads from the disambiguation guidelines. Thanks. --Censorwolf 19:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

They are not named "New York State Route X". They are named "Route X". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

True enough, locally they are "Route X", but as for reasons stated, that name will not suffice on an international encyclopedia with a poor search engine. --Censorwolf 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Not sure what is meant by the infobox. This is Wikipedia:Naming conventions that deals only with titles. And disambiguation does not have a place here because... who exactly will type in State Route 15? Most people would think to type in a state, considering that there are 52 other states/territories? Or considering that Mexico has states? Also, Wikipedia is written for an international audience, and noone from England would type in State Route 15. I mean State Route 15 is an ambiguous term but noone would type just State Route 15 into the search field. And using the county name doesn't work because... well Imperial County Route S2 for example isn't just Imperial County... it goes between counties actually. Same for most Calfornia State Routes. The problem here is that we have to take all states into consideration here. In regards to the other concerns... we can't have one or two articles that don't conform. Before we know it then we'll have to have a debate for every single article to find the most common name. Then that will be outrageous, and I don't think I'll stick around if that happens. The capitals... need to be used in the "generic" form since "California State Route" is a specific capitalized phrase. We don't call them "Boy scouts" for example. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry I mistook SPUI's changes removing the infobox on CA-15 (check that page's history...) as part of this discussion.Gateman1997 06:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So Rschen7754 what you are saying is that because the search engine in WP has weaknesses, we should title the articles to compensate for that. In other words searching for "California Route 15" won't find Route 15 (California) therefore the disambiguation guidelines should have a disclaimer that the search engine may not find the article if you use disambiguation. You are correct unfortunately. Searching on "Orleans musician John Hall" does NOT find "John Hall (musician Orleans)", so we are forced to NOT use the disambiguation guideline, until the search engine is improved.

As far as the capitalization is concerned, the article names should be capitalized for roads such as "California State Route 15" since this a proper noun. The list of state routes in California should be "List of California state routes" (or "List of state routes in California" altho that's longer). "Boy Scouts" is also a proper noun, but you don't say "My friend John Hall is a Boy Scout", or "My friend, the Boy Scout John Hall". No the proper capitalization to use according to English language rules is "My friend John Hall is a boy scout". When you are refering to a group of items, the capitalization does not apply to the group name. Having said that, I see that WP lists sometimes do and sometimes do not follow the proper rules of capitalization. Frankly, I don't really care if you want to make the lists capitalized like "LIST OF CALIFORNIA STATE ROUTES" if you insist. I see you prefer to have the lists capitalized just like a book or song title and altho that is incorrect, it won't make one iota of difference in the content if that is how the lists are named.

BTW suggesting you will not participate anymore is not a way to gain respect in conducting a discussion to sway people to your position. --Censorwolf 14:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I was saying that if Wikipedia did get that chaotic then I wouldn't have the time to deal with the chaos. But anyway. With the Boy Scout example, that phrase needs to be capitalized because... well he could be a scout, and a boy.,.. thus he could be a boy scout without being in the organization? As for the disambiguation or whatever, most Wikipedians expect for the article to be named "California State Route 15". We should use the most logical method to name these articles- using the same naming convention yet not using some obscure disambiguation convention. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'll go either way on this. I'd look to see which convention is used more, and then standardise on that (as it would be less work for everyone)....Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 02:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Scott, unfortunately the search engine can't handle the disambiguation guideline so there is no option really. SPUI (RIP - until he rises again) had suggested this new naming idea ( eg Route N(State Name) ) before he abandoned ship and I think it had merit, but alas it won't work on WP. I think we need to go with State Name State Route|Highway N, where use of "Route" or "Highway" depends on the DOT naming convention of the state.

I think we all agree that capitalization will be Each_Word_Init_Cap for article names (as it should be since they are proper nouns). Caps for lists, stubs and categories are still debatable, but there are some who think that WP should capitalize all words in these also, although this is not proper English. We can put any of these up to vote, or just reach a consensus here perhaps. I am willing to go along with Init_Caps on everything if that is easiest and if that will end the debate because content is what we should be focused on anyway.--Censorwolf 15:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant what was used overall on the highway articles, so we wouldn't have to do a million page moves. I've been creating Oklahoma articles at Oklahoma State Highway x rather than the parenthesis disambig, so that's my personal preference, although we obviously need some sort of standard. I'll support whatever we eventually decide on....Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the Interstate pages do use this disambiguation technique (eg Interstate 190 (New York), Interstate 190 (Illinois)), but I don't think there are too many searches for "New York Interstate 190". --Censorwolf 21:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So are we pretty much decided on the using "California State Route 45", "Florida State Road 23", etc. standard? I'm just concerned because we're being killed in the SFD and CFD debates. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would support that. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 03:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we disambiguate properly? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

See above. Disambiguation is used when there is a term that is often confused with two or more differing things, such as mercury. This is because people do search for phrases like mercury. (By search for, I mean that they put it in the search box or append it to the end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/). But noone would search for State Route 15. They would search for California State Route 15. The state DOTs don't use the state name at the front because... well it's obvious and understood what state the route is in. But if like, say there was a national conference or something of DOTs then they would use California State Route 15. That's what the official names are. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

AASHTO does not use the state name. See for instance page 2 of [4]. Same for federal laws. Someone looking for Interstate 5 in the U.S. will not type in U.S. Interstate 5. Why would someone looking for State Road 50 in Florida type in Florida State Road 50? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

