Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll/archive1

message: the Insular Areas of the united states (Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam) be included in this debate? how about canada and its Provinces and territories?  User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 22:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Insular areas, yes. Canada... we may have our hands full already but I don't want a separate case for this down the road. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Areas 

message: m:voting is evil --SPUI (T - C) 23:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like there was no choice other than to bring it up to a vote. It's sad this debate boiled down to this. --physicq210 23:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially priniples 9 and 10, re "arbitrary decisions". —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this situation has left no other option but to vote on the issue, but what I fear is that the "correct" naming convention determined in this issue will force states to use terms that are never used locally in the state. For example, state routes in New York are never called "highways", they are always "routes" or "state routes". Vermont seems to be the same way, with the bias toward "routes". (Disclaimer: I know this is just pre-poll discussion, and I am merely presenting these cases to supplement my point.) --TMF T - C 23:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume there will be some flexibility... like the principle will be something like 
(State Name) (Type of Road) 43 or (type of Road) 43 ((State Name)) or something to that effect, and we will then vote on individual conventions for each state. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, and then you'll just say that the type of road is "California State Route". That dichotomy still doesn't work, because some states like Louisiana do put the state first: Louisiana Highway 1 etc. --SPUI (T - C) 00:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because that would be against the spirit of the new naming policy. That is, if that was the outcome. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the ArbCom case, I do not see where there has to be a vote like this, but just listing this page as one in many trying to sort this issue out. As others have said, reduce the rigidness of the time table, since decisions like this does not need to be decided by a watch. It is ok to allow for a start and finish date, but all of this inbetween stuff needs to be gone. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not impartial like this I do not believe the "losers" will follow the convention. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I did cut one of the votes out of there since it was redundant. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, because I'm sure doing mass-edits to gain your position, conducting "google" "researches" that conclude with inaccurate facts, and forcing your viewpoints down other people's throats is a lot more fair than voting. (rolls eyes)  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, we're not here to discuss the past. Just get this vote moving forward and over with. --physicq210 02:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting is evil

message: I had a link to this on my talk page and really don't understand what you're trying to do? Is this for all state highways and interstates or what? Where is the poll going to be taking place. To me, it seems too organized. A straw poll is laid back, not timed and regulated. There should be consensus however, so I guess if someone can get this going that'll be good. It just seems like it'll take too long. → JARED (t)  23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We had a massive ArbCom case. Yes. Arbitration Committee. That's why this is so organized--so that people don't complain "Oh they had a unfair advantage, I'm not going to follow policy." Poll will take place on the page this is attached to. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question? 

