Wikipedia talk:State route naming conventions poll/archive3

message: Why does it feel to me, a mostly outside observer, that the whole thing is being argued all over again? Didn't the proposals include applicability? I'm not clear why there is so much arguing going on now... and yes, I'm tempted to call for some blocks here if things don't settle down. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's because there's no consensus. If there was consensus, we'd agree on the best action to take. --SPUI (T - C) 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no... policy HERE... per arbcom, does not REQUIRE consensus, it merely encourages it. The consensus **I**' see is to go along with the majority vote, even if that majority is not itself a consensus. If this tendentiousness continues, there may well be blocking of unreasonable people until consensus is achieved... ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SPUI, to be honest you're the only one I see arguing anything here and at AN/I, WP:Village Pump, WP:Naming Conventions, and several users pages. Everyone else on both sides seems ready to accept this stage of the process and move on to the next. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Creating policy requires consensus. --SPUI (T - C) 18:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is creating a policy here. Just a guideline so we can finally put this to rest for a while and get back to writing an encyclopedia. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Until a formal naming convention policy regarding state highways is reached, no page shall be moved from one controversial name to another." If you're not making a policy, what is your aim here? --SPUI (T - C) 18:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine we are creating a policy, but in an unconventional way because conventional means won't work. You've seen to that. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 18:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have the necessary consensus for a policy. --SPUI (T - C) 19:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Says who? Almost every admin on the planet disagrees with you. 59% isn't the traditional consensus threshold, but in the absense of that it's the best alternative yet provided. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Says Wikipedia:How to create policy and Wikipedia:Consensus. --SPUI (T - C) 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing at WP:Consensus that contradicts the process that was done here.JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's hard to build consensus when someone declares that it is a "loser-takes-all" election. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  19:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When did I do that? There's clearly no consensus - which means we continue not moving pages under the ArbCom decision. --SPUI (T - C) 19:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And would you say that had the vote been reversed? You've been in "I'm right you're wrong" mode since day one, would that change if the vote had been reversed? JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 19:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's obvious there's no consensus. What the poll shows is that including the state name in front is the style preferred by a majority. What I'm saying is don't throw the Common Names policy completely out the window. Allowing for the obvious cases where the common name does not conform to the preferred style as exceptions is not unreasonable and would go a long way to achieving consensus. If the common name is unclear then by all means follow the chosen principle. --Polaron | Talk 19:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Polaron here (and with comments made by CBD elsewhere (or maybe it is further up this page -- I can't keep track of where all this is going on). At best this is a very weak consensus for a general prinicple. Certainly not a basis for enforcing an all-encompassing pre-emptive naming regimen. And to those who say It's hard to build consensus when someone declares that it is a "loser-takes-all" election -- it is also hard to build consensus when someone takes a small majority in a vaguely phrased poll to dictate "winner-take-all" terms. older ≠ wiser 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do wish that it was cleaner than it is... but most of us have agreed with CBD's points, so I wouldn't say the winner is taking all. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is ridiculous. If it had gone 59/41 the other way, we'd be happily into Part 2 by now instead arguing about consensus vs. compromise. howcheng  {chat} 21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting contention... one wonders on the basis of what evidence it's made.  At any rate, I think we should get on with Part 2, happily or otherwise, since hopefully when people get down to specifics, at least some evidence as to actual usage might start to threaten to impinge on the discussion.  What I don't think we should try to do is to try to mandate that Principle #1 precludes options to be considered under Part 2, or start striking out votes on that basis, etc.  (However, if after Part 2, things are equally consensus-free, a best-guess "majority wins" resolution may be the best that can be done.  Anyone else find that the Gdanzig saga springs to mind, though?)  Alai 23:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, since the purpose of having two parts to the poll was to take care of the disambiguation/style/whatever before arguing on "State" versus "State Route" versus whatever. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your inflexibility will only alienate others who might be persuaded to give this a chance and gain real consensus. Could you please at least try to understand why there is opposition to a blanket application of the naming style of Principle I? --Polaron | Talk 23:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inflexibility? Then what was CBD's comments for? I'm sure there is opposition as we've never had any rules whatsoever regarding the naming of state highways. It's not what people are used to. Can you understand the frustration we feel as people mark this poll "rejected", say there was "no consensus", etc.? And how people are trying to twist the rules and change the principle that was voted on? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're apparently arguing that having largely ignored the question of what's the common name in part 1 -- and failed to achieve a consensus on that basis -- we should then give people a "Hobson's choice" poll between alternatives consistent with P#1, again without regard to what the common name is.  It's not the case that there are no rules whatsoever for state highways, existing naming guidelines apply to those, as they do to everything else.  Whether or not it would be reasonable to suspend "use common names" on the basis of a local sonsensus decision, its hardly reasonable to do so without that.  This is going to look extremely odd when someone moves in a couple of months' time when someone moves a state highways article that they have strong evidence for the common name for, gets reverted, blocked, and so on, and when it ends up back at arbcom, the justification is, "we had a poll in which 59% of people decided we weren't interested in the common name, so we had another poll in which that option wasn't tabled for consideration".  Alai 00:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone moved the page they would not be blocked; the move would be reverted and we would explain on the appropriate talk pages. If they kept move warring, though, then a block would be warranted. And by common name we mean common nationally and internationally. The whole world is not <insert state here>. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that state-specific would not be an appropriate basis to determine the common name.  But my concern is, we're skipping the part where we determine the common name entirely.  Alai 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I've been saying. Don't ignore common names completely. At least try to see if the name using Principle I is in at least some use -- like even 10% usage. We're going to vote on names when we haven't even tried determining what the actual names are. --Polaron | Talk 00:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what was trying to be said was that instead of disambiguating using parentheses (a la SPUI), the highways will instead be disambiguated with the state name first, then common name of highway, then number (i.e., California State Route 152), with "California" the "disambiguating term" or whatever it is called, "state route" as the common name, then the number of the road (152). --physicq210 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which isn't consistent with WP:DAB, if it's done without reference to what the (or at least, "a") name of the object is.  Alai 03:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Transclude what onto what? I'm a little confused. Seeing as I'm running WP:ILSR, what am I responsible for? What do the WP talk pages have to do with this? And can I remove Illinois because there's no question about how it's named? —Rob (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to transclude the NC discussion for Illinois onto WT:ILSR you can do that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You can leave them out if you can link to the discussion. Just make sure that the convention is not stable because all the pages are there or they were moved there (for example, CA and WA). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think I finally figured it out (couldn't concentrate on what you were explaining to do while I was at work yesterday).  Let me know if I set up Ohio correctly.  I also added a box above the transclusion on WT:OHSH explaining how (specifically) to make edits to the transclusion.  Thought it might be useful info, and anyone who would like to copy that to their own state's WP talk page is free to do so. Homefryes Say•Do 14:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do what now? 