But why would someone search for "Interstate 5 (U.S.)"? And the U.S. is understood so this isn't the best example. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would someone search for "U.S. Interstate 5"? Why is the U.S. understood? Why couldn't Australia have had a system of roads named "Interstate X"? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Because as far as I know they don't. Or at least not Interstate with a capital I. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I will also support "State Name Route|Highway N" where Route|Highway is determined by that state's DOT (or similar agancy) naming standard. --Censorwolf 14:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

My input:

1. I'd say put the state name first, parenthesized disambiguation should only be used if multiple subjects have the exact same name and cannot be disabiguated otherwise (words such as Mercury), this is why we have Annapolis, Maryland as an article title and not Annapolis (Maryland).
2. I'd allow this, as long as there is a redirect from the "standard" naming convention, ie. California State Route 17 redirects to California State Highway 17
3. Capitalization depends on the usage. The names of individual routes are capatalized, but the generic terms (highway, business route, state highway, Delaware state route, etc.) are not since they are not proper nouns. Note: this is already covered by the current naming convention

-Jeff ^(talk) 17:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Parenthesized disambiguation is never "necessary". We prefer to use parentheses rather than middle initials for names. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

So you support the seemingly random naming of articles such as California 1, CA-2, CA 3, Ca 4, California Highway 5, California Hwy 6, California Route 7, CA Route 8, California State Highway 9, California State Route 10, State Route 11 (California), Route 12 (CA), Highway 13 (CA), Route 14 (California), Highway 15 (California), The 16 (California), etc. And if we allow "one or two exceptions", then what exactly prevents this from happening? Also, where does it say that components of a specific system are common nouns? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't support things going to that extreme, but if there are certain exceptions for certain routes (sorry don't know what the case is with CA 17), then we should follow those exceptions, agian provided that a redirect is provided from the "standard" convention.

As for capitalization, check Noun#Proper nouns and common nouns

"Proper nouns (also called proper names) are the names of unique entities. For example, "Janet", "Jupiter" and "Germany" are proper nouns. Proper nouns are capitalized in English and most other languages that use the Latin alphabet, and this is one easy way to recognise them. This fails, however, in German, in which nouns of all types are capitalized.

All other nouns are called common nouns. For example, "girl", "planet", and "country" are common nouns."

Terms such as those I gave as examples in my previous comment are not the names of unique (as in individual) entities, they are generic terms that can each refer to a number of things. Delaware Route 1 and Delaware Route 404 can each be identified as a Delaware state route for example.-Jeff ^(talk) 05:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

But in this case it is a specific grouping. Like United States Senators. It refers to a collective group of people. There are no other United States Senators out there except for the 100 United States Senators. Thus capitalization. (And thus Wikipedia capitalizes it.) Coming to think of it, the only usage of the singular "generic" is in the stub form. In other words, the only time we use "California State Route" by itself (in regards to naming) is in the stub template. And specifically you may not support things going to the extreme above, but if we allow one or two exceptions, what exactly prevents us from going there? People can scream "common names" all they want and that is what will happen. But if we don't allow any exceptions, then we won't have that problem. It's like the discussion at Template talk:Interstates: Sure, Interstate 64 may be more important and may be more "major" than Interstate 30 and thus be more deserving of the pink background. But if we let that exception go by, we open up the door here: then we make another exception. And another. Soon we get people voting for their favorite Interstate, and we have individual debates for each Interstate. See the problem here? Because now we're looking at having many individual debates on what the articles are called. Of the same scale as Talk:California State Highway 17. Maybe not for every article but for still, 20-30 at least. At that time, we would be focusing more on names than on content. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The slippery slope argument is uncompelling. Project-specific policies must also adhere to the "common names" policy. When you move an article to a title that is not the common name, then you are sacrificing usability, and usability the paramount concern of Wikipedia. I strongly oppose the parts of this convention that violate the "common names" policy. Articles should be titled by their common names. In the case of California state highways, the common name is almost always "Highway X" where X is the number of highway, not "route", which is a term that is overwhelming used only by bureaucrats in Sacramento, and, apparently, their sycophants on Wikipedia. Nohat 06:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that common names don't work as well with roads as they do other things. Highways often run through a wide variety of areas, even within the same state, and are known by different names in different areas. Take Oklahoma State Highway 74 for instance. Part of it is a freeway in northwest Oklahoma City, and there it's called the Lake Hefner Parkway. However, the same designation, 74, runs a long distance in either direction through rural areas where it's called SH-74 or Highway 74 or just "74" (see On Oklahoma above.) There is certainly common usage in a region but there is no overall common usage. I imagine there's a lot more people referring to that freeway as Lake Hefner Parkway than there are rural people calling it just Highway 74, but that's because there's a lot more people in the OKC area than there are in places like Crescent, Oklahoma. And besides, the rest of it isn't the Lake Hefner Parkway, just that freeway segment.

Also, it's very difficult to go out and see what the most common usage for a highway is. Oklahoma State Highway 3 is six hundred miles long - and I don't have the resources to go up to the Panhandle to see what they call the thing in Boise City (probably nothing, as it's duplexed with other things up there). There's also really no way to compare the popularity of regional names with each other without running up and down the length of highway asking "excuse me, but what do y'all call this highway anyway?"

