Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways)/Archive 1

message: I have commented out the style guide box and put the shortcut template in for now, so teh shortcut still shows but this is not a style guide yet, and won't be unless it is widely accepted. I note a small revert struggle just happened, and I'd warn both parties to discuss here rather than revert again. Make the case that it should be a guide  even when unaccepted, if you think you can. ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, wide acceptance wasn't necessary for principle I. But my intent here was never to call it a guideline but a proposed guideline - I see the proposed tag as modifying whatever's below it. --SPUI (T - C) 05:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is indeed a slight issue with the "proposal" template.  It might perhaps be cloned or parameterised so as to make explicit "proposed policy", "proposed guidelines", etc.  Or as a brutal hack, subst: it, and edit the text down by hand.  Alai 05:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Diff? I don't see it in that link. He said a lot of things in there. I have no problem with this existing, and with it capturing the final result but it's proposed, not a style guide yet. putting it in the style guide category is disruptive and you should know better. Don't do it again. ++Lar: t/c 05:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right at the top, in the numbered list. --SPUI (T - C) 05:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: and what is this :  if you KNEW this was PROPOSED why on earth would you put it in the guide to centralised discussion??? Out it goes. Dont' add it again. ++Lar: t/c 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Centralized discussion is for proposals. Wikipedia:German de-adminship solution is marked as proposed but is clearly listed there. --SPUI (T - C) 05:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why are you arguing whether or not it is proposed or final? The difference between the two, is that the former indicates that the article (in this case) is being formed through a centralized idea based on a consensus, and the latter indicates that the article (in this case) has solid standing. The final version is not complete and will not be until the voting ends for all the parts. Therefore, it is still proposed, and since it is cut short and is incomplete, I can't even see how this can even be considered a done-deal.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is proposed - I marked it as such. Lar removed it from , claiming that is not for proposals. --SPUI (T - C) 06:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: (After edit conflict.  I hate edit conflicts.  Get me a decent wiki-engine, this one is broken.)  The criticism in this case seems to be one of "venue-shopping".  I agree that it's addressing a technically different area of concern, but since the fur's still flying at the first poll, perhaps let things lie there for a while before going into high gear on the "damage limitation exercise".  Alai 06:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, after edit conflicts half the time I just give up and don't post. I wish there was some way you could get an auto conflict resolver where when two people comment in different places the wiki automatically fixes it. But anyway... yeah let's let this one lie until Part 3 or so. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, and for example pmwiki for one thing does exactly this, without problems.  (Ironically enough I run a pm-powered wiki that sees so little use that this is never an issue, and meanwhile people are tearing their hair out by the dozen over these things here....)  Even semi-automated ("I've tried to fix your ec, this look OK to you?  fix by hand if not") would be something.  Alai 06:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is inevitable that we will have a page documenting how roads should be named, but generally I think it should wait until that has been fully worked out. And while I appreciate the irony in SPUI not parenthetically disambiguating, this page should probably follow the precedent of the other sub-pages of Wikipedia:Naming conventions like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), and so forth. The title seems to imply more a 'manual of style' type guide than strictly a naming guide... which would also make sense if there are going to be significant issues beyond the names. If it's just how the names are linked to then I think that could probably be incorporated into a naming convention document. --CBD 07:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a manual of style-type page, not a naming convention, though I could see it merged into a naming convention. --SPUI (T - C) 07:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and it would probably be at Wikipedia:U.S. state highway naming conventions :P --SPUI (T - C) 07:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that it should, this page should be a guide to all of US state highway writing, and that's definitely a part of it. --Rory096 16:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that a significant number of people for some reason just can't stand parentheses in the title. The reason for choosing principle 1 is probably related to why we have city articles like Fukuoka, Fukuoka instead of Fukuoka (city). A lot of reasons are "for consistency" or "that's the current naming style" or "people might get confused if you don't include the containing place". --Polaron | Talk 16:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We include the containing place in both examples here. It basically boils down to "parentheses are ugly" plus a few other lightweight arguments that have their match on the other side. --SPUI (T - C) 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But the rigid format of Principle I was the one that was chosen. Let's try and make the most of it for now and work on the style guide and see how it goes. --Polaron | Talk 17:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Just adding that almost all the articles for US cities also do not conform to WP:NC(CN) because of the comma convention so naming conventions that don't conform to common names are not unusual. I think the only way for people to follow common names more is to elevate that to a policy. --Polaron | Talk 17:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: City, State is a pretty common name - kind of like State Route vs. Route in some states - Route is more common but State Route is still somewhat common. --SPUI (T - C) 17:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You might want to use the reasons listed at Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll#Problems with Principle II. --Rory096 17:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of which are good reasons. "We" need something to convince people not to come back later and argue this again. Is there such a thing? I haven't seen it. --SPUI (T - C) 17:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that'd be something like "Everyone is agreed that this convention is imperfect, but after numerous contentious debates, it's been accepted as the best we can do."  Powers T 21:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I knew this would happen; the people who didn't win are pissed and the people who won are bragging. <sarcasm>Isn't this fun?</sarcasm> Now as for the good reason... I don't care if you make a list or not; all I know is that I don't have time to go searching for every argument. Wouldn't a link to WP:SRNC suffice? --TinMan 06:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Too bad you can't "vote" for P2-type names. --SPUI (T - C) 04:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarcasm> Yeah... too bad. </sarcasm>. As I said earlier, I would say "California State Route 12" so someone would know which state I was talking about... but I am an individual. Now if I could make a website and put that on there, then would I be credible? Or what about if I flew to California and added an extension to the sign? Heck, the California shields have "Califonria" written on them half the time; I just need to spray paint "State Route" under thate in small letters, right? Face it, nobody really knows what they're doing, but everyone thinks they do. Just make the best of it and quit with the attitude if you would please, all of ya. =) --TinMan 06:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.  Alai 22:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: This section:
ought to be struck in mhy view (along with the footnote) as it's highly POV, presenting a rather biased and disruptive view of why this sorry mess exists in the first place. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll agree with this.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I tried to make it say "alleged lack of consensus" but was reverted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  The "parenthetical manner" is perhaps "usual" but not "standard", per ArbCom ruling, and violating it not unusual enough to require commentary.  Powers T 14:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in a style guide 