message: Is the result of this poll a policy, convention, or guideline? In Wikipedia, these three things are different from each other, and the main poll page lists all three in a whirlpool of words. --physicq210 23:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that is a good question. I think that this needs to be a policy because of all the ... whatever. Ordinarily, it would be a convention though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Terminology 

message: I really really really hate to ask this, but I'm considering opening Part 2 early. It is against the timeline, I know. But developments at WP:ANI... let's just say they're sick of this and there is talk of banning' all of us from making any edits on highway-related articles until we get a policy hammered out. Do we want to open this early? I'd like some input before I accelerate the timeline. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. --physicq210 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I glanced over AN/I and read the comments there and, I'll admit, at first glance I was pissed off. After thinking about it for 10 minutes, though, it makes the most sense to me as it forces a policy to be adopted for anything to continue. That's my $.02 on that. As for the speeding up of the timeline, the admins have voted (Principle I by a 5-0-1 count), so yep, we can go ahead with Part 2. --TMF T - C 00:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to play this by ear by discussions below. I'd rather see everyone on board with a uncontested consensus, but we'll see how it goes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How about we have open Part 2, then at the same time, have a straw poll on the compromise being created below, to see if there's a consensus for following that? Part 2 isn't really dependent on Part 1, so it won't affect it if we haven't yet decided on a principle. --Rory096 06:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sort of is dependent on Part I... but see new section below. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  17:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm leaning towards opening it a day early since well people have started posting proposals... any objections? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a point if polls will open in about an hour and 45 minutes from this posting? --physicq210 22:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well just in case. I'll change the page to reflect this. I don't think I'll move the closing date up though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wait. I misread the dates. Never mind. --physicq210 22:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Under the circumstances...

message: (Using Ohio as an example) In text, we write State Route X. It's easier to link to State Route X (Ohio). But for some reason we put the articles at Ohio State Route X. --SPUI (T - C) 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no. Do we have to debate this again? --physicq210 00:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never understood it, so if this is "again", please link me to somewhere else where it is explained. --SPUI (T - C) 00:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you got it. That's what's happening. And not "for some reason." --physicq210 00:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what is that reason? This is what I have never understood. --SPUI (T - C) 00:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it was decided thus. --physicq210 00:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a circular argument. Think of it - if your argument is good, maybe you can convince me to join your side. --SPUI (T - C) 00:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have been more clear. Because the community decided thus. --physicq210 00:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That still doesn't answer my question. Why did the community decide thus? --SPUI (T - C) 00:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidence? See this, this, and the above discussion. --physicq210 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - maybe you don't know that. Then I'll ask a different question. Why did you decide Principle I is better? --SPUI (T - C) 00:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was already discussed under Discussions. The debate is over for Part I, so let's move on.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the scheduled time for debate is over doesn't mean that the position supporting Principle I shouldn't be explained to him.  Discussion is never bad, even if it's outside of the designated time period and place. --Rory096 00:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a bit of digging into past discussions will work instead of wrongly implicating others of stifling dissent. --physicq210 00:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please stop now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not implicating anyone of anything, just saying that discussion is still OK. Nobody's dissenting, either, just requesting a link to reasoning. Do you mind linking to the past discussions for SPUI to dig through?  That would probably be helpful. --Rory096 01:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did give you the links. Look above. --physicq210 03:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What"s dumb about this is that SPUI has participated in just about every discussion on this issue. He should know what our reasons are. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone asked me why the articles are where they are, I'd say two things: inertia and parentheses being "ugly". I'd like to think there's a better reason, but I haven't seen any. --SPUI (T - C) 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same reason why we don't want "State Route 33 in California". It's too messy. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is that you find parentheses "ugly"? That's the whole reason? Wow, I figured there was something more behind it. --SPUI (T - C) 05:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: (shift) I slightly disagree with Rschen7754's logic here. My opinion is that because we are not bound by the "correct name" or whatever the DOT uses (as you stated below). Often, readers find California State Route X easier to read than State Route X (California). Similar to the reason why it is United States Congress instead of Congress (United States) or Congress of the United States or equivalent. --physicq210 05:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This whole argument is rediculous.  --myselfalso 03:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree with that too. Sorry, just really... whatever. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Which argument? --physicq210 03:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What SPUI brought up.  --myselfalso 04:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We should also setup something like consensus polling. This will hopefully help us meet everyone's concerns and come to a true consensus. --Polaron | Talk 01:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely agree with something like consensus polling, it's a great idea in this circumstance. --Rory096 01:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: CBD said at WP:ANI that this was probably the best we would get. And what are you trying to do? Get the consensus to go your way? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It was SPUI's idea, actually. --physicq210 03:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's another one of SPUI's attempt at derailing the process. It was discussed long ago to which there was no outcome that was suitable for either party.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding me?  --myselfalso 03:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I was aware it was SPUI's doing but being a bit out of the loop, coming in late etc, I want to know if it's something that fits within process or not. I'm aware of Seicer's view but what of everyone else? ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man this is getting tiresome.  The addition of principle 3 to Ohio's subpage is of SPUI's own volition.  During the discussion process it was determined that only Kansas and Michigan might have exemptions to the format because they use M-X and K-X names.  SPUI's position on this is that neither Kansas, Michigan or Ohio (among others) officially use the state name in front of the route name so it should be exempted, too.  The reason Ohio wasn't included in the exemption list is because ODOT doesn't name their roads "O-X" and so Kansas and Michigan are presented with a unique situation. Stratosphere (U T) 04:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I second Stratosphere and Seicer. --physicq210 04:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the instruction for Part II, this round of discussion/voting is to decide on whether to use "State Highway", "State Route", "Route", etc for the common name, with the exception of Michigan and Kansas.  Part I was to decided on what format the disambiguation was to take. --Bobblehead 04:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are correct. --physicq210 04:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the third principle should be removed.  --myselfalso 04:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. But I'm waiting for a judging admin to remove it so it carries more force. --physicq210 04:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense.  Question . . . how much longer is this one person going to go on about this? --myselfalso 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which "one person"? --physicq210 04:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably Polaron. Or maybe Rory096. --SPUI (T - C) 04:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: (ec)I have to disagree about what was "determined" during Part 1. K-? and M-? were certainly cited as obvious problem cases, but at no point was principle #1 ever modified to make any exceptions or variance in its application explicit, and assorted opinions were expressed about what should or shouldn't be an exception. I don't see any reasonable way of handling this other than by explicit handling of each case on its merits -- whatever those might actually be. I've yet to see either "side" of this debate make any compelling argument as to what 'the common name' in a general sense actually is in any such case, and I live in hope that someone might, and am trying to keep an open mind on that basis. (Fool that I am.) It would be unfortunate to say that for "procedural" reasons we can't even address that. (And at no point did part 1 ever achieve consensus, let us not forget, so citing it to prevent consideration of specific alternatives would seem very suspect practice.) I'm still highly dubious about Lar's 'the arbcom has deemed that 51% makes policy' interpretation (which would in effect be a policy determination on the part of the arbcom by proxy, not their usual practice, and which I'd like to think that if they were to choose to do, they'd at least make explicit). But even if we proceed on that basis, what the front page says is, "The format of all state highway article titles shall be [State Name] [Road Term] XX unless otherwise designated." So how else do we decide what's "otherwise designated"? SPUI is certainly wrong to cast everything in terms of what the state DOT's usage is (since WP practice does not hinge on official usage, and as a state organ they have a rather "systematic bias"), but we need to at some point address the issue of what actual usage in comparable contexts is, otherwise we're indulging in in what's effectively original research as to what a "natural" usage is -- only without the actual research part. Alai 04:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually in agreement that we shouldn't necessarily blindly go with DOT usage. If the undeniable common name was "O-X" in Ohio, despite ODOT using State Route X, we'd go with that. On the other hand, if the common name was "SR X", that's an obvious abbreviation of State Route X. --SPUI (T - C) 04:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that we have arguments in favour of "a presumption in favour of" the official name (which is often a sensible thing to factor into the question of what/which 'common name' to use); and arguments in favour of a presumption in favour of an ambiguous name; or an "natural" name (ditto, in each case).  But those three presumptions in this case conflict, and we've very little data on the "common name" supposed baseline.  Alai 05:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The common name may be easily found by smpling local newspapers.  These newspapers are mirrored on the web and mention various roads every single day.  Look in the archives under "Determining Common Names" for details of how to go about this. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Local papers are no good because local terms for highways tend to be ambiguous.  Powers T 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we've very little data on the "common name" supposed baseline  You asked for the common name. It can be found by sampling papers throughout the state.  It may be ambiguous.  It is still the only common name.  There are no "next best common names".  If there is one name that is most commonly used and that is the only choice for "common name". --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let me see if I understand this