Since there are a lot of different regional usages, it's just easiest for everyone to use the offical names and provide a redirect to help out. When someone gets redirected once, they'll get an idea of what the naming convention is (oh, hey, I guess Wikipedia's naming them "California State Route x"; I'll look there first next time...). That way usability isn't sacrificed and we have consistency - which is really the goal of naming conventions, correct? ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 22:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have trouble gauging the common name of certain highways in Oklahoma. Your troubles, however, have no bearing on the fact that no one but Caltrans bureaucrats calls California's Highway 17 "Route 17". In this case it's not a question of regional usage; it's just a case of outsiders trying to impose an article title that reflects a naming standard that is completely divorced from the reality of what name the vast majority of people who use the road actually use to refer to it. The only argument in favor of calling it "Route 17" is to adhere to a standard naming convention. Every single other piece of evidence would indicate that the best name is "Highway 17". If we accept your argument and impose a standard naming scheme then we create situations like naming the article about Highway 17 something like "State Route 17", which is a name that hardly anyone uses. This kind of situation, where an article has a title that represents a very uncommon name, is just not acceptable nor defensible by Wikipedia policy, especially when we consider that using a consistent naming scheme only benefits the people who make the encyclopedia, not the people who use it. Your use case of someone memorizing the standard naming scheme is not really a valid argument against having exceptions because there will always be redirects and anyone who remembers the standard naming scheme will have no trouble at all finding the article they are looking for. I have yet to see any compelling arguments at all for how a consistent naming scheme benefits the readers of the encyclopedia, the people who we are supposed to be trying to benefit. Nohat 07:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't a factor to weigh carefully in determining what the "common name" is, is "what do most of the road signs say?"? Unless there's strong evidence that a particular usage is generally more prevalent, or where that is itself inconsistent along a road's route, that seems a pretty useful starting point. Alai 05:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The signs display the highway shields. Which are images... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I thought most of the shields had at least some sort of text, besides the number. If that's just the interstates I'm thinking of (or I'm generally confused), and that's the most prevalent of form of signage, I see the problem... Alai 05:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Some do but a lot don't. 19 states do have the state name or initials on them, but "South Carolina" must be abbreviated or it would make the sign too big... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - see list of state route markers. All or those with text just have the state name or an abbreviation. On the other hand, state-posted street signs can be useful. For instance, in Florida, they always say "SR X" (short for State Road). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And larger signs (directional information and such rather than markers) use the same iconography? Oh well. Alai 07:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep - see commons:Category:Road signs in the United States. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting

OK Let's try to wrap this up. (Two weeks is enough time to have sorted out your thoughts on this)

1. We can't use the disambiguation of "Route X (State Name)" because the search engine won't work on it, if for no other reason (but there are other reasons).
2. Within a state, the names of the articles should be consistent if possible. Preferably they are all of the same naming pattern, with redirects as needed for roads known by more than one name. Across the whole US roads project? Not possible.
3. Capitalization of lists, categories, templates, stubs, is a whole other discussion, with those on each side apparently entrenched in doing it their way. I suggest we put this item off as a separate topic and focus on the first two.--Censorwolf 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• The only model I support is as follows California State Route XX, unless a state disallows it like Florida. There is no need to be uniform across the US because the states certainly aren't anyway.JohnnyBGood 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation by use of (State Name)

• No. --Censorwolf 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yes. I don't understand what the problems are; redirects can take care of any supposed searching problems. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• No. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• No. Gateman1997 05:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 15:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yes. Strange as it sounds, if the desire is to tie together all the state highways under the "State Route x" banner, this is the best way. It sounds as though there's use for it. There's also about 1,000 of these that need to be made... —Rob (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• No. Problems include issues with double disambiguation, and states that don't simply name their routes "State <Whatever> X" (what would we name Maryland articles when Maryland names its routes Maryland X?)-Jeff ^(talk) 04:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I assume if it's clearly established that the common name is "Maryland X", the article would go at "Maryland X" under this proposal too. But if it's clearly estbalished that the common name is "State Route X" (etc, etc), this would put it at "State Route X (California)", rather than "California State Route X". (It's the "clearly establishing" part I'm struggling with, either way...) Double disambiguation as in...? Alai 04:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's what the proposal is. If there's a conflict with other things named "Maryland X", it might be disambiguated "Maryland X (state highway)". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yes per SPUI. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, if and only if the proposal is to use "Common Name" where that's unique, or "Common Name (State)" where disambiguation is required. It would be helpful if someone would clarify, or at least present evidence as to, what the common names are on a per system basis. Alai 02:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• No. It's not nice to surprise people. --phh 21:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yes - I like "X (Y)" where X is what is used by the owner (i.e. DOT) and Y is whatever is necessary to disambig. In general this will be "State Route XX (State Name)". The owner's usage is something distinct, how are you going to determine common usage, take a poll of state residents? Take a poll of residents who live within 10 miles of the highway? Take a poll of residents who drive on the highway at least once a week? Take a poll of people on wikipedia who may or may not fall into those categories, but for some reason care strongly? Toiyabe 23:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You get the same problems with the parentheses too. Is it "State Route x (California)", "State Highway x (California)", etc? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Right, that's why I said go with the owner's usage. I haven't worked with Caltrans, but I gather that they use State Route X. If that's true, then use State Route X (California). Toiyabe 23:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • What about for starters, how are they referred to in reference works? In news media? Let's make some attempt to follow the guidelines, rather than just scoffing thereat. (Or else, start drafting Wikipedia:Use official names.) Alai 01:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
        • For one reason, official usage is an easy way to end this debate. Otherwise we can sit here forever with one person saying "The CBS affiliate in Sacramento says X", and another saying "But the AAA says Y!", and another saying "the LA Times Uses Z on weekends, Y on weekdays except in months divisible by 3 in which case it uses X". We would spend a whole lot of effort digging up sources, and still not have a clear and consistent picture. In the end, you'll have to accept one reference as cannonical. Toiyabe 15:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I wouldn't bet on any of that. Firstly, reading Rschen and SPUI's... full and frank exchanges of views on this, convinces me that determining "official" names is far from "easy", and is certainly not uncontentious. Secondly, if you write a NC that tacitly prefers the official names to the common ones, expect flak when you come to implement it on the basis of a "local consensus", especially if it's not made explicit that that's what's being done. The "whole lot of effort" is what's conspicuously not being done, but is what wikipedia requires. Consistency is not necessary, but some measure of usual reputable usage is. If after a good faith attempt to determine "common usage" it's still no clear, but "official name" (somehow, unexpectedly...) is, then a backup preference for that would be more reasonable. Alai 01:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Well in reality all of this is moot since now SPUI has decided that he has won this debate. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Determining the official name is easy - there may be a state webpage or two that gets it wrong, but those can be filtered out. Still, I could live with "common usage" if someone can come up with a methodology for determining "common usage". How do you do it? Toiyabe 18:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• No. Under Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic: For disambiguating specific topic pages, several options are available: 1. When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Titan rocket), that should be used. I see California State Route 1 as a more complete name than State Route 1. The former name is therefore supported by the disambiguation policy as the first and prefered name to use, as it states later in the policy: it's usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses. Gentgeen 22:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yes as per reasons by the other yes voters above. atanamir 04:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Flip a coin. Either way is fine with me; it could always be resolved via redirects and other such mechanisms. Since this debate has gone to bickering, the answer ought to be selected at random. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yes This wouldn't even be an issue if the names of the roads weren't numbers. For example, if both California and New York each had a road named "George Washington Highway", would you put the article at "California George Washington Highway" and "New York George Washington Highway"? It just so happens that the names of these roads use numbers and we should not make an exception just for that reason. Polaron 00:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• No As per Genteen. State Route X (State) seems like shorthand for ThisState State Route X. After all, we're only debating where the State's name is placed in the title. I'd rather have a title which sounds better, It's almost like saying Route 50 (United States). --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 22:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Emphatic NO. SPUI made the argument when he wrote in the article:

