Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/California/Archive 3

message: I'm in the process of adding external links to he highway guides I've created for many North American Highway. Someone suggested that I should let the highway community know I'm doing that so they don't think I'm link spamming. I've got detailed photos and text of lots of stuff along the highways in Canada, Mexico and USA.  I'd welcome your thoughts on my project and the links. If folks want to use photos (I've got thousands of lovely photos) from my highway guides, feel free to use them but do give credit. Thanks, James Love James Love 13:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From "my" web site? You are not allowed to add links to your own web site. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the links are useful, there's nothing wrong with adding links to your own site. -- Scott eiπ 07:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have consensus. See Talk:Jesus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Mile By Mile external links

message: Now someone () has added a link from every highway article to 
*http://www.westernexitguide.com/CA/CA_1_1_14.htm Western Exit Guide - California 1
I don't see any ads, presumably it's commercial. What do we do about this and "Mile By Mile"? Keep any of or all of these links? -Will Beback 08:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the exit number information replicated anywhere else? -- Scott eiπ 07:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other commercial links 

message: I have put new SVG markers for California.  I would like to encourage the use of the Caltrans term marker for the standalone sign "California 72", etc.  and shield for just the overlay sign with the number "22 Long Beach". at least for the naming in templates  The new markers are not perfect, but they are in a vector format that should be modifiable.  The biggest problems are that the nose of the 3-digit ones are too pointed, routes that have a "1" in them are inappropriately spaced, and certain numbers need to be aligned by hand (see California 4).  The 2-digit ones do meet spec, before anyone asks.  Joydawg 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about putting in the blanks as well?  It seems odd to see these new signs along with the templates, sections for state law, etc. that have the old blanks in them. --Geopgeop 09:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Markers

message: Has anyone been working on junction templates?  Creating smaller icons suitable for the junction box?  The Major cities box on California State Route 1 looks bad.  Any suggestions for a new design? Joydawg 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks fine... only California State Route 1 and California State Route 99 look bad since they are the longest California State Routes. I don't see any problems with the current template. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We might need to cut down CA1 and CA99 to just major interchanges but the rest are fine.Gateman1997 21:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I was referring more to the Wiki markup not visual appearance.  But actually, I'm adopting the opinion that most of the data in that box is too technical to begin with, and will focus my time on the body of these articles Joydawg 02:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Routeboxca2?

message: Anyone know why the SVG images aren't taking on routes like California State Route 150?Gateman1997 06:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Wikipedia's caching system.  The SVG change was made in a template, not a direct edit to the page.  The next edit of the page itself will force a refresh.  Joydawg 22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I put some up under Image:CA blank.svg and Image:CA blank wide.svg.  I also made a commons page for future shield work  Joydawg 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I changed the templates to use the SVGs.  (It took me a while to figure it out.) --Geopgeop 11:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone hasn't noticed, those images were deleted from Commons due to duplication by SPUI's Image:California blank.svg and Image:California blank wide.svg images.  However, they were deleted prematurely as they were still in use in the articles instead of being orphaned off first.  --Geopgeop 22:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SVG images?

message: I have just created Portal:U.S. Roads.  If you have any feedback, please place it under "Portal" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads.Rt66lt 03:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal

message: If a county road joins a state route, and the county road has an article of its own, can/should those be included in the infobox junction list, or is that reserved for just state and federal highways?  (E.g., the north end of TUO J59 where it hits SR-108.) —RandallJones 02:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of space, it needs to be State Routes, Interstates or U.S. Routes in the infobox. It's fine to link from the article though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junctions with County roads 