message: Am I seeing new, not previously discussed/voted alternatives turning up on the Ohio state subpage?     Is this the consensus of the community or just one person's idea? Because if it's not, I want to know. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was SPUI's idea, actually. --physicq210 03:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's another one of SPUI's attempt at derailing the process. It was discussed long ago to which there was no outcome that was suitable for either party.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding me?  --myselfalso 03:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I was aware it was SPUI's doing but being a bit out of the loop, coming in late etc, I want to know if it's something that fits within process or not. I'm aware of Seicer's view but what of everyone else? ++Lar: t/c 03:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man this is getting tiresome.  The addition of principle 3 to Ohio's subpage is of SPUI's own volition.  During the discussion process it was determined that only Kansas and Michigan might have exemptions to the format because they use M-X and K-X names.  SPUI's position on this is that neither Kansas, Michigan or Ohio (among others) officially use the state name in front of the route name so it should be exempted, too.  The reason Ohio wasn't included in the exemption list is because ODOT doesn't name their roads "O-X" and so Kansas and Michigan are presented with a unique situation. Stratosphere (U T) 04:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I second Stratosphere and Seicer. --physicq210 04:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the instruction for Part II, this round of discussion/voting is to decide on whether to use "State Highway", "State Route", "Route", etc for the common name, with the exception of Michigan and Kansas.  Part I was to decided on what format the disambiguation was to take. --Bobblehead 04:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are correct. --physicq210 04:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the third principle should be removed.  --myselfalso 04:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. But I'm waiting for a judging admin to remove it so it carries more force. --physicq210 04:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense.  Question . . . how much longer is this one person going to go on about this? --myselfalso 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which "one person"? --physicq210 04:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably Polaron. Or maybe Rory096. --SPUI (T - C) 04:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: (ec)I have to disagree about what was "determined" during Part 1. K-? and M-? were certainly cited as obvious problem cases, but at no point was principle #1 ever modified to make any exceptions or variance in its application explicit, and assorted opinions were expressed about what should or shouldn't be an exception. I don't see any reasonable way of handling this other than by explicit handling of each case on its merits -- whatever those might actually be. I've yet to see either "side" of this debate make any compelling argument as to what 'the common name' in a general sense actually is in any such case, and I live in hope that someone might, and am trying to keep an open mind on that basis. (Fool that I am.) It would be unfortunate to say that for "procedural" reasons we can't even address that. (And at no point did part 1 ever achieve consensus, let us not forget, so citing it to prevent consideration of specific alternatives would seem very suspect practice.) I'm still highly dubious about Lar's 'the arbcom has deemed that 51% makes policy' interpretation (which would in effect be a policy determination on the part of the arbcom by proxy, not their usual practice, and which I'd like to think that if they were to choose to do, they'd at least make explicit). But even if we proceed on that basis, what the front page says is, "The format of all state highway article titles shall be [State Name] [Road Term] XX unless otherwise designated." So how else do we decide what's "otherwise designated"? SPUI is certainly wrong to cast everything in terms of what the state DOT's usage is (since WP practice does not hinge on official usage, and as a state organ they have a rather "systematic bias"), but we need to at some point address the issue of what actual usage in comparable contexts is, otherwise we're indulging in in what's effectively original research as to what a "natural" usage is -- only without the actual research part. Alai 04:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually in agreement that we shouldn't necessarily blindly go with DOT usage. If the undeniable common name was "O-X" in Ohio, despite ODOT using State Route X, we'd go with that. On the other hand, if the common name was "SR X", that's an obvious abbreviation of State Route X. --SPUI (T - C) 04:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that we have arguments in favour of "a presumption in favour of" the official name (which is often a sensible thing to factor into the question of what/which 'common name' to use); and arguments in favour of a presumption in favour of an ambiguous name; or an "natural" name (ditto, in each case).  But those three presumptions in this case conflict, and we've very little data on the "common name" supposed baseline.  Alai 05:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The common name may be easily found by smpling local newspapers.  These newspapers are mirrored on the web and mention various roads every single day.  Look in the archives under "Determining Common Names" for details of how to go about this. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Local papers are no good because local terms for highways tend to be ambiguous.  Powers T 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we've very little data on the "common name" supposed baseline  You asked for the common name. It can be found by sampling papers throughout the state.  It may be ambiguous.  It is still the only common name.  There are no "next best common names".  If there is one name that is most commonly used and that is the only choice for "common name". --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Let me see if I understand this part 2