message: Hopefully that means people agree with this - since this is part of the naming conventions poll. Are there any objections, or should I upgrade it to a style guide once we get at least placeholder standards lists? --SPUI (T - C) 03:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is technically part 3 in the poll, so I would wait until it's all over so the judges can add the tag. --Rory096 02:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There hasn't been much activity here 

message: Should we create a table listing the name(s) each state/territory uses? The correct usage of the name can then be referenced here. --physicq210 02:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. We can put all the little tweaks that each state has in that table. --TinMan 12:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I think there should be a table just listing everything: State Name, Article Title, Common Name, Infobox Name, Secondary Route Article Title, Seondary Route Common Name, Secondary Route Infobox Name, exceptions... etc. I don't know how wide that would be though. Maybe that would be too big to mess with. --TinMan 15:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a table as originally suggested, with links to each state's highway WP, where all of the secondary information you mentioned should be available. — Homefryes Say•Do 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of highways for each individual state 

message: There are a few things that sort-of but not quite fit in the naming convention.
# The defunct New England Interstate Routes have a P2-like naming convention.  They are outside the scope of WP:SRNC, not being state routes, but with the move of state routes to P1, they will become an oddity.
# Some of the preceding (8, 9, 10, 12, 26) do interact with SRNC, because state-level articles got merged into them.  As a result, Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire will have some stray P2 names, unless we recreate the state-specific articles at their P1 names.
# Massachusetts Route 3A got split into two pieces, currently Route 3A (northeastern Massachusetts) and Route 3A (southeastern Massachusetts).  I personally don't think we should have multiple articles for different pieces of a single state route, but there are some who disagree.  If they stay split, they will need a naming convention (Massachusetts Route 3A (north) and Massachusetts Route 3A (south), I presume).  There are also  tags on Massachusetts Route 1A (4 pieces) and Massachusetts Route 8A (2 pieces), although no split action has been taken on them.
Sam8 05:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the particular case of MA 3A, there is a "silent multiplex" between the two segments according to MassGIS data. These articles should probably be merged back. I believe the same is true for MA 1A. For MA 8A, the two segments are actually treated as distinct routes (with separate mile markers unlike 3A) and are referred to internally by MassHighway as Rt. 8A-U and Rt. 8A-L. These might be better as separate articles. --Polaron | Talk 05:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite said "silent concurrency", they are two different routes. The FHWA lists both I-76s, I-88s, etc like they are one route in their mileage tables, but they are different routes. --SPUI (T - C) 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  If there's a concurrency and a single milepost system, then it's a single connected route, even if most people aren't aware that the connection exists.  The interstates are separate routes because there's no connection between the two routes; the numbers were repeated solely because there was no other designation that fit inside the grid. -- NORTH talk 17:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MassHighway considers Route 3A one continuous route from Plymouth to Tyngsborough.  In addition to listing it that way in the Road Inventory File, they also use it as an example.  "For example, the Southeast Expressway has five routes (I-93, US 1, Route 3, Route 1A, and Route 3A)."--Sam8 16:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The New England routes should be moved to P1, since the NE articles are composed of state routes covered by WP:SRNC, at least that's my interpretation. --TMF T - C 03:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. If it doesn't happen this time since we didn't vote on those then we can get it changed later. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Namespace quirks 