message: This area is for discussion on possible changes to the CA routebox. Certain users, specifically SPUI have objections to the current userbox. Personally I think the current box is fine provided it is tweaked a little (specifically removing or shrinking the legend and ensuring that only MAJOR cities are listed). Please discuss your opinions on the matter here.Gateman1997 02:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep with minor revisions as above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I think you fail to keep some important info in those boxes you created and they fail to take into account years of work by other editors too. However they are a nice attempt.Gateman1997 02:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What information is lost? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The major interchanges and the cities portion, both of which are vital.Gateman1997 02:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of which are in their own sections. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd personally prefer they remain centralized as they help define a particular road. Specifically the major cities, but also the interchanges. Plus we do not have maps for all 350 CA state highways.Gateman1997 03:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the infobox is just too big with all that information. We should give a few basics in the infobox and the details in other sections. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you feel about a trade off, MAJOR cities and MAJOR interchanges remain in the infobox. Minor interchanges (as part of an exit list) and a full city list can be in the article.Gateman1997 05:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a few very major intersections, like Interstates are now. Cities would be included with those intersections. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see why minor cities and junctions need to be eliminated. For Interstates yes since they're so long. Here, no. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the infobox is too long with them. An infobox is not for that level of detail. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree we don't need minor cities (for instance CA1 used to have every XX Beach along it near LA regardless of how unimportant), I do think that if we eliminate any interchanges it should be on articles that are significantly too long, which mainly refers to 1 and 99. In those two cases it should be MAJOR state to state internchanges like CA1 at CA17 along with US and Interstate crossings. I believe handling it on a case by case basis should be our course if we move forward with this.Gateman1997 08:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Even California State Route 1 with only the "major interchanges" is still way too big. I'll work on a possible compromise. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: How's this? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too few interchanges IMHO. Also any changes should be made to the existing box, not some new box for simplicity sake. Remember one page long in 8x6 is more then acceptable.Gateman1997 09:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The old box is not adaptable to that format, in which the cities and junctions are combined. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to join them I think. As long as the cities are limited to major cites. Another alternative I would entertain for discussion is something similar to Interstate 270 (Illinois-Missouri). Note if we eliminate the legend from the current CA box and make some minor modification for the CA HW code and limit the cities, it's not too different from this featured article in terms of routebox length. Having a list of 20 or so junctions in the routebox is definitely precedented all over multiple projects, boxes and routes.Gateman1997 10:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are not joined the box is too long. I-270 was never updated for the new format; I will fix that. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 10:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep with minor revisions to the current box. No need to undo alot of hard work simply to make it subjectively "nicer looking".JohnnyBGood 19:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is my example of what we should do. Note that the Bus 80 box is based on the standard CA box so these changes shouldn't be that hard, and notice how compacted it is and how much cleaner it looks. The only other change on CA routes would be putting the road code as a link from the route name in the box, however that doesn't apply to this particular route.JohnnyBGood 20:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Gateman here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like SPUI's design a lot.  It fits much better to the level of detail Wikipedia should have.  Postmile logs are way too technical.  The point of the box is to have something to look at a glance and glean important facts quickly. It is not a centralized table to dump data into. If other information is necessary, it can be placed into the article body. Joydawg 00:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says that Wikipedia can't be detailed? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't put words in my mouth.  I didn't say that Wikipedia can't be detailed.  It's the extent (in depth and scope)  I'm concerned with.  And more specifically in this situation, cramming the infobox.  You should also note what I said, which is that there can be many other places within in an article for placing information, such as creating separate sections and tables for more technically-oriented data. Joydawg 06:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I like them. It's much better looking and should placate those that wanted a change.Gateman1997 02:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see the difference - it still keeps all the junctions in the box, and a separate section for cities. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is what we want right? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly as long as we keep the information in there I don't care how it's presented. But Juntions, cities, and mile markers are a must.JohnnyBGood 23:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Why would we want that? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel by keeping mile markers in the box, we're losing sight that the box is probably a place best to summarize important points and display key facts about the article.  Is there a problem placing mile markers in a separate table, like it has been done for exit lists? Joydawg 22:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: California Routebox

message: For the information of all: Revert wars have broken out at the California and New York State Highway/route WikiProjects. Mass moves of pages and removal of routeboxes have occurred. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: mass reversions to too-big infoboxes have occured. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit wars