message: User:TwinsMetsFan. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only madness if you make it. May I reiterate that on Wikipedia, it really, really, really doesn't matter what the article is called because the point of Wikipedia isn't the names of the articles, it's what's in the article. Rename all my pages to Illinois Whazzarut X if you want; it'd be stupid, but I wouldn't really care. —Rob (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another user has been scared off due to this madness

message: I really don't think we should take the time to flip the redirects between Wisconsin State Highway XXX and Highway XXX (Wisconsin) now that all of the articles for known highways have been created.  Please give me a honest reason for why we would have to make that change.  Its may also be true for many other states.   --master_sonLets talk 05:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consistency with the 47 other states. Everyone else has to switch, it's not fair to Wisconsin that we give them an exception, just because. Of course, we can help with the work. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I had suggested that states that don't conform but have had no naming debates be excluded but it seems that a majority wants some kind of consistent "look and feel" for the article titles. --Polaron | Talk 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto Rschen7754. I guess this has become a mandate now instead of just a suggestion for states that are already complete and/or already have had a concensus. I guess you couldn't have an individual state concensus with some of the editors here who would always disagree with it. Well, it's been settled now. What's done is done and what has yet to be done should be done. Of course, don't start flopping yet; wait until the porcess deems it necessary.--TinMan 06:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a bogus "mandate" -- established with a weak majority and considerable opposition and confusion. What is so essential about inflicting such "foolish consistency" (Emerson) at a national level? older ≠ wiser 11:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean aside from several edit wars and arbitration cases? Syrthiss 12:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither the edit wars nor the arbitration cases necessitate inflicting arbitrary uniformity, especially for states where there has been little or no evidence of any conflict regarding the current de facto convention for the state. older ≠ wiser 13:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Precisely, No conflicts were present in WI convention (originally following Principle I) until the WP:WIH was made, after that, a conflic appeared because a user believed that Principle I was a Neologism--master_sonLets talk 13:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. So there really doesn't appear to be any clear cut common name there and the concern is whether it is worthwhile to churn the article names once again merely to conform with some other arbitrary naming convention. older ≠ wiser 13:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I may not like it, but it is going to happen and I will go along with it. --master_sonLets talk 12:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if all the highway articles are made with Principle 2 (like WI) 

message: So if you're wondering what is going on here. No, we have not thrown the whole vote in the trash. Don't worry. But in exchange for nearly unanimous support for Principle I, we have agreed to create pipe-trickable links and to use those instead of the normal links. In other words, this passes with Principle I, but Wikipedia:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways also passes. Let us know your thoughts. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favour of any process, method, or solution that gets to closure. If the objections that this isn't a consensus solution are dropped (that is if people accept Principle 1 as the best that can be achieved and accept "consensus as majority, this one time") so much the better. ++Lar: t/c 20:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're okay with this then? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it moves quickly to at least no worse a consensus than we had before and I don't see signs of disruption, I'm more than OK with it. But if it veers off into contention or if progress isn't being made or I see obstructive behaviour, then I'll go back to considering what to do about removing impediments to progress. This is all based on assuming that my request for clarification to ArbCom comes out with the answers I generally expect. ++Lar: t/c 21:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To clarify the confusion

message: Do we want to integrate the proposals here or keep them separate? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately, integrate.  It's by no means necessary to do so at once, especially if that might cause more grief and confusion in the short run.  Alai 03:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't want this proposal slowed down by the other one. It'd just be good to get this done and over with. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Logically they should end up in the same place (unless it's possible and desirable to refactor all the "NC" issues out from the "style guide" issues), but if one is going to impede the other, keep them separate until it's reasonably clear that's no longer the case.  Alai 04:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irony.. we just integrated a little bit so we don't have to have 2 votes that are similar... it won't mess things up too much though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but, what are you talking about? Which "proposals"? --TinMan 07:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This one and the Wikipedia:Guide to writing about U.S. state highways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Integration?

message: Well, the title speaks for itself. Voting will end on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 23:59 UTC. --physicq210 00:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting on Part II has begun 

message: Yeah the territories ones will be hard to vote on. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not leave them out - this is a "state route naming conventions poll". --SPUI (T - C) 05:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarcasm> Rename the poll to "state and territories route naming conventions poll." </sarcasm> --physicq210 05:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: They only have 3 routes, why not just keep it like it is "American Samoa Highway xxx". I don't think anyone would get pissed if we did that... plus, none of their articles have been written yet. <humor> Anyone want to venture into a American Samoa Routes Wikiproject!? </humor> By the way, here is the list: List of highways in American Samoa. --TinMan 05:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: They do - common naming might be AS001, Highway 001 or American Samoa Highway 001. List of highways in American Samoa shows the marker. --SPUI (T - C) 05:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Any American Samoa road people out there?