message: In part two, it was determined that "West Virginia Route X" should be the article name and, due to the lack of angled brackets, it was also determined to be the common name. However, on USSH, the common name is given as "Route X". Am I missing something here or is this a discrepancy between SRNC and USSH? --TMF T - C 11:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could have made a mistake when copying... I was tired that day... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  15:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. I've made the fix. --TMF T - C 15:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy between SRNC Part 2 and USSH? 

message: I submitted a question to the Minnesota Department of Transportation regarding the official naming of Minnesota highways.  Here is the response from Jerry Baldwin, Library Director.  (My original questions are in bold.)
----
The question you submitted to info@dot.state.mn.us was forwarded to Mn/DOT Library for a response.
1.  Is the official name of a highway of the form "Minnesota State Highway x", "State Highway x", "Trunk Highway x", or something else?
I can find no document specifying what constitutes an "official name" in relation to numbered highways that constitute the state highway system.  In almost all state documents the individual highways are referred to as "THx."  The use of the designation "TH" or "Trunk Highway" began with the amendment to the Minnesota Constitution ( http://worldcat.org/oclc/8294090 ) that created the system of highways administered by the state, adopted in 1920, and has been used in subsequent legislation ( http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/161 ).
2.  If the official name of a highway does not start with "Minnesota", is it acceptable to refer to highways as "Minnesota State Highway x" in a work like Wikipedia that is used within all 50 states, as well as outside the USA?
The use of the state name preceding a highway number is common practice, but is not designated as "official" or "acceptable" in relation to Minnesota highways.  There might be legislation in other states that adopt "offical" designations.
3.  Are there any good examples of publications, such as AASHTO documents, that refer to multiple state highway systems that could be used as a preference for this discussion?
AASHTO has issued, and from time to time updates a publication titled "United States Numbered Highways" ( http://worldcat.org/oclc/37586174 ).  However, that policy document applies only to the designation and signing of the system of U.S and Interstate highways and provides for consistent numbering and signing of highways that cross state borders or are part of the Interstate highway system.  Standards for the numbering and signing of highways wholly within any given state vary from state to state.
 
Please let me know if I can be of further help.
----
--Elkman - (Elkspeak) 18:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response from the Minnesota Department of Transportation 

message: What's going on here? What happened to working together? --NE2 22:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You broke the restored sense of community. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If proposing a change is enough to do that, we've got problems. --NE2 22:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You chose to fight against a generally accepted consensus that put an end to nine months of fighting, ArbCom, RFC, mass move wars, users leaving, and plain crap. And you wonder why you're getting bad results and argument? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in fact, I do wonder that. --NE2 22:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I can't help you then. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do discussions always deteriorate so quickly? 