message: I am not going to go through the edit summaries to figure out who the editor is, but someone, probably associated with this WikiProject, can't spell San Bernardino correctly. I just corrected a bunch of internal links to San Bernardino, California and San Bernardino County, California in California state route articles that were originally spelled San Bernadino. BlankVerse 21:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might have been me... I'm sorry. The sad thing is I was born in that county. :( --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Bernardino 

message: User:Joydawg has uploaded about 80+ highway signs but failed to put any source or license tag on them.  I am turning this problem over to you fine folks at this project.  Please make it go away.  Here's a dynamically updated list (at the m:toolserver). Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added tags.  I'm not sure why you made the request here instead of on my talk page, but whatever, it's done. Joydawg 23:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untagged images 

message: I guess it was worth a shot at doing, but next time I'll ask, Rschen and SPUI.
By the way, Rschen's robot unabbreviated the "U.S. 101" links in the junction box.  I now read "U.S. Route 101" in full.  Fix it, thanks, and keep up the good work!
--Geopgeop 11:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks for reverting me guys... 

message: I strongly advise all parties to not use the term "vandalism" when making reverts. I think this is what is going wrong with some of the issues that are debated on CA roads. Y'all have a MedCab case, try to work it out. Thank you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not vandalism (except for edits to the WP:CASH page.) But there's no mediator yet. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but that is one thing I noticed a lot is this term being used a lot, and from the links I saw at WP:AN/I, I do not think it was vandalism, so what I can suggest is to have an outside person look at it or just simply say "revert, please do not do this again, let's discuss." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a suggestion 

message: As no one has created State Route 264's article as of yet, I would like to point out, as said on its new talk page, that it is a pre-1964 route only, and that I just want to know, should it redirect to a specific pre-1964 routes page, or redirect to its present-day State Route 223? --Geopgeop 11:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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. 
The result of the debate was Modify  per below. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There was no result to a non-binding poll. --SPUI (T - C) 17:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit it was non-binding, but 6 out of 8 votes for modify falls within the 70-80% consensus range. -- Northenglish 18:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Route 264 

message: As SPUI is intent on removing  and replacing it with his less-informative  regardless of consensus, this is a vote/ consensus-making page/ whatever you want to call it. Please vote Keep  as is, Modify  or Change to . At the end of five days (minimum), the result of the discussion will be carried out. If consensus (70-80%) forms then that consensus will be taken. Otherwise, we will go with majority (since there has to be a infobox). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  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.</div>
=== Polls are eeevil ===
This vote seems premature, divisive, and generally ill-considered.  I look back up the page a bit and everyone was making some effort to work out a mutually acceptable solution that everyone hated equally.  Rather then trying to jam something down the throat of the world with a vote, can't everyone just take two valium and go back to working together eh?  But while I'm here, I like the smaller more concise templete, otherwise it's creeping towards the horror of Bundesautobahn 1. - brenneman{L}  13:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There seems to be SOME sorta compromise evolving. Give it a l'il time.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 16:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not really. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to admit I agree with SPUI on this point. No clear agreement, consensus, or trend in support of either position has developed or looks to be developing.JohnnyBGood 18:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox decision

message: This vote seems premature, divisive, and generally ill-considered.  I look back up the page a bit and everyone was making some effort to work out a mutually acceptable solution that everyone hated equally.  Rather then trying to jam something down the throat of the world with a vote, can't everyone just take two valium and go back to working together eh?  But while I'm here, I like the smaller more concise templete, otherwise it's creeping towards the horror of Bundesautobahn 1. - brenneman{L}  13:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be SOME sorta compromise evolving. Give it a l'il time.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 16:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not really. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to admit I agree with SPUI on this point. No clear agreement, consensus, or trend in support of either position has developed or looks to be developing.JohnnyBGood 18:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polls are eeevil 

message: It's been a long time. Next time I'm on if noone objects I'll close debate with 75% consensus to make modifications but keep . --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision?