message: I have a lack of understanding here.  I was under the impression that we had reached a compromise.  Then, people from the NJ WikiProject come and are pissed because they have to change their articles to fit Principle I.  1) They don't have to do it themselves.  
Now, as far as I'm concerned, this debate needs to end.  A definition needs to be adopted that establishes what a state route article should be named.  Principle I took a majority of the vote (albeit not 2/3rds), and Principle I was acknowledged by the Admins.  I agree that this is a weak majority and consensus, but - and much more importantly - I think that No Binding Decisions can no longer apply.  
If this arguing doesn't stop, then I think this whole thing should be shut down.  What is being accomplished by this apparently neverending bickering?  
Also, if there are no binding decisions, then what the hell is the point of this poll to begin with?  Why does anyone have to follow any convention?  
Then I suppose that's why the whole edit war began in the first place.  
This bickering needs to end.  You people aren't accomplishing anything by this.  
--myselfalso 15:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let the hardass here handle this... I may agree with you, ok? But let's have all the bad feeling at people calling people arguers and threatening blocks directed at me instead of everyone, so you can all hate me and then get this done in spite of my threatening you every time you all go in the weeds... ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS it's my read the people from the NJ project have come around and have figured out a compromise that will work for them and everyone else... ++Lar: t/c 15:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good. If not, then we may have to invade New Jersey and overthrow the regime. =) Like I said earlier, granting exceptions is worse than upsetting one state because of the snowball effect; more and more states will want exceptions. But, if there's a consensus over there a NJ, so be it. --TinMan 16:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, I'm just telling the facts, and posing legit questions.  At this point, I feel like the NJ project should be granted an exception and let it be left at that.  --myselfalso 15:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care. If everyone is on board with that, great. But no arguing about it. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'm not on board with it.  The whole intent (for me) of going with PI over PII was to have consistency among all of the state highway articles.  So that someone browsing via whatever method (category, in-article links, whatever) can have a consistent user experience, and know exactly what state he/she is "in" with a quick glance at the title.  Powers T 18:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already do not have consistency among all of the state highway articles - it's an impossible dream, and one which shouldn't even be aspired to, given the fact that all states do not have consistency in their usage. By continuing to insist upon forcing existing agreed consensus titles to change, this mess is growing and creating more conflict instead of resolving it. Use Principle 1 to resolve outstanding edit wars and move battles  - not create more discord and infighting where none existed before. FCYTravis 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it impossible though? Bots can do many wondrous things. I see that there are two camps here, still... one saying that P1 applies across the board  (except for two states named off at the time P1 was up for a vote) and article titles, leads, etc all have to change, to conform. The other camp is saying P1 applies where it needs to, and that those two states are not the only ones that need not have P1 apply. Is that a correct statement of a problem here? If it is how do we resolve it? I THOUGHT that it was resolved by compromise, that some combination of renaming, redirects, piped links and so forth would paper over this for every state. Could folks please clarify? ++Lar: t/c 19:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So did I.  That's where my lack of understanding (see first post, this section) comes from.  --myselfalso 19:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the intention was to end edit wars, then Principle III: Those states with a demonstrable, agreed-upon alternative standard may retain such standard, as long as redirects meeting Principle I and/or Principle II are provided for all roadways in such state goes a long way to solving the problem, as discussed with Lar. Let's achieve a compromise that allows those few states with settled standards to stay as is and allow all other states to chose Principle I or II to resolve their issues. Let's reach a compromise and move on. Alansohn 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was that the intention was to gain a more consistent look and feel across the projects, and the result, or byproduct in this case, would be to end edit warring -- not that the intention was to end edit warring.  — Homefryes Say•Do 20:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could those states with settled standards eventually move to P1? Can you all work this out or do the admin judges need to come in and make (impose) a decision? Note that it's P1 or a modified P1, not P2, as I see it, that are the alternatives. P2 is out, it was rejected, part 1 is over, and you are wrangling about how to apply P1. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think the admin judges need to impose a decision.  It's the only way that things are going to get accomplished, in my opinion.  I was under the impression this fighting was done, and obviously it has continued.  --myselfalso 20:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, they could, and I think that's a question to settle in the future. Let's deal with one battle at a time. If there are still people bound and determined to impose this poll's results on states which have not had previous conflicts, worry about that later. Let's focus on implementing Principle 1 in the areas where no previous consensus existed, and hence clearly some sort of new resolution is desperately needed. FCYTravis 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, at this point, I just want to keep the process (or what's left of it) moving forward, as I have one state I'm heavily involved in whose naming convention is in question (route vs. highway).  There's a weak issue about P1 vs. P2 for that state, but not like the others who are struggling.  Since really none of the states I am working on are at issue with the P1/P2 to the degree of other states, I will go with the majority, just to keep this moving forward...but ultimately I'd like to see much more conformity with the overall naming structure (P1 being my choice).  — Homefryes Say•Do 21:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong but P1 ("The format of all state highway article titles shall be [State Name] [Road Term] XX with the exception of Kansas and Michigan ") doesn't speak to Route vs. Highway, does it?  Those are "Road Term"s ... so that's a part ii Vote.  If your state is either already in compliance with P1 or has by consensus decided it is going to change to be in compliance with P1, it seems to me you can get on with voting about part 2 (for example Alaska is voting already on "<Alaska> Highway X" vs. "<Alaska> State Route X" ) and even with implementing. Is your state actually unclear about P1 vs P2  for part 1? That is,  what did you mean by "weak issue" ? ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry, didn't mean to confuse the issue.  About the end of July, prior to the beginning of this debate, we had an issue where someone (not on the list of members for WP:OHSH) was proposing the renaming of all articles to a Principle II format without consultation or consensus.  I wasn't even greatly involved yet – and subsequently these proposals were removed.  And Ohio was never referred to in any of the debates as being, for lack of a better term, a "high-issue" project.  All members of WP:OHSH who voted in Part 1 chose Principle I, and no one on the project has expressed issue with this principle.  My point was that this controversy that surfaced before the actual debate started was the minor issue, and that I just want to get through Part 2 so that we can fully continue working on the project once changes (if any are needed) are complete.  — Homefryes Say•Do 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thanks. I think you lot are completely sorted then, as they say in the UK. If you all voted for P1, if you're currently AT P1, adn no one is in controversy about it anyway (which doesn't matter, you're already at P1 anyway), it seems to me you should go on about voting on part 2, and implement the result and be on your merry way. If you need admins to certify the outcome, I don't see why that can't be done for your state once it's time regardless of whether there are lags for states not currently in P1 or not wanting to be in P1 or arguing about whether they are arguing or not, or whatever... no need to wait in my view. Helps? ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It helps – I'm just counting on the stability that I hoped would be created by the outcome of Part 1 to solidify the OHSH project, so that the issue that occurred prior to August doesn't happen again.  The person who started that issue is a huge proponent of P2.  My fear, I guess, is that with all this nonsense continuing on and on, that someone's going to come along and blow this whole thing away, and we'll be left to our own devices once again.  I just want us to be able to have this as a basis for moving forward in the direction we're already heading.  Does that make sense?  I'm trying not to stir the pot, trying not to create ire...I'm trying to patiently wait for the aftershocks to end, that's all.  — Homefryes Say•Do 20:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is '''Annoying''' 