The Florida state highway should be disambiguated by putting said region first. Thus the state name should come first - Florida State Road 50 is preferable to State Road 50 (Florida). B.Wind 04:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Consistent Names within a State, not across US project tho

• Yes. Why argue for inconsistency? --Censorwolf 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose any convention which contradicts "use common names" naming convention. Nohat 22:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC). I also expect that there will difficulty trying to implement any such policy. Nohat 00:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 23:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support wholeheartedly if it will stop the madness that started at CA 17.Gateman1997 05:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly support. —Rob (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support: consistency within states should not be hard to achieve as each state has a system. Jonathunder 18:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see that this conflicts with "common names": this is just a matter of stylistic consistency, and of course shouldn't be applied in any case where a completely different name is applied predominantly. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Alai 02:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Leave it within the states.Rt66lt 01:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, unless there are exceptions such as a state having two separate systems or a route being designated differently by the DOT for historical reasons.-Jeff ^(talk) 13:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly support - FCYTravis 22:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly support - atanamir 18:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Fine with me. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 22:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Consistent names within a state

There seems to be pretty good consensus for this part - let's try to come up with a proposal to put through the bureaucracy. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should get a consensus on both items before we move forward, just so we don't rehash everything 2x. I'd like to see a few more votes occuring either way for the disambiguation item first. --Censorwolf 14:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Each highway falls into an individual and specific numbering system, assigned by a (usually) governmental body. For instance, the United States Numbered Highways are assigned by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the State Highway Routes in New Jersey are assigned by the New Jersey Department of Transportation, and the Great Britain road numbering scheme is assigned by the Highways Agency. Each system shall be considered on its own when deciding naming conventions.

Every highway in the system shall use the same naming convention (unless it is a redirect to a highway in a different system - either a higher system, like State Route 80 (California) to Interstate 80, or the local name of the road, like State Road 300 (Florida) to St. George Island Bridge).

This proposal does not specify a naming or disambiguation convention for the state. It only specifies that in each system, a common convention shall be used.

Perhaps a preference for the official names in use by the DOT should be stated? ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 03:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't have wide agreement. Let's get this through and then figure out that stuff. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to specifically reference that the common name takes precedence for the article name, with re-directs from less-common name(s) or even the official name, as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names) guidelines, like was implied with the redirect of State Road 300 (Florida) to St. George Island Bridge. --Censorwolf 14:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? This is a proposal for the naming of articles that contain the route number in their title. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

True enough, but the redirect of State Road 300 (Florida) to St. George Island Bridge is a good example of an exception that follows the common-name rule apparently. --Censorwolf 19:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue that it just follows a different rule - that for bridges - as in this case the bridge is more prominent than the state road. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

So is a reasonable first stab at the intended scope of this something along the lines of: "Where the most common name of a road is as part of a state-wide numbering system, all such names are to be consistent within each state"? i.e. it doesn't propose to trump "St. George Island Bridge" as the common name, but simply to make state-wide consistent "State Road 800 (Florida)" vs. "Florida State Road 800" vs. "SR 800 (Florida)" vs... Alai 19:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Censorwolf 19:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And the common names are...