message: South Carolina Highway 277 needs to be deleted so South Carolina Route 277 can be moved there. --NE2 03:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Every route in Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina has now been moved, and all incoming links I could find have been fixed, thanks to the magic of AWB. --NE2 12:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion needed 

message: How did the decision to rename these specific routes come about? As you can see here, there was already consensus on a naming convention. I like that fact that the whole state route naming system has been settled at long last, I just fear that it got one wrong.  youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it, nevermind. I just wish that I had found it when it would have actually mattered, but it seems to be the best solution to get us back on track and out of this morass. Keep up the good work.  youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WV Routes 

message: User:SchuminWeb continues to change the link to State Route 267 in Fairfax Connector to Virginia State Highway 267, even after I pointed him to the linking section on this page. --NE2 12:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies.  I left a message on your talk page without familiarizing myself with the situation.  You're clearly right in this situation. -- NORTH talk 16:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prcblems with a link 

message: Okay, I have a question, since unfortunately it's not quite explicit on the main page.  It's clear that the title of an article is New Jersey Route X, and it's clear that in most cases in the article text it should be referred to as Route X... and it's clear that redirects from Route X (New Jersey) need to exist in order to aid in linking.
But here's my question.  Is it actually required that we link to a page as Route 17 rather than Route 17?  It shouldn't make one bit of difference, as both display identically as Route 17.
The reason I ask is because right now, Alansohn is slowly going through the New Jersey articles changing them to the full name (i.e. ), and NE2 is quickly going through and changing them to the redirect title (i.e. ), which leads to some problems since those two diffs are from the same article within three hours of each other.
In theory, as long as the link displays correctly, neither one of them should be making these edits one way or the other per Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken.  But I'm curious to see if any of the other editors here have a different opinion. -- NORTH talk 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The important thing is probably what is displayed. We should still tell people who "fix" redirects not to do so as a matter of good general practice as long as the link displays properly. There should also be no need to revert back if such "fixing" has already been done, again as long as the link displays properly. --Polaron | Talk 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it useful to always use the parenthetical link style in Virginia, since I can easily find (using "what links here") any articles that use the direct link with the state name first, and thus may use that in text. This has made it easier to ensure that only text where the context is unclear uses the state name first. I did the same in other states as part of my AWB-assisted fixing for the same reason, to help editors in those states. --NE2 22:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, an edit of mine was reverted today for basically the same reason.  I changed the text to be clear by using the article name and had my change reverted to one of those redirects resulting in what I believe was a poorly worded sentance.  Changes to redirects or changing from one redirect to another should be banned as not needed and reflective of one persons opinion.  If the article reads correctly and the link is to the right place, then it should be left alone.  Yes, there will be exceptions and those should be made without using a tool like  AWB. Vegaswikian 23:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I would agree with NE2 -- the context is clear, so the link should display as State Route 15, regardless of how it's actually linked. (For the benefit of other editors, the edits in question are: , but is a moot point since the section was removed.)  The diffs I cited on U.S. Route 46 exhibit a case where an already piped link was changed from Route 94 to Route 94 and back. -- NORTH talk 14:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As to the question at hand.  Personally I believe that the link should be to the article without a redirect.  However if the only 'problem' is that there is a redirect, then leave it alone since it is not a problem that needs fixing.  My question is that as a part of the article renaming, would it be wrong to change all of the links to be directly to the article?  I'm just asking about the link here and not the text being displayed.  The text displayed should be driven by the context it is used in. So if the text Route 17 needed to be dispayed I could use the shortcut  Vegaswikian 23:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is useful to use the the parenthetical link when the editor is employing the pipe trick, but it is completely unnecessary to change to a parenthetical link when the editor has already manually entered the display text after the pipe.  Valid links to the Principle 1 title of an article do not need to be changed to a Principle 2 link.  To clarify:  it is not necessary to change SR 7 to SR 7...nor is it preferred to do this (according to WP:SRNC) — Homefryes Say•Do 11:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what WP:SRNC ever said on the matter, that's why I've brought the question here. (If you've got a link to a diff or a section header though, please enlighten me.)  However, that is what WP:R says in the section I quoted above. -- NORTH talk 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you may be correct – it might not have said not do to that; however, following the logic that it's unnecessary to change links from redirects to directs, the converse is also true — Homefryes Say•Do 21:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding linking 

message: Should the introduction be modified to exclude 'roads under the control of other agencies in the state'?  We make it clear that this does not apply to US owned roads but not other local roads. Vegaswikian 19:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction exclusions 