message: It might be interesting (not necessarily in an article) to compare the "secondary" routes with the ones that are being relinquished. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rather interesting "primary" and "secondary" proposal from 1996

message: Please see its talk page: Talk:California State Route 272.  --Geopgeop 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[California State Route 272]] 

message: All California State Route * articles have been created, not including the pre-1964 legislative routes.  Let's finish up with the tweaking and expanding and redirecting!  --Geopgeop 07:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and not SPUI's State Route * (California) articles/redirects, that's why there's still redlinks. --Geopgeop 07:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done 

message: If we used this PDF, it could have saved us some amount of work, considering it's from Caltrans itself (although this document is from 1995, and it's only meant as a quick reference document.)  Actually, much of the Caltrans website is accessible to the public, no 403 errors so far.  --Geopgeop 07:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting document... 

message: Even though the completion list, Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways/Completion list is in our namespace, I wanted to make the list look better.  So I created this, User:Geopgeop/WP:CASH completion list, down to Route 7 using data from the existing list.  Also, the template used on that page, Template:casr list, may have its contents replaced by the text in User:Geopgeop/CASR list.  If the rest of the project members like this, I may replace our old one with this, as I think the long strings of text, even if it's only part of our project, just makes things too hard to look at. --Geopgeop 07:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that all routes have articles, the only purpose of the completion list is to make the redirects. I don't see the point in revamping it. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 18:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll leave the project's completion list alone. --Geopgeop 14:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamp completion list 

message: While I'm not a fan of replacing :Template:routeboxca2 with :Template:Infobox CA Route (see above), the green browse box in the latter does make the article cleaner, and also replaces :Template:Routeboxcamini.  I do hear some proposals such as moving the browse box to the bottom of the article, but mainly for now I propose to modify routeboxca2 to include multiple routes (see California State Route 19 (164) vs. California State Route 74 (740)) and delete routeboxcamini in the process.  (Funny, I helped make routeboxcamini in the first place when I asked for one a while back.) --Geopgeop 14:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah if someone knows how to do it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:Routeboxcamini]] elimination 

message: My argument is much the same as Rschen's. Someone searching for these routes isn't going to search for just "State Route X" as they're not stupid. They will use a qualifier and putting the state name first is the most natural and I would argue the most used method. No one will search for it by parathesis and in this case I believe common names should definitely trump disabiguation if not for common sense then because the common names policy is older. And per common names policy the article should reside where most likely to be searched. Not to mention that the state of California isn't even clear on what it officially calls them per info presented both below and elsewhere. Yes they use State Route X more then anything, but they also use California State Route X and Route X. JohnnyBGood t c 23:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing common names with "educated search queries". Also remember that if you really want to go with common names, they'll be at "Highway 17" and "The 5" etc. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 23:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You wouldn't consider "California State Route X" an educated inquiry? And also I wouldn't argue that "The 5" is a common name so much as it's slang, there is a difference. JohnnyBGood t c 00:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments from JohnnyBGood

message: The name is State Route X. For instance, there are 32400 matches for "State Route" vs. 119 matches for "California State Route" on the Caltrans website. Google News gives similar results of 84 (for California "State Route" - see the results to verify that they are about California) vs. 1 (for "California State Route"). As the name is "State Route X", disambiguation is to be done with parentheses. There is no such thing as "California State Route X" under our disambiguation conventions, just as there is no such thing as "UK politician John Smith" or "politician Jim Brown". There are various other arguments at Talk:State Route 2 (California), but it all boils down to "California State Route X" being a method of disambiguation that we don't use. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 20:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my main comment below for why your Google News article isn't valid, but 65 of those now 89 articles are from within California, and I saw the results to verify that 21 are not about California. -- Northenglish 19:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments from SPUI