The current straw polls seem to imply... well, not very much, without determining what the common names actually are, presumably on a state-by-state, or system-by-system basis. (Unless either is proposing to overrule common names, which doesn't appear to be the case.) Are there any cases in which that's fairly generally agreed, to start off with? Alai 23:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

By some interpretations of "use common names", this would overrule "use common names" within the state. For instance, northern California often uses "Highway XX", while southern California uses "The XX". Ducksheep City, California may use "Quackbaa XX". But we'd have to use a system-wide name throughout the state. Thus California State Highway 17 would not be there unless we agree that everything is titled "California State Highway XX". This does not say anything about State Type XX vs. Type XX (State), though I would argue that the disambiguation conventions specify the latter, whether or not this part passes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I propose: After the principles are approved, we start with what we have at the table on the Highways WikiProject. Then we change any we don't like. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Assuming what's in the table is what's still used - I haven't necessarily updated it since I've fixed Florida, New Jersey and Massachusetts. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak specifically to a CA standard which also seems to have the most debate, but state standards would imply using the most commonly used nomenclature for the whole state, with local exceptions being the common name for specific articles. The CA team should vote on the state standard and deal with the exceptions on a one-by-one basis. Each state will have its own set of contributors who should do the same. This only pushes naming standard arguments down the state level since there is majority agreement here that it is not possible to achieve a standard on the national or international level. --Censorwolf 15:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

But doesn't that contradict with the second principle above? That there are no exceptions? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Using the common names could be problematic for larger states, since some of them use different conventions in different parts of the state (like California). I wouldn't mind doing this though with smaller states that use consistent conventions across the state, as long as we choose the most unambiguous convention that is used across the state. For example, in Maryland, when people are refering to a state highway, and are trying to be as unambiguous as possible, they will refer to it as "Maryland Route X", and more casually they will say either "Route X" or simply "X" (as in the number by itself), of course Wikipedia would favor the more unambiguous term. For larger states, I'd say it would be better to use the DOT convention so we aren't favoring any particular region.-Jeff ^(talk) 16:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Or better yet, rather than systematically applying a naming convention that results in article titles that are contrary to their common names, we just apply the "use common names" conventions to each article individually. Systematic naming conventions are overrated. All they buy you is conflict over what system to use and then once you decide on a system, you have a mess of articles for which the system doesn't apply in an ideal way. What a waste.Nohat 23:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And you have a 1 to what consensus with that option? And all that buys us is individual naming disputes over every single article? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the only time there have been significant naming disputes for highways is when someone has tried to impose a "consistent" naming scheme, where "consistent" means consistent only within itself, not consistent with reality. Nohat 02:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

But once we get the system worked out then we won't have any more disputes again. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This is for the sake of consistency, if we don't use a common convention things can just get messy and hard to maintain. If it is determined that an individal route has a different common name then, well that's what redirects are for.-Jeff ^(talk) 03:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Of course Wikipedia would favor the more unambiguous term": no, wikipedia would mandate the common name. If you're proposing that this convention would locally override that convention, that needs to be made much more explicit, since it's not at all clear at present. It's one thing to say, determine the commonality on a per-group rather than a per-article basis, but quite another to say "use a different criterion entirely". Alai 23:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I guess I wasn't entirely clear about that. What I meant was if a state has common conventions that are used across the state we use whichever of those conventions is most unambiguous, and if we need to disambiguate further, we use parens, and we'll use that convention for ALL articles for that state. If a state doesn't have consistent common conventions then we should default to the DOT convention for the article names, so we won't be favoring any particular part of the state, and then we create redirects from the common conventions for each route.-Jeff ^(talk) 02:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If a state has different "common conventions" that are used in different localities (or otherwise), then we should use whichever of them is the more common. If it doesn't, we should use which terms are the most common. What a DOT says the name is merely tells us what's official, not what's actually used. Alai 02:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

But we should use the same thing statewide though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that works for me, at least as a strong presumption. Alai 03:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean I'd much rather prefer the state DOT usage, but as long as it's not something dumb like "The California 405" I'm fine with it, as long as it sort of sounds official like "California State Highway" or "California State Route". --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously when we say "common names", there's an "encyclopaedic tone" threshold, and a degree of weighting towards the usage in comparable media. (e.g., what newspapers and reference books would call them, rather than how the local farmer might give directions along same.) Alai 04:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"California State Route X" is not the state DOT usage. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

But that's not the issue here. The issue here is common names. Read the section heading. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Who the fuck calls it "California State Route X"? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