message: To quote from the lead paragraph of WP:NBD, "In order to reach the best possible decisions, we hold it important to listen carefully to each other's arguments, and to try to find mutually acceptable solutions in conflicts. Polls are the exception and not the rule, and where they do exist they are not binding [emphasis in original]". I'm also tired of the bickering and have offered Principle III: Those states with a demonstrable, agreed-upon alternative standard may retain such standard, as long as redirects meeting Principle I and/or Principle II are provided for all roadways in such state as a means of achieving consenus. Every single article for every single existing road in New Jersey is already accessible via redirect to the titles dictated by both Principle I and Principle II. We only gain as a group by achieving a genuine consensus that can be accepted by a far greater majority than the existing "consensus". Alansohn 22:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the consensus you mention is most likely not possible to attain due to the current environment. Hence we have to work with an arbitrary decision, as told by WP:ANI and a member of ArbCom. --physicq210 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, I'm only being realistic here. I like your idea, but it really can't be achieved if everyone's tempers were flaring only months ago. --physicq210 23:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't it? If it also includes the notion that over time there will be migration to principle I for articles, just not right away, wouldn't that do? Why would that not satisfy everyone and allow us to move on? ++Lar: t/c 00:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any migration principle is acceptable, if it's stated as an immutable fait accompli. I believe that if we stipulate that beginning in 90 days, a discussion will be opened up among state WikiProjects with stable naming conventions as to whether or not they'd like to change their names to fit Principle 1, that accomplishes what we're trying to do. Simply saying "we'll do all this moving whether you like it or not, but we might do it later" is not particularly a compromise in my opinion. Nor is it likely to assuage any fears. We are dealing with separate issues here. One is the idea of imposing new standards on states which cannot themselves agree on their road names without dissolving into move wars and ArbCom cases. That, I believe, is an idea with which none of us disagree because it finally settles existing battles. The further idea, that we should begin imposing these new outside standards on states which have existing longstanding and uncontroversial standard naming policies, I believe, is a far more contentious issue which presents us with the prospect of more conflict and inflamed passions. We ought to let sleeping dogs lie. FCYTravis 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated, the reason why we want to change every state, stable or not, is that we don't want this mess to be brought up again in the future. Perhaps someday a future Wikipedian editor may come by and say "hey, look, New Jersey has a different convention than other states, why don't we change Wisconsin too? And, hey, look, since there's an 'exception' and 'this violates WP:NC(CN),' let's just chuck the entire convention out the window!" What we will create here is a snowball effect that will only postpone anarchy to some date in the not-to-distant future. --physicq210 00:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this fundamentally misrepresents the nature of consensus and how wikis work. If people come along a year from now and question the (IMO incredibly narrow-minded) decision represented by the poll, they would have every right to do so and could very well establish a consensus for overturning or refining what was decided. A fear of what might happen is a bad rationale for imposing change where none is needed. older ≠ wiser 00:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: physicq210, future Wikipedia editors will have every right to question and challenge this decision. The idea that virtually no decision is immutable and that everything can be questioned is a fundamental part of Wikipedia thinking. This well might be brought up again in the future, and we can deal with it in the future. For now, let's settle the issues that can clearly be settled - rename state highway pages with contentious, disputed and move-warred names based on Principle 1. FCYTravis 01:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see your points. I stand corrected. --physicq210 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Find mutually acceptable solutions in conflicts"

message: New Jersey, and New Jersey only, will be allowed to remain at the current standard for the short term (3-6 months). If Principle I will fall apart, it will fall apart by then. After this, New Jersey must migrate to P1, but may request the help of others. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So essentially, a postponement of implementation? --physicq210 03:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might as well do it when everyone else has to implement it.  And, as far as I'm concerned, there's no reason why ANYONE has to follow Principle I anyway.  There's NBD, so what's the point?  --myselfalso 03:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, if you want this to end, I think New Jersey should be granted exception entirely.   This will fall apart then, when this comes back up . . . if it survives.  --myselfalso 03:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to get this to end in a peaceful way (or as much as possible at this point) while still maintaining what the people voted for. As seen above, the NJ people are unwilling to accept the admin-deemed consensus that took place here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes and no, because I read P1 again  (see Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part1 and it's not clear to me one way or the other whether it does, or doesn't, mandate conversion of all states, or whether that conversion happens now, later, maybe, only if people feel like it, etc. Those that charge that this poll was imperfect have a point. But tough noogies. I adjudge that there needs to be an agreement on something (in what, 18 hours or so) or the judges will make a decision. I'll give you a preview.. it's likely to be the decision that's easiest to implement, meaning the one that we think most people will go along with rather than the one that's technically easiest because I don't see the technical part as the hard part. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there was room for improvement. Since I usually have difficulty giving directions I think I'll have someone else (like a judging admin) review the poll before it opens next time... Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would just like to point out that last year all the state highways were at the "<State name> State Highway X" convention. This name is clearly wrong for New Jersey and the existing articles then  were indeed all moved by SPUI to the correct names. But this was before any move debates at California and Washington happened. Since the move, (as far as I know), no one who works on the NJ state highways said the new New Jersey names were wrong. That seems like a non-controversial move to me. --Polaron | Talk 13:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is non-controversial in the sense that the term "State Highway" was clearly wrong for the state of New Jersey, and should have been "Route" instead.  The controversial part is whether the disambiguating "New Jersey" should go in parentheses or before the name (the current convention Route XX (New Jersey), or the P1 convention New Jersey Route XX.  In making that batch of mass moves, he made a non-controversial move and a controversial one all at once.  Clever that. -- NORTH talk 18:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My proposal