message: Well to explain what I was thinking... for part 2 the individual conventions will be drafted based on the chosen principle. Do we want this:
*Agree for all but NH. NH uses blah blah blah. --NHBoy
*Agree for all but CA, OR, WA, IN, TX. They all use blah blah blah. --User:2
Or do we want this:
====Alabama====
*blah blah blah x Alabama uses blah blah blah. --alabamaman
*blah blah x Alabama uses only 2 blahs. --alabamawoman
And have a section for each state? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  16:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I think each state should have its own section.  Otherwise it's going to be well-nigh impossible to keep track.  Tckma 16:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that's a wise plan.  I also think that all states should have a state highway WP.  I'm trying to figure out how to start a WP, but I'm too lazy to copy/paste from another state WP and edit.  I'd like to try and start a WP for Rhode Island and Connecticut, though. Tckma 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, although we have to wait for a demand... it's pointless to start the rest of them and then have only one contributor. As Wiki grows, it will be possible though. So it's probably best to start them one at a time. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, WP:MASH only has three listed contributors.  There needs to be at least two (otherwise how can any "discussion" occur?), but basically I'm thinking we need to have a place where such things can be debated, and a collaboration point for people to discuss their work and what needs to be done.  There are several Connecticut state route articles, for example, and I've tried to invite those involved to start a WP.  *shrug*  Who knows.  --Tckma 18:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I mean I created WP:USRD to fill the gap for states that don't have a WP... for some reason some people don't want a WP. WV is probably one of those states. But eventually people will come that do. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see.  I thought WP:USRD was just a "root node" for the individual states, so to speak.  --Tckma 18:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is that too... basically it was created b/c WP:SFD was deleting our highway stubs. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: *blah blah blah x Alabama uses blah blah blah. --alabamaman
*blah blah x Alabama uses only 2 blahs. --alabamawoman
And have a section for each state? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  16:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I think each state should have its own section.  Otherwise it's going to be well-nigh impossible to keep track.  Tckma 16:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that's a wise plan.  I also think that all states should have a state highway WP.  I'm trying to figure out how to start a WP, but I'm too lazy to copy/paste from another state WP and edit.  I'd like to try and start a WP for Rhode Island and Connecticut, though. Tckma 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, although we have to wait for a demand... it's pointless to start the rest of them and then have only one contributor. As Wiki grows, it will be possible though. So it's probably best to start them one at a time. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, WP:MASH only has three listed contributors.  There needs to be at least two (otherwise how can any "discussion" occur?), but basically I'm thinking we need to have a place where such things can be debated, and a collaboration point for people to discuss their work and what needs to be done.  There are several Connecticut state route articles, for example, and I've tried to invite those involved to start a WP.  *shrug*  Who knows.  --Tckma 18:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I mean I created WP:USRD to fill the gap for states that don't have a WP... for some reason some people don't want a WP. WV is probably one of those states. But eventually people will come that do. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see.  I thought WP:USRD was just a "root node" for the individual states, so to speak.  --Tckma 18:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is that too... basically it was created b/c WP:SFD was deleting our highway stubs. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alabama

message: For some reason or other I could not get to the following people to inform them about this page. Maybe I misspelled or something.
*Analogdemon
*Nimur  — I'm here now.
*UltraSkuzzi
*Beatgr
*Feedloadr
*Endominion
*WillC
Otherwise I think I got everyone. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notified Analogdemon - no problems there. --SPUI (T - C) 01:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it's on my end. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Notified Nimur. And SPUI, I saw what you did on Analogdemon. Hilarious, yes, but this matter is serious. Everyone want to get this crap over with once and for all. --physicq210 02:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And look at my rollback usage on the main page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. I don't think the last two exist. --physicq210 02:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're listed on some page... I think I misspelled. Uggh. Thanks. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By "Will C" do you perhaps mean WillC?-Jeff (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he's on a state highway WP page then yes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes he is-Jeff (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaggh stupid technical problems. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Does the other user still exist? --physicq210 02:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was off WP:USRD or WP:CASH. I'll look. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How weird. Didn't see that. But then where did I get it? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notification problems

message: I have the feeling that this isn't actually going to be a functional, productive debate with a positive conclusion.  Instead, it's just going to be the same arguments over and over again, propagated by people who are desperately convinced they are right (based on whatever evidence is presented that day).  I really shouldn't care about this, since I was forced to leave the highways project(s) following a fiasco over a highway that starts in Cloquet.  I'll just give the following advice, though: Editors will have to start actually respecting other editors' opinions on this issue, and it will be necessary to find legitimate, citable sources -- not just a Google test.  There needs to be some genuine consensus building here, and not just one user saying that he's an expert and that nobody else's research or opinions are valuable.
Personally, I'm not even going to enter this debate -- there are better things to do.  --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 04:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above debate is considered civil already. You should look at past debates. They were outright dirty. --physicq210 04:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I give this little chance of success 