AARoads, for one. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)`

Reliable sources please. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't we just agree that common names are dependent on the state, and that the state DOT decides (implicitly or explicitly) what that name is? Or did I miss the last month of debate with no real loss to myself? —Rob (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow the logic that any one body "decides" common names. Either the proposition is to go with actual usage, as with the usual guidelines (in which case some attempt should be made to establish such usage), or it's to establish an exception to said usual rule of thumb (in which case it should be billed as such). There is indeed a touch of the deja vu all over again to this, yes. Alai 02:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's the government's road... they paid for it, they administer it, they should decide what it's called. Somewhere in some state law, somebody decided what to call it. Granted, not everyone follows the laws, even in state government itself. But we ought to at least try. —Rob (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No, frankly, we shouldn't, unless we change wikipedia guidelines (locally or globally), which are currently entirely explicit that this isn't how things are done. Alai 00:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, see Talk:Kiev. "Official" government usage does not mandate Wikipedia's usage. Gentgeen 12:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv was much simpler to resolve then this problem. First of all, there was no problem with consistency among large numbers of similalry titled pages. Second of all, it was easy to demonstrate with a Google search that Kiev is much more commonly used than Kyiv by english speakers. It is exceedingly difficult to do that for "California State Highway 99" vs. "State Highway 99" vs. "State Route 99" vs. "Highway 99" vs. "Route 99" etc. I've tried it, and can't find a way to filter out spurious hits from the former US Highway 99, Oregon State Route 99 and all the various permutations. I still don't see how you can determine what the common name is. I think the wikipedia's common name concept is not applicable to this sort of problem. Toiyabe 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is perfectly possible to demonstrate for a particular road that "highway" is used more commonly than "state route" or "route", as at Talk:California State Highway 17. Nohat 00:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that Google search ratio was bogus. If you search for "Highway 17" you also get hits for U.S. Highway 17, British Columbia Provincial Highway 17, etc. If you search for "Route 17" you also get hits for Route 17 in NJ, New York State Bicycle Route 17 etc. Sorting those spurious hits out takes intelligence. The ratio between the two hits can not be taken for the actual usage in California. Toiyabe 00:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No, the Google search ratio was done using a search for "Highway 17 +California", which eliminates most instances of results for Highways 17 in other states, and a quick glance at the first 1000 results for this search will show that all the results are concerning the highway in question. Nohat 02:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Presumably you searched for '"Highway 17" +California' and '"Route 17" +California' - the former returns ~260,000 hits, the latter ~100,000 hits. But what you are really searching for is the phrase "Highway 17" or "Route 17" in pages that also include "California". So, for example, a page that includes the text "The California Pizza Kitchen in Paramus NJ is located off of US Highway 17" is included in your search. Now, the highway in question is important enough that *most*, but certainly not all (my rough estimate is 90%), of the first 1000 results returned are relevant. However the rate of relevant/irrelavant results decreases the further you go. I don't have the time to check at around result 10,000 but I doubt it's much above 50%. So, I still don't think this is a valid test. Toiyabe 16:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I tried to look at the results around 10,000, and Google won't let you get past 1,000. So here's another way of looking at it - The search '+"Highway 17" +California +"New Hampshire"' returns ~99,000 results. So, of the 250,000 results you got for "Highway 17" +California', 40% also include "New Hampshire". You get a similar ratio for Colorado, Illinois and probably every other state in the union. Do you still think that search has any bearing on common usage in California? Toiyabe 17:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but the problem is, not even the public knows whether to call them state routes or state highways in California. If you're going to try to permanently pin an article name on a fluid opinion, I'd opt for another naming scheme. —Rob (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's just resort to coin-flipping and random means to settle the question. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the best way to determine what convention to use would be to check what names are commonly used (we wouldn't have to try and determine which convention is used more than the others, just the general group of terms that are most common), then choose which one would be most appropriate for Wikipedia, such as the term that is most complete. For example, in Maryland, two common conventions are "Route X" and "Maryland Route X" (an example of the latter). Instead of trying to determine which term is the absolute most common we should just choose from the general top group which term is best for our purpose of using here, so in this case we'd use "Maryland Route X".-Jeff ^(talk) 01:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's at least a sensible place to start as far as coming up with an initial proposal. What say we: compile a list of these on a state-by-state basis; note which major users agree and disagree with that usage (news outlets, DOT, state DOT, references in legislation, etc); and see if that leaves us any the wiser. Alai 04:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Could we please wait until the RFC is over? It would help keep all of our stress levels down. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to inject my two cents, since the Virginia Highways WikiProject I hope to start soon will be dependant on this. I say it's on a state-by-state basis as decided in the WikiProjects, or in the absence of a Project, decided in the appropriate high-level talk page. I'd also like to point out Talk:Highway 401 (Ontario)#Ontario provincial highway 401 → Highway 401 where this was discussed and it failed, but again, on a state-by-state (or in that case province-by-province) basis, as British Columbia provincial highway 99 remains contrary to the routes in Ontario. So I feel it should be done on a state-by-state basis. --MPD01605 06:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe we all (mostly) agree on that, however, the thing that's under debate now is what do we call the whole sets? Common names, or official names? ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 07:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation final?

Have we agreed on the regionalization proposal? If so, I should consider starting the list of needed disambiguations for Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois State Routes. Also I don't know what direction we should go:

Option	Main Article	Disambiguations
1	Illinois State Route 1 OR Illinois Route 1, whichever is official.	Route 1 (Illinois) State Route 1 (Illinois) Highway 1 (Illinois) and variations
2	Route 1 (Illinois)	Illinois State Route 1 State Route 1 (Illinois) Highway 1 (Illinois) and variations
3	State Route 1 (Illinois)	Illinois State Route 1 Route 1 (Illinois) Highway 1 (Illinois) and variations
4	Illinois 1	to taste