message: Um... they are known as "California State Routes." If you were sitting in a restaurant in Alabama (for example) you would call it "California State Route 55" since Alabama has state routes too. Since Wikipedia is written for an international audience then that is what you need to do. Disambiguation is not effective here since they are actually known as California State Routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You continue to deny all the evidence we've given you and stubbornly hold to the incorrect assumption they are called "California State Routes".  atanamir 23:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Common names, people. Common sense too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my below post.  atanamir 23:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From Wikipedia:Disambiguation:"When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page." Who would confuse California State Route 23 with Arizona State Route 23? Hmm. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone who is searching for it's offical and correct name in California or Arizona, 'State Route 23'. atanamir 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Common people? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what common people you're talking about.  Everyone around me just says "the 85" or "the 405".  If you want common names, then it would all be at The 58 (California) and The 405 (California), and norcal highways will be at Highway 85 (California) 85 (California), Highway 17 (California).  atanamir 22:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, if the Alabaman had any knowledge of grammar, he would call it "Californian State Route 55," to disambiguate the route by state, but people don't use parentheses when speaking, so the correct way to disambiguate on Wikipedia would be "State Route 55 (California)." --Rory096 22:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for pointlessly responding to a 3-week-old comment.  However, this point was brought up elsewhere and disproven.  "California State Route 55" is perfectly grammatically correct.  See Adjectival use of nouns. -- Northenglish 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, he's using the "California" to disambiguate.  In real life, that's generally how people disambiguate something, as they can't speak with parentheses.  On Wikipedia, however, we disambiguate with a word in parentheses, like (California).  --Rory096 19:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments from Rschen7754

message: Apologies for my presumptiousness in adding a subsection for myself; this is going to be kind of long. Against my better judgment, as I do feel this is likely to be a waste of time, I'll wade in here with my own view. If nothing else, it's an opportunity to refine my argument in advance of the binding arbitration that's inevitably going to have to happen is probably about to happen.
WP:D defines disambiguation as "the process of resolving ambiguity—the conflict that occurs when a term is closely associated with two or more different topics." In addition, the parenthentical method of disambiguation is used to differentiate article titles that would otherwise be identical. Now, it may appear as though I just said the same thing twice using different words, but there's actually a subtle difference between the two.
As Nohat notes, Wikipedia actually uses several different methods to "disambiguate" similarly named topics. For example, there are seven kings named Charles I on Wikipedia, and not one of them gets parentheses. There's an article at Watergate scandal, while Watergate (scandal) doesn't even exist as a redirect. Turning our attention back to California, we can see that Proposition 13 redirects to a disambiguated page… but it's disambiguated by the date, not the location: California Proposition 13 (1978). I could go on like this all day, but I think my point is made.
So why do some disambiguated articles get parentheses, and some don't? I believe there's a method to the madness.
In proper English usage, a parenthetical phrase within a sentence can be dropped and the sentence will still be gramatically correct. Likewise, an unwritten (as far as I know) but widely followed convention has evolved at Wikipedia that holds that parentheses are used for articles that, for lack of a better term, "wish" they could exist at the undisambiguated title. Probably the most well-known example of parenthetical disambiguation on the English Wikipedia is Georgia (country) vs. Georgia (U.S. state). The state in the American South and the country in the Caucasus have the misfortune to share exactly the same verbal identity. Atlanta is the capital of what? "Georgia," period, end of discussion. Tblisi is the capital of what? "Georgia," period, end of discussion. They get disambiguated with parentheses because each one has an equal, logical claim to the undisambiguated article title and neither one can have it. Just as dropping a parenthetical phrase from a sentence should allow the sentence to stand on its own, it should be possible to ignore a parenthetical disambiguation and have the remainder of the article title stand as a full, accurate, and logical descriptor of the article's subject matter.
Governor of California doesn't have the same kind of claim on the name "Governor" as either of the Georgias does on "Georgia," nor does Charles I of Spain have the same kind of claim on "Charles I." In both cases, the location is an important part of their verbal identity. Try answering the question: What is Arnold Schwarzenegger's job? "He's the governor." I assure you, that answer leaves a lot to be desired up here, where we have a governor of our own and it's sure as hell not Arnold Schwarzenegger. "He's the governor of California"—now we're getting somewhere.
(stay with me--this is the important part)
The practical application of this convention is that when parentheses are used to disambiguate articles, it should be at least somewhat plausible that someone looking for one of the disambiguated articles would go to the "root" page first. If someone's interested in the state of Georgia, is it believable that they might go to Georgia first? Absolutely. If someone's interested in the governor of California, is it believable that they might go to Governor first? No. They would go to "Governor of California." I challenge anyone anywhere to prove me wrong. Imagine a disambiguation page at Governor:
----
:The word governor has several meanings.
:*Governor (position), an executive-level position in many governments and organizations.
::*Governor (Alabama), the chief executive of the U.S. state of Alabama.
::*Governor (Alaska), the chief executive of the U.S. state of Alaska.
::*Governor (Arizona), the chief executive of the U.S. state of Arizona.
::*Governor (Arkansas), the chief executive of the U.S. state of Arkansas.
::*Governor (California), the chief executive of the U.S. state of California.
::(etc.)
----
I hope we can all agree that this would be, to put it lightly, absurd. Is this not also the case with, say, "Route 8"? I can think of exactly three state (i.e., non-Interstate, non-U.S.) highways in the United States that someone who doesn't actually live in the state might search for at an undisambiguated title: Highway 1 in California, Highway A1A in Florida, and maybe Highway 17 in California. Everything else, jeez, you'd have to be crazy to seek out an article called "Route 8" except out of some weird listcrufty desire to find out how many locales have a highway designated "8."
I recognize that not everyone is going to see this "verbal identity" thing as I do, and for what it's worth I think the other side's arguments have considerable merit as well. This is merely my attempt at an explanation of my own thought process on the matter, and I hope it helps people understand it better. —phh (t/c) 01:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments from PHenry