message: This is not a decision-making poll, although its results can/should be taken into account should we decide to reach a conclusion in the near future.  The purpose of this poll is solely to determine where community opinion lies at this moment, and to see if we're close to reaching a consensus.  They're both simple yes-or-no questions, but feel free to include comments with your response. -- NORTH talk 17:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Parentheses are not always used on disambiguation pages.  I gave an example above (Marlboro) where it's not.  They are usually used on disambiguation pages when the disambiguated form (usually the article title) uses parentheses.  In this case the disambiguated is "state name first". -- NORTH talk 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, "always" was the wrong word. "Use of parentheses on disambiguation pages is always OK" is a better way to put it. --NE2 22:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually a better way to state that might be, 'parentheses on disambiguation pages is OK when the parentheses are part of the article name.' Vegaswikian 04:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: Should "state name first" (Principle 2) links be allowed as long as they display correctly according to WP:USSH (for example, Route 17)?
*Yes. Linking to a redirect is fine, but linking to the actual article title comes more naturally to some editors.  As long as the link is piped, it shouldn't make a bit of difference.  -- NORTH talk 17:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 1

message: Should links on disambiguation pages be displayed using parentheses (for example Route 128 (Massachusetts))?
*No. I don't buy the importance of the "What links here" logic, and as it's currently written, WP:USSH says "state name first" should be used, since context is not clear.  Besides, parentheses are ugly. -- NORTH talk 17:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Parentheses are not always used on disambiguation pages.  I gave an example above (Marlboro) where it's not.  They are usually used on disambiguation pages when the disambiguated form (usually the article title) uses parentheses.  In this case the disambiguated is "state name first". -- NORTH talk 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, "always" was the wrong word. "Use of parentheses on disambiguation pages is always OK" is a better way to put it. --NE2 22:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually a better way to state that might be, 'parentheses on disambiguation pages is OK when the parentheses are part of the article name.' Vegaswikian 04:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 2

message: So... what's left to discuss?  Is there a need to change the project page at all to clarify the linking section?  I think it's pretty clear that NE2 has been overruled on the displaying of parentheses on disambiguation pages, but I don't see any harm in changing links so long as they display properly. (Not that I see any help in it either.) Does anyone else have any final thoughts? -- NORTH talk 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further discussion

message: The name used on the official Tennessee highway map is "Tennessee State Route". Why can't that be the common name instead of "State Route"? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying on the map, but if you search the TDOT website (), virtually everywhere else they use simply "state route".  (There are only seven results for "Tennessee State Route".) -- NORTH talk 03:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that. If I was creating/editing a wiki to be used internally for the Tennessee DOT, I'd name the routes that. But this is a global wikipedia. People talk about Tennessee State Routes, or more simply Tennessee Routes. I don't understand using web-search term hit rates to determine the naming of articles. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 04:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you've misunderstood the meaning of WP:USSH. Although the common name was determined to be "State Route X", the naming convention for Tennessee articles is "Tennessee State Route X". As MPD said below, by having the state name in the title, it allows for other, more common names to be used in the article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The title of the article is "Tennessee State Route".  Once it's established that the article in question is the Tennessee State Route, not Virginia State Route or North Carolina Highway, then using "State Route" or "Route" in the article is fine because it's established as the article.  Only when it's ambiguous (like when it connects to another route and vice versa) do you have to re-establish to which state's route is being referred.  Tennessee State Route repeated over and over and over and over again would be very redundant, too.  Even State Route over and over again gets tiresome.  --MPD (T / C) 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tennessee State Routes 

message: I happened to come across a lone straggler. State Road 712 (Florida) needs to be moved to Florida State Road 712 over the redirect.  If I don't get a response here, I'll take it to WP:RM. -- NORTH talk 20:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Double redirects fixed.  Thank you. -- NORTH talk 20:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect needing deletion 

message: Most of his recent edits have been to change articles to not follow this. I've told him several times to stop. --NE2 05:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've explained to him further about why he should follow the standard. If he continues to not go along with it, we may have to take further action and/or just go back and clean up the mistakes. --Triadian 05:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Warn him one more time, then block with a MOS block as per WP:USSH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I slapped a warning template for being a vandal on the talk page.  Using these is generally better then user written ones since they are more formal and have a built in escalation of the tone.  Any user can apply them.  Vegaswikian 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Fingers-of-Pyrex]] 