message: Regarding the state of Oregon.  While User:SPUI is correct about Oregon "routes" and "highways" (as ODOT calls them); 99% of the population (those who aren't road geeks or traffic engineers) have no idea about ODOT "highways", and use "highway" and "route" interchangeably to refer to ODOT "route" numbers; "highway" being the preferred form among motorists.
My thoughts on Oregon (and I live here):
* Articles should generally be about routes (using the ODOT term), not about highways.  If we write about ODOT highways, the preferred article title should be the official name of the highway (such as Mount Hood Highway, Lower Columbia River Highway, many of which are known and form a namespace which won't be confusing); if we refer to them by number in article titles, it should be explicit that the highway number referred to is of the ODOT variety--say, ODOT Highway 1 (which would, if it existed, be a redirect to Interstate 5).  In general, ODOT highways articles should redirect to the corresponding route number, and only have their own article if the ODOT highway is signficantly well known (such as the Mount Hood Highway, which encompasses both OR35 and US26), or does not have a corresponding route number.  Recent legislation has eliminated most instances of the latter case.  Having Oregon Highway 51 refer to the Wilsonville-Hubbard Highway (which has the ODOT number of 51 but is signed as Oregon State Route 551 rather than the Independence Highway (which is called OR 51 on the map and on the roadsigns), would be asinine in the extreme.  Again, for emphasis, nobody (but ODOT and roadgeeks) cares about ODOT's own internal numbering system.  It should not be the basis for organizing articles or content concerning the Oregon highway system in a general reference work.
* Perfectly OK to mention ODOT numbers within articles, and have list pages sorting highways by ODOT numbers.  We largely have that today.
* Other than the case of ODOT Highway 1 and such, numbers in article titles should only refer to what shows up on roadsigns and route markers--the ODOT "route" numbers.
* Keep in mind that ODOT numbers apply to routes signed as US and Interstate highways, just not those signed as state highways.  Also, many routes signed as state highways are maintained by cities and counties, and not technically part of the state highway system.
* With all those caveats, I don't care whether Oregon articles are of the form Oregon State Highway XXX, Route XXX (Oregon), etc.  "Highway" is a bit more common than "route" among the general public (according to my ear; I do not have a WP:RS for that claim), but either form is acceptable.  Redirects from the other common forms should be provided, and in many cases are.  However, again, whether we say "highway" or "route" in the article title, it should refer only to ODOT route numbers, not to ODOT internal highway numbers.
Apologies for the rant.  
--EngineerScotty 06:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about having at the top of Route 51 (Oregon) "for the unmarked Highway 51, see Wilsonville-Hubbard Highway"? --SPUI (T - C) 06:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with that, although I'd phrase it a bit differently.  --EngineerScotty 06:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear. I dread the day I need to find out what Main Street needs to disambig to in the state of Illinois... —Rob (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing to Oregonians 

message: I have watched much of this controversy from afar but have never personally renamed a road. I am dismayed that this process is so huge and long running, but totally understand why it seems that it has come to this. I support the process and am if nominated as a "judging admin" would be willing to serve. I'm not convinced it will work but am nevertheless willing to try to help. ++Lar: t/c 14:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I sign you up? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  19:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments from [[User:Lar|Lar]] 

message: I have proposed naming conventions for Canadian roads, along with a few other uses in the Canadian Roads WikiProject. They are listed below:
*Alberta Provincial Highway x
**Alberta Secondary Highway x
*British Columbia Provincial Highway x
*Manitoba Provincial Highway x
*Manitoba Provincial Road x (for secondary highways in the province)
**Winnipeg City Route x
*Newfoundland and Labrador Highway x (For main roads)
**Newfoundland and Labrador Route x (For secondary roads)
*Route x (Northwest Territories)
*Nova Scotia Province Route x
*Nova Scotia Highway x (for Arterial/100-Series Highways)
**Nova Scotia Route x (for Trunk and Collector Routes, see the list of Nova Scotia provincial highways for more info)
*New Brunswick Route x
*Ontario Kings Highway x (Official Name. "Provincial Highway" was replaced with Kings Highway in 1930.)
**Ontario Secondary Highway x
**Ontario Tertiary Higwhay x
***<County Name> County Road x (Example: Essex County Road 22)
*Quebec Route x
*Quebec Autoroute x
*Saskatchewan Highway x
*Prince Edward Island Highway x
*Northwest Territories highway x
*<road name x> for the Yukon (e.g. Alaska Highway, Klondike Highway, etc.)
*<road name x> for Nunavut''
Please let me know what you think.  User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 15:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In re: Ontario's county routes... I'm by no means an expert on political boundaries in Ontario, however, I do know that for whatever reason, some areas are called XYZ County whereas others are ABC Regional Municipality.  So to say Niagara County Road XX would be wrong, wouldn't it?  How about Niagara Regional Route XX? --Tckma 20:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why are there two Northwest Territories ones? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  20:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Conventions 