message: When I go back and look at all the discussion that's arisen regarding this debate, it is still unbelievable to me that there is like 50 pages of discussion on something so damn trivial. I understand why the poll came about, I understand the position by those who selected Principle 1, I understand the position by those who selected Principle 2, I even understand the position taken by those who did (and now) support Principle 3. I even understand the compromises that have been made in the process to help bridge the gap between those who selected P1 and P2. I understand the desires of the majority of us who want this to end. I understand the steadfastness of those who are set in their ways. I understand why SPUI mass moved all those articles. I understand why others disputed his moves.  	 
What I don't understand is how something this unimportant managed to polarize nearly 100 highway article editors into a bitter, drag-the-feet, no holds barred, take no prisoners war. Holy crap. This is like having a debate over the best way to eat an Oreo...who the hell cares? just eat the damn thing. Everyone's bitches and concerns during this whole debate basically boils down to what shows up in the bold black letters at the top of an article...WTF? In retrospect, I wish I had proposed Principle IV which would have been to get over ourselves, but it probably would have only got one vote. 	 
Maybe the fact of the matter is highways (or routes) aren't a terribly exciting genre of article, like powertools, action movies, explosions, wars, Three's Company; so we had to stir up some drama in order to make it feel edgy. And the reason the debate is dragging on...and on...and on....and on..........and on...........and on...is that once the debate is closed, policy (or convention, whatever) is drafted, what are we going to do then? Probably what most of us set out on here to do in the first place, uh, edit articles. What a wonderful place that would be. Stratosphere (U T) 17:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly a candidate for WP:LAME. older ≠ wiser 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is also a very boring subject.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Three cheers for Stratosphere! Can I vote for Principle IV? I never voted for any of the Principles... -- NORTH talk 17:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sweet, we got 2 votes...that's technically 1 more than Principle 3 ;)  Stratosphere (U T) 17:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you already voted for Principle 1, so you can't vote for P4.  Technically technically it's a 1-1 tie. -- NORTH talk 02:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  gah! touché -- Stratosphere (U T) 02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Haha, Stratosphere. I'm laughing because you said the same thing I did before this poll began on the WT:NCSH: "We're not talking about whether people can find an article, becuase a person can type in either format and still get to the same page; no, instead we're debating what the big black letters at the top of the article should say." A lot has changed since then, but that truth remains. I just had to say that. --TinMan 04:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Shame on you, Lar.  Stratosphere was merely trying to lighten the mood, something that is sorely needed here, as it often is.  There are several sections above where we are focused on trying to reach a solution. -- NORTH talk 18:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shame on me? No. Shame on you all for having let it get to this point, where threats of blocking and actual blocks are the only way that apparently works to get things moving when they get stuck, which they do, depressingly often. I'm watching the "several sections above" and I'm not seeing the solution emerging yet. But I'd be glad to be wrong about that. Very glad indeed. So.. sorry if I sounded snippy (a section called the big picture seems a logical place to see serious collection of where things are, not a place for a humorous commentary... which to my eyes I didn't see on first reading of the first part). Some sort of collation of what has been agreed to would be a very useful thing to see in 3 hours or so when the deadline is up. ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, shame on you for going "gonzo". --SPUI (T - C) 23:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it keeps users from making obstructive comments to this process, I'm all for his "gonzo"-ness.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but throwing gonzoism in randomly when Stratosphere was only trying to lighten mood (not an obstructive comment) does not do that.  Gonzoism and obstructive comments are both very bad things. -- NORTH talk 00:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm referring to obstructive comments, such as what SPUI was blocked twice over. Not referring to humorous comments that try and lighten the mood on this senseless merry-go-round of debate. I will agree with you that going "gonzo" on Stratosphere would have very bad consequences.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreement makes me happy, and I agree with you here, Seicer. -- NORTH talk 01:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: yes, it was intended to be a slighly humorous commentary as an aside to those of us involved in this whose heads are going to explode. Stratosphere (U T) 18:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P5 - Why do any road names have to be consistent with each other? Let each article name be free to express its own individuality... 'Michigan MI-5 (Michigan)', 'New Jersey Stoplight Farm 10', 'New Parking Lot 9A (York)', et cetera. --CBD 11:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do we have route shields made for the New Parking Lots? -- Stratosphere (U T) 14:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm confused. So K-9 would be "Canine"? ;) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Big Picture

message: I don't have the time to spend on reading this much discussion.  =)  In the interest of resolving this debate, I withdraw all of my objections to any proposal that would end the debate.  That includes the proposal to let New Jersey articles stay where they are.  I don't like it, but I like this argument less.  Powers T 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Partially agree. Not all of my objections =). But, I don't care what the heck y'all do with New Jersey anymore. --TinMan 04:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I, too, haven't the time to read all this crap, what with having a job, a house, a new roommate, and a life.  I edited some of the highway articles because I'm interested in roads, highways, cars, license plates, and that sort of thing.  As I have been requested to be here, I speak my mind and I have voted... but if I appear to miss something that was discussed in here, please forgive me. -- Tckma 13:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is going on too long 

message: Anyone have a summary of where we are at? I've seen some further movement toward compromise but before the admins decide loose ends it might be good to know what they are (or if they all get cleaned up before the decision, that's cool too!) ++Lar: t/c 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Adjudication which everyone is welcome to watch, but only the 6 judging administrators may edit, or I will go gonzo :) on you. Feel free to COMMENT on it here or on its own talk page, of course, but please do not fiddle with the votes and stuff, thanks! ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's bad enough that Northenglish has falsely claimed that there is a controversy in New Jersey. After all, he was the one who created the Naming Convention when he himself inauguraated WP:NJSCR, and he was the one who wrote that "Articles for state routes are titled Route X (New Jersey)." (see the last of Northenglish's edits creating Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes). It's patently naive to try to claim that there are two editors who "agree with me that NJ is in controversy", when all that the two edits he has provided above demonstrate is that these two people agree that Northenglish believes there is a controversy. Northenglish has never attempted to change his own standard, nor has he ever commented on WT:NJSCR that he ever had an issue with his own standard. I think we need to hear an explanation from Northenglish accounting for the discrepancy between his creation of the New Jersey naming convention and his sudden conversion to a belief that his own standard is controversial, with his logic being based on the fact that he himself disagrees with his own creation. Other than that, Northenglish's claim that he himself disagrees with the New Jersey naming convention is entirely untenable. Alansohn 03:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about taking it to your own talk pages because it does not belong here. Petty drama goes elsewhere.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've given the explanation Alansohn requests several (at least three) times.  I created the project, but I did not create the naming convention, I merely formalized it.  SPUI created it approximately seven months before.  I avoided opening debate so shortly after the closure of the Arbcom case because I did not feel like creating drama unnecessarily. -- NORTH talk 05:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not want to halt this entire process over one (or three if you include KS and MI) state. It's just not worth it. From Part II, I gather that many states are already coming to an agreement on how to apply P1. I don't really see any close-calls. Let's move forward. The only thing slowing us down is the "states that already have a stable consensus" clause, which to me, only seems to affecting at most 3 states. Let's take our plane tickets and get onboard. NJ, KS, and MI can catch the next flight if bad comes to worse. --TinMan 21:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And it is true, I believe NJ is in controversy, but I've lost nearly all care for that state's convention. Just pick one; do eeney meeney miney mo if you have to. --TinMan 21:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we don't need to drop everything.  But my worry is that the only state WP that has come here and complained is NJ (Wisconsin made a case earlier, but acquiesced), and yet suddenly we're thinking about not applying the convention nationwide.  That would also be halting the entire process over one state. -- NORTH talk 23:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I really don't see the point why people are dragging this entire "but it wasn't consensus" issue up in the first place. While you may discuss the principles, there really is no point whining about the result of the poll NOW. If you wanted to make objections, why didn't you do so earlier? We're not going to stop the entire process because now they bring the issue up. --physicq210 00:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status update 

message: Can PASH be given an exemption?  --myselfalso 02:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I meant on the main article space (i.e. under the Pennsylvania heading, not here. Sorry if I confused you. --physicq210 02:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cool.  I wasn't sure where to ask for an exemption/speedy close.  --myselfalso 11:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exemption 