message: I came across a DAB link in this article: Virginia State Route 7.  It points to a historical route, and the link given is State Route 7 (Virginia 1918-1923).  This redirects to Virginia State Route 3, which also has a DAB on it with the link State Route 3 (Virginia 1918-1923).  Shouldn't these redirects be moved to Virginia State Route 7 (1918-1923) and Virginia State Route 3 (1918-1923) per WP:USSH?  
Others include:
*State Route 2 (Virginia 1918-1923) to Virginia State Route 2 (1918-1923)
*State Route 4 (Virginia 1918-1923) to Virginia State Route 4 (1918-1923)
*State Route 4 (Virginia 1933-1938) to Virginia State Route 4 (1933-1938)
*State Route 4 (Virginia 1940) to Virginia State Route 4 (1940)
*State Route 5 (Virginia 1918-1923) to Virginia State Route 5 (1918-1923)
*State Route 6 (Virginia 1918-1923) to Virginia State Route 6 (1918-1923)
*State Route 8 (Virginia 1918-1923) to Virginia State Route 8 (1918-1923)
*State Route 9 (Virginia 1933-1940) to Virginia State Route 9 (1933-1940)
And I'm not sure about this one: State Route 13 (Norfolk, Virginia)
--Son (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virginia historical routes 

message: This page seems to be having a bit of an identity crisis.  It calls itself "Manual of Style...", but the cat is "Wikipedia naming conventions", and it does in fact seem to be a set of naming conventions, that is, article title naming conventions.  Is anyone opposed to an upgrade?  Naming conventions are closer to policy than to guidelines. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Same here, but I just want to make sure there's no hoops to jump through to make this happen. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that there are no hoops to jump through, because anything that concerns the titles of articles has to be a naming convention.  I'm going through every page that uses the Style template and reporting on what's happening to each page to WT:MOS later tonite, so I'm sure if anyone has a problem with what I'm doing, they'll let us know. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, because we've been screwed with stuff like this before... --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to hear that.  As Crook Nixon said, I am not a dick. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Unless I'm missing it by reading quickly, the page covers what page name to use, how to handle redirects, and how to link to it.  It says that the same name should be used in the text, but that's the name that appears in the title.  This is probably why this page was put in "Wikipedia naming conventions".  I assume the information is working well (I don't see evidence of complaints), and as long as it's working, it's a "naming convention", which is closer to being policy than a guideline.  Is there any information on this page which should not be considered (close to) policy? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "How to link to it" includes stuff like writing "State Route 99" most of the time even though the article name is "California State Route 99". --NE2 12:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Whenever you get additional content that concerns style, language or formatting, I would support adding this page into the "Wikipedia style guidelines" cat.  (Although my personal preference would be for you guys to have two pages if needed, one for style and one for naming conventions.)  A sentence or two is not enough to consider this page a style manual.  I don't see a need to change the page name; the cat at the bottom and the infobox at the top should be clear. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole "official name" column specifies what to call it in text. --NE2 13:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  I was unconvinced until I got to my own state, North Carolina.  You guys got that right: we always call Highway 62 "NC 62".  This is not a naming convention, but it is a style convention, and you have enough of them.  Okay, your choice: do you want to trust the readers to understand the difference between policy and style, or do you want to break it into two pages?  If you want to keep it on one page, I really think we need a new infobox that explains the difference. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just asked on WT:Manual of Style/Archive 100#Being clear about naming conventions vs style guidelines for wording for a new "dual" infobox. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions or guidelines? 

message: Thouhg on interstate-guide those states for state/neutral shields is shade in black the state-name-interstate shields is still common in some route numbers. Like I-94, 90 of Minnesota. They use both types of shields like Maryland do, so they can be use on article body only and as long as is avoid from routeboxes. --Freewayguy (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  This page has nothing to do with that.  --Holderca1 talk 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minnesota, North/South Dakotas 

message: I haven't seen this directly addressed in either the US highway manual of style or the icon section of the MOS:  What is the consensus on use of highway shields within the body of a non-highway article?  See Dover, New Hampshire#Geography for an example.  My feeling is that the shields don't belong in plain prose sections, but I haven't found guidance one way or the other. --Ken Gallager (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S. Roads project guidelines state not to use shield images in prose  although that city article is not technically under the scope of the U.S. Roads project. WP:MOSFLAG does say not to use them in prose when talking about flags of countries . --Polaron | Talk 18:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What I was looking for.  Thanks very much. --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highway shields in text 