Comments appreciated. —Rob (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Also I prefer option 3, or else you'll have to do something funky with U.S. Route 50. Route 50 (U.S.) looks wrong in many ways. —Rob (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the actual name is "U.S. Route 50", not "Route 50". --SPUI (talk - RFC) 07:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Option 1 or Option 3. Don't change the current naming conventions on interstate and U.S. routes. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 21:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: also consider we may be able to get a bot to do most/all of the work. —Rob (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If we're doing it as it appears most of us have decided, it's going to be by WikiProject. So, If you're going to change it, it'd be best to get consensus on the Illinois State Highway WikiProject talk page before changing. So bring it up there. --MPD01605 02:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Option 1 is my preference, as an application of the principle of least astonishment, applied uniformly across all 50 states with individual WikiProjects using "Route" or "Highway" as appropriate for the state. As a gesture of good faith, I pledge to abide by whatever decision is arrived at through this process, and ask that others do the same. --phh 05:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• I prefer Option 1 , or if not, then Option 3 would be my second choice for reasons already stated. --Censorwolf 15:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Much as I hate to be difficult, but: isn't the "common name" of the example cited simply "Illinois 1"? That seems to be what its signage says, and is how the article itself predominantly refers to it. For those of you fond of Officialness, compare the following: State Route 1 vs. Illinois 1. Alai 15:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• In general, I refer to Illinois 1 just as a shortened form of the route name, the same way as SR 1 or Route 1 would. Predominant in the suburbs is the format "Illinois State Route (or Rte.) 64 / North Avenue" on two lines. Any abbreviations encountered are just because the full name can't fit on the sign. In Indiana, it's strictly SR 53 as short for "Indiana State Route 53", but I would not suggest naming the articles "SR 53" unless it were a disambiguation. —Rob (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• "Illinois 1" may be the way people in Illinois refer to it, but—and I mean no disrespect to the great state of Illinois here—they are greatly outnumbered by users of the English Wikipedia who do not live in Illinois, which must be kept in mind. The operative question, I think, is "What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" If I were to look up Illinois' highway 1, and I had no idea what the naming convention was, I would search for "Illinois State Route 1," "Illinois Highway 1," or some variation on that theme. I would never think that "Route 1" would get me where I wanted to go, even disambiguated. Likewise, though I personally am used to calling this highway "SR-520" in keeping with local custom, in a global encyclopedia I would expect to find it at "Washington State Route 520" or something similar, where the rest of the English-speaking world would look for it. --phh 19:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm not here to speak for Illinois, but precisely for "the rest of the English-speaking world". What I don't see here is any evidence whatsoever as to what the common name is -- just lots of anecdote about personal preferences. Indeed, googling for "Illinois State Route 1" (with quotes) gets a very modest number of hits indeed -- 31 unique, 178 total. Not only that, wikipedia is the top hit, and the next pageful or so are wikipedia mirrors. If it's not in wide use, and it's not what the state itself calls it, how does this stand the test of "common"? Alai 20:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• In starting this deal... oh, about 2 years ago... the going assumption was that "Illinois 1", "Illinois Route 1", "SR 1", etc. were all common and equally used forms of the proper name "Illinois State Route 1". For various reasons, and most often to save space and/or to avoid being repetitive, you're going to find one of the "less proper" names being used. The problem is, as I've argued in the past, this changes depending on region and situation, a la the California Highway 17 debacle. It may be "Illinois Route 1" in Chicago, "State Highway 1" in Danville, and "Illinois 1" in Cave-in-Rock. I haven't driven the thing, so I don't know. The only way to hazard a guess is to use Mapquest, which is far from authoritative. The next best thing is just to look at what the Department of Transportation says, take the best (or legislated) guess and apply it to all state routes. If I use that argument, it looks likely that the proper form may very well be Illinois Route 1, as explained in a post below. —Rob (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What I'm not seeing, however, is any evidence for either the explicit assumption above, or the implicit ones -- as to what the official name is, and that that should prevail over something more common. Alai 13:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• How do you mean? I have 5+ links to references to route names in one of my posts below, all located in the http://www.dot.state.il.us namespace. Besides an official, stamped document from the secretary of the Illinois Department of Transportation's desk himself, that's as authoritative as I can be. —Rob (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The explicit assumption I refered to being, that ISR1 was the official term, while as per my google above, the state DOT doesn't use it at all. IR1 does actually seems to be somewhat more frequent (on that site) that I1, I'll grant you. My main concern is that this is turning back into an exercise in "official over common", which is explicitly against the general principle. If the two happen to accord, that's fine and lovely. Alai 14:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer Option 1, although in Minnesota usage, it's "Highway" and not "Route". Actually, in official Minnesota usage (such as state statutes and the MNDOT site, the official term is "Trunk Highway". In common vernacular, however, nobody here says "Trunk Highway". People usually say "Highway 100" or "Highway 52". --Elkman - ^(talk) 17:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So let's consensus so a lot of this can be done with. Agree or disagree: naming will be done as decided upon in each WikiProject (Illinois Highways, Virginia Highways, New York Routes, etc) as there can't be a blanket rule for something like this- "common names" or "technical names" will be decided in each Project (or "List of Highways in [state]" if there is no Project yet) as well. However, this isn't a consensus for California or Washington unless you all want it to be because it seems that there are still issues with those. Don't argue here, put the arguments above. --MPD01605 17:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC) *Agree. --MPD01605 17:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, I really need to read all this when i'm not half asleep. Ok, well, I'm set for Virginia. But for Illinois, I have to support Option 1 because it makes more sense for me, and I don't have to type in (parentheses), therefore less work and coordination on my part. I'm looking for a State Route 12, well in what state? Illinois? Well Illinois State Route 12 would work for me. --MPD01605 18:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's bear in mind that there are existing wikipedia policies and guidelines on this. Alai 20:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Option 1, second choice being Option 3. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