message: *I'm sorry, but what ever happened to California? Why is there not a section for that state? I would of thought that would have been one of the biggest debates. Are they exempt? Anyone know? --TinMan 04:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any debate over what it should be - California State Route 23, etc. FCYTravis 04:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the entire table of contents and - poof! - it magically appears! --physicq210 04:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so it wasn't magical. But yes, we put it at the bootom of the poll because it was uncontested (i.e. had [actual] consensus in every definition of the word) and (overemphasis needed) it complies with P1. --physicq210 04:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah ^^ there's a section below the voting for states that had uncontested formats that followed/will follow P1 or were granted special exemption -- Stratosphere (U T) 04:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that explains a lot. =) This is a really long page. --TinMan 04:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which page? Talkpage, or voting page? --physicq210 04:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Frankly though, I was quite surprised to find it there.  With Washington, there was never any argument over what the term should be, the pages have always been located at either State Route XX (Washington) or Washington State Route XX.  However with California, in addition the "disambiguation move wars", there was also a move war on the  page regarding whether it should be California State Route 17 or California State Highway 17 (its current location).  I would have thought that if they truly had reached a consensus-determining discussion, someone would have been bold and moved that page to a "state route" title (with or without parentheses). -- NORTH talk 05:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, there was one user who thought that there should be no consistency in naming highway articles. i.e. "California State Route 16", "California State Highway 17", "California Route 18", etc. And unfortunately, the WP:RM to fix that failed. I put WA in the poll since it does not have a discussion that has a consensus. I doubt that the convention will fail. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason they probably didn't be bold and move it is because of the ArbCom restriction on renaming highway articles until this gets settled.  Yes? -- Stratosphere (U T) 06:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if the RM failed, isn't that proof that there's not consensus that all California articles should be titled "State Route"? -- NORTH talk 05:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I recall, the  move war was before Arbcom and largely irrelevant to Arbcom.  Even if it was during/after Arbcom, if the move were made from California State Highway 17 to California State Route 17 with the backing of consensus, it's my understanding that blocks would not be handed down. -- NORTH talk 06:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, here we go. How about everyone just forget I even mentioned the word "California". I don't want to make this worse than it already is. I screwed up and didn't realize it was listed at the bottom of the main page. Thanks for clarifying that. --TinMan 21:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not.  If you read that RM discussion, there was certainly no consensus to keep it where it was, there just wasn't consensus to complete the proposed move to State Route 17 (California).  The confounding variable was that the debate took place during the peak of the parentheses controversy, and a number of editors who voted to not move did so only because the proposal contained parentheses, and would have voted differently if the proposal were California State Route 17 instead.  Consensus can change, and there is clear consensus now to name all articles within a state using the same term. -- NORTH talk 23:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing States

message: Part 2 will be closing Monday. At that time, the admins will be voting on the state conventions. (If any states are to be left at P2, now is the time to vote that way). 
:Isn't the poll closing on Tuesday, not Monday? September 12 is a Tuesday. --physicq210 04:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC
::Probably. :) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused.  Where should we vote on whether we're going to keep P2 or not? As part of the Part II voting? -- NORTH talk 03:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P2? As in Principle 2? Or Part 2? --physicq210 04:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Principle 2.  Rschen said, "If any states are to be left at P2, now is the time to vote that way."  Where is that vote supposed to occur? -- NORTH talk 04:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, ask him for clarification. I don't get that statement either. --physicq210 04:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Aggh my bad. That was to the admins. If they want to intervene and give a state P2, that's the time to do it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, okay. -- NORTH talk 04:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, by "there is no controversy over it" what do you mean? There's a consensus for it, or noone said anything about it since there were no other editors? And what do you mean by the word "eventually" below? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for clarifying. That does make perfect sense.  I guess all debate on New Jersey then should end here and be picked up at WT:NJSCR instead. -- NORTH talk 05:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing Part 2

message: Why not? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: because we're a serious bunch? :P -- Stratosphere (U T) 03:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Road humor]]

message: Of course it's named incorrectly at PR-52. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Puerto Rico has its first highway article!

message: Ok, I'm wondering if we should use this "break period" prior to the final admin votes on the 14th to revise our votes if need be. I know a lot of new conventions were created, altered, etc. within the last day or so and a lot of votes were stuck through and relocated. Does anyone feel that we need another day for relocations of votes in hopes of establishing stronger consensus? I assume few check on this poll multiple times during the day... and a lot has changed in the last minutes of Part II with facts and analysis. Voting itself is closed, so no new votes would be added, obviously. Just the existing votes could be moved around. --TinMan 03:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically the 'judging' has begun and is supposed to finish by the 14th, but I don't think we want to establish a 'consensus' of what people used to think... SO, I'll try to start off with the straightforward sections. Discussion of the ones where different ideas have been being explored can continue and possibly reach some stronger conclusion. --CBD 11:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: FWIW, until I noticed an edit by CBD to the page late yesterday I hadn't realized admin votes were needed.  I dropped a message last night / this morning to Lar (who I see had endorsed now), Ashibaka (whose talk page says they are intermittantly here), and Nightstallion. Syrthiss 11:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I adjusted the timeline since we haven't quite finished with the votes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adjusted again. Although we could just move on... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User_talk:Nightstallion gives endorsement. So let's go on. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Break Period for Revisions?

message: Has this been nominated for it yet?  I don't know anything that deserves it more.  As much time that has been wasted on this, I think we could of rewrote the entire Wikipedia twice.  Lets just end this thing and never bring it up again.  If you want it named something else, than create a freaking redirect.  --Holderca1 14:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone mentioned it earlier. I would go back and find who, but that would take to long. I would nominate it after we're complete with all the parts. We don't quite know how far this will take us. This definately qualifies though.  --TinMan 16:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that any user who goes back and tries to find it in the dungeons of this poll should be hearby nominated for WP:LAME :P  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See here.  It wasn't that hard to find. :-P -- NORTH talk 01:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have nominated yourself for WP:LAME :P  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats NORTH on your lamemanship. :P --TinMan 01:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, shush.  I didn't even have to *look* for it.  It's just good memory skills, and finding the correct section header in the table of contents. -- NORTH talk 01:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, the issue more deserving of WP:LAME is the circumstances leading to this lame poll (edit wars, etc.). --physicq210 02:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I don't really think efforts to end the lameness should be considered lame. -- NORTH talk 02:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the whole thing. Edit wars, naming conventions, polls, arguments, etc etc etc. --TinMan 03:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:LAME]]