message: I've boldy moved the page and edited it out of the MoS. I've commented out much of the comment below the list of naming conventions. Most of that isn't relevant to this page as a naming convention, and they should be moved to appropriate pages under the USRD project. One final consideration should be that as written, this page excludes the Interstates and US Highway systems. I think it would be a good idea to incorporate those naming schemes into the chart. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. We lost the Interstate/US Highway naming conventions when those project pages were merged into USRD a while back. -- LJ ↗ 15:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the table for the Interstates and US Highways. Let me know if I missed anything. I also moved the commented content over to WP:USRD/STDS since that was the most appropriate location for it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: Ok, a long time ago, all of the articles on components of the United States Numbered Highway System were moved to US Route # (in X) because AASHTO uses that nomenclature now, even though the system is named otherwise. Maybe that's an oversimplification, but when the table was moved here, in moving it out of the MOS (where it never really belonged) to make it a part of the NC, it was never amended to reflect reality. Some states are "Highway states" and others are "Route states". I'd like to propose one minor change, and possibly one larger change.
#For state-detail articles in "Highway states", the "US Highway #" nomenclature is perfectly acceptable, as "US Route #" is "foreign sounding" to natives of that state. It's essentially an infra-national variation on WP:TIES/WP:ENGVAR. This guideline would be updated to list "U.S. Highway" as an acceptable alternate nomenclature. Parent articles would be updated to list "U.S. Highway #" as an alternate name as needed.
#For state-detail articles in "Highway states", the articles could be moved from "U.S. Route # in X" to "U.S. Highway # in X", preserving the former name as a redirect, and the prose would be updated to reflect that fact. "Route states" and the parent articles would be unaffected except to list the "U.S. Highway #" as an alternate name as needed in the parent article.
In all honesty, the two words are interchangeable in terms of meaning, but not in terms of usage. Just as UK articles will call them "motorways" and North American articles "freeways", the local vernacular to each state should be followed in state-detail articles. The national-detail articles should reflect both usages as necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 03:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Route vs. US Highway 

message: This is essentially a continuation of the above conversation, an explanation of the background that led to the discussion and clarification of my comments, and my relevant suggestions.
I made an edit to the U.S. Route 27 in Michigan page (see the History page, 2010-09-21) to add text to the body, and decided to change the hatnote to match the actual title of the target page since I was already editing the article (I know that redirects are OK, so I probably wouldn't have done anything had I not already been editing); this was reverted with the reasoning of keeping wording consistent with the article ("highway").
This is where the relevance to the above is: I then changed all the instances of "highway" to "route" in the article, because, even though Michigan is a "highway" state, the article is still about a U.S. Route, and logically should contain the same prose as the related overall article about US-27. My opinion is that all such articles related to the two U.S. national systems with independent numbering (Interstates and United States Numbered Highways; the National Highway System is essentially an overlay and not relevant), even if isolated to a single state, should maintain the style of the highway systems as a whole, regardless of the nomenclature that the isolated states use, with the exception to references to state highways/routes which happen to cross or overlap the subject route. Mapsax (talk) 06:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You've expressed your opinion, as have others. The guideline, as updated from April, and sustained by the consensus above, does not agree with you. Sorry. Imzadi 1979 → 07:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus above applies to the general nomenclature, not the specific instance that I clarified. If the consensus for that remains the same, so be it, but I wanted to separate the two principles. (I would have simply added another comment to the above discussion, but it was already closed.) Mapsax (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See footnote #2 under the second section, which states: "The official AASHTO route logs and documents refer to these highways as "U.S. Route X". However, the term "U.S. Highway X" is used by many states DOTs, and may be used in article prose where this nomenclature is prevalent." (emphasis added) The prose includes all of the text in the article. Imzadi 1979 → 01:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the basis for the footnote? It seems counter to the purpose of style guides, which is to make things uniform. Mapsax (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a style guide, it is a naming convention, to describe the correct way to name articles. Since it was previously included in the Manual of Style, many editors refer to "WP:USSH" to style matters, even though USSH has not been in the MOS for months. Style guides do make things uniform, but there will be exceptions. You can't make everything the same when they aren't. Imzadi 1979 → 02:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

