Talk:Interstate 595

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Not moved. The proposal raises a legitimate issue for consideration, but there is no consensus to deem the proposed move target "primary" based on which uses are officially signed and which are not. bd2412 T 17:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Interstate 595 →  – Interstate 595 (Florida) needs to be at Interstate 595; it is the only highway that is officially signed as such. Georgia guy (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware that there was such a consensus for naming highways like this, so in light of WP:USSH, I change to oppose. kennethaw88 • talk 03:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

text: And the Florida highway is the only instance of 595 that is officially signed as Interstate 595. Georgia guy (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you've already said that. What you're proposing goes against a naming convention, so your argument will need something more convincing to sway my !vote... -- LJ ↗ 07:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This dis-ambiguation page has 4 uses; one of which is the Florida highway that I support making the primary meaning. None of the other 3 are officially signed as I-595. Giving equal-topic dis-ambiguation suggests that at least 2 of the highways on this page are currently officially signed as Interstate 595. Georgia guy (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
===Post-request comments===
What I would normally suggest is this.  For the Florida highway, put it at the undisambiguated title with a redirect from the disambiguated title. Insert a hatnote note with "For the unsigned Interstate in Maryland, see Interstate 595 (Maryland)." The I-170 connected I-595 doesn't deserve a prominent mention any place beyond what it has in the I-170 article. It's akin to the proposal Michigan made to number what is now I-275 as I-73 or I-696 as I-98.
The trouble is that there is that I-595 in Virginia. If we only had to deal with Florida and Maryland, hatnotes would be sufficient. However, our guidelines say when we get to 3 ambiguous targets, we need a disambiguation page. I can't support the move as proposed above. The Maryland highway is still officially I-595, even if it isn't signed. It's just as much of an Interstate as I-296 in Michigan. Imzadi 1979 →  23:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

text: But is that how Marylanders know the highway or do they know it as part of US 50?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't matter. It is still a valid name for the highway. However, Maryland's situation isn't what makes your proposal an issue. The Virginia situation gives you a third state with an I-595. Three states means a disambiguation page, and I can't support using "Interstate 595 (disambiguation)" as a page title. Imzadi 1979 →  00:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?? The Virginia highway Interstate 595 was a cancelled proposal. The Florida highway is current, official, and signed as such, so it's clearly the meaning someone will most likely want to search for. Georgia guy (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Three states = too ambiguous to be resolved with hatnotes. Four examples (if we're counting the other Maryland case), definitely means we need a disambiguation page. The way those pages are done now, per long-standing consensus, is to put the disambiguation page at the undisambiguated title, and each state gets disambiguated. The point about "current, official, and signed" doesn't hold a lot of weight with me when Maryland's I-595 is "current, official, [but un-]signed". Yeah, it's a bit of a crystal ball here, but if I-595 gets signed tomorrow, like I-695 in DC was recently put up on signs, you do realize your entire argument evaporates completely? Just as some maps (Kent County Road Commission, certain publicly accessible MDOT maps, etc) label I-296, I'm sure there are publicly accessible maps of that area in Maryland that label I-595 in addition to FHWA-derived sources that list it, so you can't assume no one is looking for the Maryland highway either. Imzadi 1979 →  00:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I still support the dis-ambiguation page, only at the title Interstate 595 (disambiguation). Lots of dis-ambiguation pages are titled as such. Georgia guy (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not ignoring anything, however, long-standing consensus for those disambiguation pages is that they get the "primary" title. Now, I've stated my opinions, and you've stated yours. We've discussed both sides quite thoroughly Further replies will likely only harden my opinion that the status quo is the appropriate way to handle this situation. Based on the other comments from a number of other editors above, you're in the minority position here, so it may be time to just move on for now. Imzadi 1979 →  00:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, I also put this information at the appropriate Wikiproject, and we're the only 2 Wikipedians who participated in that section so far. Georgia guy (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: What I would normally suggest is this.  For the Florida highway, put it at the undisambiguated title with a redirect from the disambiguated title. Insert a hatnote note with "For the unsigned Interstate in Maryland, see Interstate 595 (Maryland)." The I-170 connected I-595 doesn't deserve a prominent mention any place beyond what it has in the I-170 article. It's akin to the proposal Michigan made to number what is now I-275 as I-73 or I-696 as I-98.
The trouble is that there is that I-595 in Virginia. If we only had to deal with Florida and Maryland, hatnotes would be sufficient. However, our guidelines say when we get to 3 ambiguous targets, we need a disambiguation page. I can't support the move as proposed above. The Maryland highway is still officially I-595, even if it isn't signed. It's just as much of an Interstate as I-296 in Michigan. Imzadi 1979 →  23:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But is that how Marylanders know the highway or do they know it as part of US 50?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't matter. It is still a valid name for the highway. However, Maryland's situation isn't what makes your proposal an issue. The Virginia situation gives you a third state with an I-595. Three states means a disambiguation page, and I can't support using "Interstate 595 (disambiguation)" as a page title. Imzadi 1979 →  00:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?? The Virginia highway Interstate 595 was a cancelled proposal. The Florida highway is current, official, and signed as such, so it's clearly the meaning someone will most likely want to search for. Georgia guy (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Three states = too ambiguous to be resolved with hatnotes. Four examples (if we're counting the other Maryland case), definitely means we need a disambiguation page. The way those pages are done now, per long-standing consensus, is to put the disambiguation page at the undisambiguated title, and each state gets disambiguated. The point about "current, official, and signed" doesn't hold a lot of weight with me when Maryland's I-595 is "current, official, [but un-]signed". Yeah, it's a bit of a crystal ball here, but if I-595 gets signed tomorrow, like I-695 in DC was recently put up on signs, you do realize your entire argument evaporates completely? Just as some maps (Kent County Road Commission, certain publicly accessible MDOT maps, etc) label I-296, I'm sure there are publicly accessible maps of that area in Maryland that label I-595 in addition to FHWA-derived sources that list it, so you can't assume no one is looking for the Maryland highway either. Imzadi 1979 →  00:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I still support the dis-ambiguation page, only at the title Interstate 595 (disambiguation). Lots of dis-ambiguation pages are titled as such. Georgia guy (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not ignoring anything, however, long-standing consensus for those disambiguation pages is that they get the "primary" title. Now, I've stated my opinions, and you've stated yours. We've discussed both sides quite thoroughly Further replies will likely only harden my opinion that the status quo is the appropriate way to handle this situation. Based on the other comments from a number of other editors above, you're in the minority position here, so it may be time to just move on for now. Imzadi 1979 →  00:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, I also put this information at the appropriate Wikiproject, and we're the only 2 Wikipedians who participated in that section so far. Georgia guy (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-request comments