How about Illinois Route X, with redirects from State Route X (Illinois)? From what I can tell, IDOT and state laws use both "Illinois Route X" and "State Route X", with the former used more. Has anyone here (Rob?) done some work with primary sources produced by IDOT, and if so, is there a name they use most of the time? --SPUI (talk - RFC) 07:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ha. Apparently it's Illinois X in press releases. However, it's Illinois Route X in project pages -- this one too. The Highway Improvement Program Reports all use ILL X, but that's an obvious abbreviation. The Road Closures List uses IL Rte. X. I am still 90% certain that on the 2-line green road identification signs on traffic posts, it's Illinois State Rte. X, and I'll drive by a few state highways today to confirm. —Rob (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• The Illinois MUTCD supplement calls it the Illinois State Route Sign. Still looking for how big it should be... —Rob (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Option 1 is the option of the 3 choices above I think is the closest to the state official name of Illinois Route XX. JohnnyBGood 18:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Option 4, on the basis it being the common name on the evidence of signage, and state DOT usage. (And the ad hoc nature of the arguments to use option 1 on the basis of being apparently neither common nor official.) Alai 13:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Option 1 - the state name would be a natural beginning. Most states refer to their state designations in this way, even Michigan and West Virginia with their unique state road designations ("M-46" and "WV 61," for example). B.Wind 04:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

IDOT stance

Okay, this email should end discussion of what to call it; it's just a matter of what the main article should be, and what the disambiguations should be.

Thank you for your e-mail concerning the correct terminology when referring to Illinois marked routes. I’m not sure there is a “most right” form anymore (if there ever was one) but “Illinois Route 1” would appear to come the closest.

In the 1920’s, routes were referred to most often as “Illinois Route 1” in formal documents. On official maps, however, they were often shown as “Ill. 1” and sometimes just “Route 1.” When used in correspondence and documents where the subject is apparent, “Illinois 1” and even “IL 1” are often used today. When route markers are not used, signing uses “Illinois 1,” although “IL 1” and “Ill 1” are sometimes used where space is a problem. By-the-way, as additions to your list, you could add “State Route 1” and “State Highway 1.”

You might also run across “SBI 1.” In 1918, an organized system of state highways started with the first State Bond Issue (SBI) Routes. SBI 1 paid for Route 1, SBI 4 paid for Route 4, etc. Many of these old SBI numbers became the state route numbers. For example, Illinois 1 essentially follows the old SBI 1 alignment. Of course, many of the old SBI numbers no longer exist even as route numbers and new state route numbers have been added over the years.

When in doubt, ask. :-) Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois State Routes/External correspondence for full details. —Rob (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• So "Illinois Route X" is the formal name? If so then that is what we should use. The only other option that seems to make sense would be "Illinois X" however since the subject wouldn't be apparent in an encyclopedia article I don't know how useful that will be.JohnnyBGood 20:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So in summary, we have a policy to use the most common term, and an email from the competent body saying there's no "most right" term: which "should end discussion" in that we should go back to determining what the common name is, I can only presume would be the logical conclusion here? Alai 00:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• There is still no "common term". Like most systems, the highway system evolved over time, differently in separate regions. That's what IDOT's stance amounts to. To say otherwise means we'll have "Illinois 1" because it's most common, then "Illinois Route 2" because that's most common there, then "Highway 3 (Illinois)" because that's the most common use downstate. That's utterly ridiculous, and we have consensus amounting to that elsewhere. We have to pick something. Not so much we have to pick something, but there really is no other way without being more inconsistent than it already is (which is, the technically incorrect name). I'm not intending to sacrifice accuracy for consistency, but with a group of commonly related articles, I value consistency at least amongst the names of the articles. —Rob (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

From an out-of-stater's perspective, I would search "Illinois State Route 1", but that's after using Wikipedia. If I were new, I'd search "Illinois Route X". That's all I've got. --MPD01605 01:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Rob, you're conflating two entirely separate issues. It's one thing to say that "commonness" should be aggregated over a naming system (or a road system, whether it has much of naming system as such). You might note that I've "voted" for that, above, in fact. It's an entirely different thing to say that commonness is impossible to determine -- or should be ignored, is what you're really arguing for. And it's a highly problematic position, as I've argued at length. Alai 14:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Related page move

Hoping to get some clarifying input, I listed IL. (S)(R)1 on WP:RM. What I actually got, of course, was SPUI showing up and moving it anyway. There seems to be some sort of consensus for the new name on the basis of the above comments (however little attention this pays to the naming conventions), so perhaps fair enough (at least pro tempore). Alai 04:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently still an open discussion?

I don't see where it was archived, or where it has been made a final proposal. IMO this is ridiculous, as it gives articles counterintuitive names. Almost no one, again IMO, is going to look up "State Route XX (State name)", but rather "State Name Route XX". If they look up "State Name Highway XX", this can be handled by a redirect, but the proposed policy means nearly everyone looking something up is going to get redirected. And for the life of me, I don't see how it is going to help international users that much, if at all. I would be just as likely, maybe more, to search for "Niedersachsen Landestraße 14" as "Landestraße 14 (Niedersachsen), to give an example. If this is the case, don't we need to change the U.S. Highway system to "Route 79 (U.S.)" rather than "U.S. Route 79"? FWIW, Rlquall 14:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - most people will actually search for "State Route X" or the like, and find the disambiguation page. As for U.S. Routes, those are called U.S. Route X. Similarly, Maryland Route 3 is fine as MDSHA does use "Maryland Route X". --SPUI (T - C) 15:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with SPUI- for an international audience it wouldn't be so. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying that. But you have no bloody evidence to back it up. --SPUI (T - C) 23:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Are we still talking about this? Because I want to, but where is the live thread? - brenneman ^{L} 01:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we're talking about it here now. —phh (^t/_c) 01:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)