message: Aah, arguments... (looks up)...sigh.  Well, I have produced an image that would halt the tensions among the members of this project (for now...sigh again) and direct attention to a simple yet obvious mistake, just made in recent times.  It has even gone uncorrected for some time now.  Here is "State Route 80": Image:I-80 Chadbourne.jpg.  Enjoy.  --Geopgeop 18:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LMAO! I was riding down 12 the other day and noticed it, thinking WTF?! I bet it's an inside joke with Caltrans. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some stress relief 

message: Just in case, I'm creating the exit list for California State Route 1 in my userspace at User:Geopgeop/Exit list of California State Route 1.  While I'm not looking to add this to the SR 1 article right now, at least can someone doulbecheck the mileage work from the first concurrency with US 101 and onward?  The total mileage and the exit number at Constellation Road are off about a couple of miles and I can't figure out why.  --Geopgeop 14:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route 1 exit list 

message: I'm new to all this highway project thing, so let me ask a stupid question: why aren't the CA highway articles standardized at all? --physicq210 00:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uggh. Because we've been busy ay Arbitration, and some users are scared of the whole thing (not that I blame them)... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of standardization 

message: Your state is invited to participate in discussions for its highway naming convention. Please feel free to participate in this discussion. If you already have a convention that follows the State Name Type xx designation, it is possible to request an exemption as well. Thanks! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part2]]

message: Hi! How about a "route map" of each State Highway? I've seen that in German Autobahn articles (e.g. Bundesautobahn_1) and it looks good. Is there anybody interested in drawing? --85.178.25.73 22:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route Maps 

message: Is there a name for the fast lane to fast lane freeway interchange, such as the one at the intersection of the Long Beach Freeway and Santa Ana Freeway? BlankVerse 09:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, after looking through Interchange (road) , it is either a hybrid of something else or a rare type. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Beach Freeway/Santa Ana Freeway