message: State Route XX (State) or State State Route XX... does it really matter? The amount of energy being wasted on this is mind boggling and quite frankly sad. If you want my "vote" I say go with whichever gets more support on the individual Wikiprojects (or articles if there isn't a project for that particular state or province). Trying to bulk vote it like this is a bad idea, especially since what's good for Texas might not be good for Manitoba. Gateman1997 16:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does matter - the result of what we're doing now is edit and revert wars because One person feels that the nomenclature is incorrect--master_sonLets talk 17:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, it does matter because of this huge ArbCom case that we had regarding highway names. We are now "ordered" by the committee to come to a binding consensus, per Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/Highways Remedies Sections 5 and 6. Hence this byzantine poll. --physicq210 18:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it does matter, given the local/regional differences. (and yes, there are still differences between SPUI's list here and (at least in Georgia) what is ordinarily noted (though I won't go into the differences here). --Mhking 04:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does it really matter?

message: The page states we will vote on "principle." Can someone clarify this? Thanks. --physicq210 18:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume this means a basic format. "(State name) (Road type) X" or "(Road type) X (State name)" for example. --TMF T - C 18:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought that was Part II. --physicq210 18:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Part II is where we decide the actual conventions based on the principle. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  16:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principle....? 

message: I had the thought long ago of each state's highway wikiproject contacting their respective DOT/highway dep't and using whatever the official, legal nomenclature they do.  Any thoughts?Kether83 10:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't anything particular on WisDOT's site when it comes to names. WisDOT refers to state highways as "WIS ##" on the official site. However, according to Wisconsin State Statutes, Chapter 84.02, Wisconsin state highways are known officially as the state "trunk highway system". -jwhouk 13:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well like a email, phone call, or something. This website business where we search on google does not work and gives us multiple answers. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  16:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  I was thinking "gee, there's more than the internet still."  We can maybe look up an 800 number and call them, or call a local depot or something.  In PA I contacted the local county office of  PennDOT and obtained a lot of information about one project I was working on.  This is how reporters do it people - we have to start acting like that but when we say NPOV, mean it :oP  Kether83 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly. In another post, I made the mention that "google" searches do not provide accurate results. For instance, SPUI did some of his own "queries" that produced, of course, state routes. But I found an equal number of pages that were tailored to my own search queries that produced state highways. And with planning documents and all in my big book of papers, I can verify that the majority of the districts that I have papers for, use the terminology "state highway" versus "state route." Ditto with West Virginia, where officially, I have found that "state highway" is used in proper. Now, in regular conversation, "state route" may prevail, but that isn't the point.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inquire with individual DOTs?

message: What about the District of Columbia, which, as far as I know, has only one (signed) "state" route (295)?  Whatever that article gets called, that would set the precedent in the unlikely event that D.C. decides to number more routes.  Or, should that be covered under Maryland Route 295, the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (its common name), or even Interstate 295 (Washington, D.C.) since it was all supposed to be part of said Interstate at one time?  Tckma 16:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that DC needs to be treated as a separate state here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  16:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, I see they already have an article for the route.  It's District of Columbia Route 295. Tckma 16:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Washington, D.C.