text: When the prose is talking specifically about a particular US numbered route in a non-abbreviated form (i.e. "U.S. Route 95", "US Highway 27", etc.), the preference is to use whichever nomenclature is prevalent in that state. This does not mean that the word "highway" by itself can only be used in states where 'highway' is the preferred nomenclature--the same goes for "route". -- LJ ↗ 18:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For Michigan, rather than repeat the abbreviated name (I-75, US 23 or M-28) every time I need to mention the roadway, I mix up the terms "highway", "trunkline", "roadway". "road" and even "route", although I do tend to use "route" to refer to the path or the alignment of the the road more than the road itself. Guess what, that's fine. Imzadi 1979 → 19:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding style of U.S. Route pages and subpages 

message: For New Jersey routes, I think if the title of all NJ state routes begin with the state name, than the name used in the articles should too, to keep consistency. It just looks neater, in my opinion. MikeM2011 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason we use "Route X" because that is what NJDOT uses as opposed to "New Jersey Route X". Dough4872 02:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 01:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC on coordinates in highway articles

message: A convention is needed for primary interstate highways that have another route with the same number (such as I-84) and auxiliary interstates that pass through multiple states, but nonetheless have another route with the same number (such as I-275). I would like to apply the existing auxiliary duplicated number convention to primary interstates as well, however there has been debate about this (without clear consensus) at Talk:Interstate 88 (east). Listroiderbobtalkeditsmore 19:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conventions are incomplete 

message: The article states in the lead that the two segments were always intended to be non-contiguous, so if we decide they should be split into two articles, I propose:
*U.S. Route 2 → U.S. Route 2 (Washington–Michigan) and U.S. Route 2 (New York–Maine)
*US 2 would be come a dab page
Should we split the main US 2 article into two? –Fredddie™ 20:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *But US 2 could be seen differently because the two segments were planned simultaneously. Then again, that's kind of a technicality. Listroiderbobtalkeditsmore 01:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: US 2

message: *I have a couple ideas for MN 62. –Fredddie™ 20:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *I imagine Minnesota is a state where counties would make more sense. Dough4872 02:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

text: *Agreed. TCN7JM 05:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Minnesota State Highway 62|MN 62]]

message: is also relevant (arguably) to the US 2 section above. Listroiderbobtalkeditsmore 21:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the two segments are connected by a ferry across Lake Michigan, I think this one is actually one route. –Fredddie™ 22:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That would also make an awkward combination of "U.S. Route 10 (North Dakota–Wisconsin)" and "U.S. Route 10 in Michigan" as the two "national" articles. Given the ferry connection, this should remain one article on the national level. Imzadi 1979 →  23:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Fredddie and Imzadi1979 that US 10 should remain one article since the ferry connection makes it a continuous route. The same would go for U.S. Route 9 which also includes a ferry on its route. Dough4872 00:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like U.S. Route 9. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[US 10]]

message: would be relevant to the US 2-based split (as highlighted by Dough4872). -DyluckTRocket (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[U.S. Route 422]]

message: The present situation for PA 97 is to split by county:
:Pennsylvania Route 97 (Adams County)
:Pennsylvania Route 97 (Erie County)
Here is how it would look with cities instead of counties:
:Pennsylvania Route 97 (Littlestown–Gettysburg)
:Pennsylvania Route 97 (Union City–Erie)
The county format is a little bit shorter, but the city format has the advantage of each PA 97 containing at least one well-known city.  VC  17:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Strong oppose to change. Under your reasoning, we would move Interstate 88 (Illinois) to Interstate 88 (East Moline–Hillside). Listroiderbobtalkeditsmore 21:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

text: *:My reasoning has nothing to do with your incorrect assumption that I want to take national this proposal for only one route name.  VC  23:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

text: *::It was just an example, you could apply to any duplicated 2DI. I just think it is more concise to use a single location than two locations separated by an en dash, when possible, regardless of whether it is perceived to be "well-known." Listroiderbobtalkeditsmore 01:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

text: *Support TCN7JM 23:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

text: *Exactly. The cities add unnecessary length to the title while not making it much clearer. Listroiderbobtalkeditsmore 03:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think Dyluck's comment does not mean what you think it means. –Fredddie™ 04:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pennsylvania Route 97]]

message: It seems these discussions have gone stale or got out of hand.  I propose we close them all and stay with the status quo. –Fredddie™ 01:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing this thread