message: Reading the article on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway (which I always thought was part of Maryland Route 295) got me to thinking that in some places (the Grand Canyon being one), the U.S. National Park Forest Service maintains a system of numbered roads.  The Park Forest Service, in my opinion, should be treated as a seperate "state."  Thoughts?  Tckma 16:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have articles on those? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  16:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not that I know of.  I've just looked for one, but I don't remember any of their numbers offhand.  I took a cross-country road trip last year and remembered seeing some in Grand Canyon National Park.  They were in the 300 series, if I recall correctly. Tckma 16:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: They are designated by the United States Forest Service and funded by the federal government, but are generally owned and maintained by the states or counties in which they are located. (from the article).  So, perhaps we should group articles on National Forest routes into the individual states where they are? --Tckma 13:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a LOT of national forests in the country, and each one of them have numbered forest routes crisscrossing all over them.  I don't think we should make articles for all of them; if any, as SPUI said above, only the named ones or more heavily travelled ones.  there is a nice example. atanamir 19:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: U.S. Forest Service Routes

message: ...that this debate is taking so much time and energy.  Regarding part 1, my preference is to decide this on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis; and not to try and come up with a Uniform Wikipedia Naming System For Highways That Nobody Will Like.  I've missed out on most of the debate (intentionally), but am astonished by the amount of bandwidth this silly argument has consumed.  If the NY roadgeek community wants to call their highway articles something different than what we in Oregon call ours, 'taint any skin off of my nose.  Please consider the wise words of Ralph Waldo Emerson.  --EngineerScotty 16:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly agree. This is the optimal way to satisfy the most number of people, and still maintain correctness.  Perhaps this debate should not be on Wikipedia, but actually in the states' Departments of Transportation - until THEY have a uniform naming convention, how can we the wiki community be expected to have one?  Nimur 19:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that why we have 50 states? --physicq210 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concur that it's unfortunate... 

message: To nominate an admin, follow the proceedure on the page. They must be a administrator, NOT be involved with highways whatsoever, NOT let any opinion sway their judgment, and must be approved with no objections. But how many admins do we want? It needs to be an odd number so there's no ties. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  19:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we go with 5. Big enough spread, but small enough we might actually get the amount we need. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, five would be good, or maybe seven. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 22:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently it has been finalized, as the page says five. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 22:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really... if a few people say more then I'll change it again, but we need a number to work off as the nomination process is starting in 2 hours. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: i'll remove myself from this situation and decline to be one of the 5 admins before anyone asks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm... well an admin up there said he would if we didn't have enough... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  19:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If need be, contact me to be one of the five admins, though I don't want to push myself on to you if I'm not wanted; I think I'm quite disinterested in this matter, though, so that should work...? —Nightstallion (?) 12:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination of admins

message: 300px|right
Here's a map I created (from the U.S. Roads WikiProjects map) of all the US states and as many of the Canadian provinces as I could fit displaying the current terminology used for route article titles. Places that use "highway" are in purple, places that use "route" are in orange, and places that use "State Road" are in green. Use this to help you formulate your opinions. It almost looks like an electoral college map. My conclusion: the terminology is almost a regional thing. By the way, Nova Scotia uses both..."highway" for the the freeway routes and "route" for the minor routes.--TinMan 21:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarcasm>Great. Confusions galore.</sarcasm> --physicq210 04:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is supposed to be what the ARTICLE TITLES have on them right now. --TinMan 05:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by saying "consistently use Route outside Wikipedia". Are you referring to common language, legislation, websites on a Google search, the state DOT's, or in my opinion the biggest factor... what the road signs themselves say? --TinMan 17:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's "SPUI's" Google research, which is inconclusive at best. I have documents from a variety of states that show highway is a commonly used term, such as in Ohio. Press releases may say route. I also believe it is more of a district terminology, since I have some documents from southeast districts that conflict with documents in the northwest. Of course, your mileage may vary, depending on how you structure your Google query.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide sources. There are many for State Route and SR, including the official maps from 1923 on. --SPUI (T - C) 05:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so its internet sources/DOT sources that you use. We can debate this when the time comes... according to the process. --TinMan 05:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: North American terminology