Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbered highways)

message: I'm not the greatest fan of this proposal. I can't imagine a standard Wikipedia user specifically searching out the article "State Route 9", which then becomes a disambiguation page to all 40 State Route 9 entries. More likely the user would look for "Indiana State Route 9", or "Indiana State Highway 9", or even "Indiana 9", all of which would be redirects to how InDOT would name it, most likely "Indiana State Highway 9". It doesn't pass the "this is what disambiguation is for" test for me. —Rob (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we make redirects, coordinated with a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey/State Routes. You'd be surprised at the amount of people that just type in stuff like Highway 50, given that I've seen articles about specific roads at those locations.  By the way, in Indiana the roads are named "State Route X". No Indiana before.  Of course they usually use SR,  but that's an obvious abbreviation, so we write it in full. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

message: *See User:Censorwolf/Roadlists for list of current State Road/Routes/Highways List naming patterns.
*See User:Censorwolf/Roadcats for list of current State Road/Routes/Highways Category naming patterns.
--Censorwolf 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Related naming issues

message: Tested the pipe trick for the double disambiguation on "State Road 50 (Florida) (west)" as
Florida Route 50 (Western part)
And it works fine. --Censorwolf 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how the pipe trick works. State Road 50 - yep, failure. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that's not what I thought you meant (ie using only the pipe char). However, the format I used above (supplying the displayed anchor) does work ok. --Censorwolf 17:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: Officially, in Oklahoma, the numbered routes are "State Highways", and are officially abbreviated as such, e.g. a small green sign on a stoplight pole will usually read "SH 9" or "SH-9" or something to that effect. U.S. routes are abbreviated on signage as "US-77" or "US 77" (more often than not, with no dots). Interstates are abbreviated in text form as I-35 or whatever. (Note that this is just what I have observed on signs, I have no clue what ODOT calls them internally.)
In common usage around here, people will use I-xx for Interstates, and then call everything else Highway whatever. For instance, Highway 9, Highway 77, etc. I have also heard people refer to highways just using the number, such as go down 74, turn right onto 74B, etc. Route is practically unused here, except with the number 66, which is former alignment of U.S. Route 66.
That means that if the state name is required to go at the end of the title, we'll have names which are about 3 characters longer, like State Highway 74 (Oklahoma). Possibly we could get by with Highway 3 (Oklahoma),  but it is a state highway that belongs to Oklahoma. There really is no "common usage", I've heard "Highway 74" and "74" and also "That one road that runs past Thomas Feed". The only highway with a universal name that I know of is Highway 9...Scott5114 20:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On Oklahoma

message: (Discussion moved from project page) --Censorwolf 13:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much disagree. Possibly "state highways in State", but that isn't even always correct - for instance in Massachusetts the category would not be for state highways - roads maintained by the state - but for state-numbered routes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SPUI - I have no problem with what the name should be. I was using what the defacto standard is (36 are using this naming pattern - see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Highways/U.S._state_highway_naming_conventions#Table_of_current_conventions ). Alaska is the only one currently using that naming pattern you suggest. Should we NOT have a std naming pattern for categories of numbered highways in the US then, and have it tailored for each state? --Censorwolf 17:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't about how things currently are, but a proposal to fix things. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood that from the beginning, and I was suggesting using the current format. So, in your opinion, should we have a naming convention for categories of numbered highways? --Censorwolf 21:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure. Right now I'm more interested in the article names. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Honestly I think that may be too broad. I can't speak for other states but there is too big a distinction between state highways and county routes for them to share a category.Gateman1997 17:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is way too broad. We need "State Highways in New York" or "State Routes in California" (whatever the state uses). Besides we already have a separate WP and cat for CA County Routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Numbered routes" would take in all numbered routes within a state. Interstates, US Routes, state routes and county routes. If you are thinking of having a category that would just be for the state-numbered routes then the category should probably be "State numbered routes in New York", or just "State routes in New York" since "numbered" is then superfluous. SO: I guess we need to go on a state-by-state basis then, and have no system-wide convention? But we could have a standard like "State DOT-convention in State Name", where DOT-convention would vary by state, so for instance in NY it would be routes since that is how NYSDOT refers to the state-numbered roads. In other states, the equivalent of the NYSDOT must each have some formal name that can be used. --Censorwolf 16:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Names 

message: OK Let's try to wrap this up. (Two weeks is enough time to have sorted out your thoughts on this)
#We can't use the disambiguation of "Route X (State Name)" because the search engine won't work on it, if for no other reason (but there are other reasons).
#Within a state, the names of the articles should be consistent if possible. Preferably they are all of the same naming pattern, with redirects as needed for roads known by more than one name. Across the whole US roads project? Not possible.
#Capitalization of lists, categories, templates, stubs, is a whole other discussion, with those on each side apparently entrenched in doing it their way. I suggest we put this item off as a separate topic and focus on the first two.--Censorwolf 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Florida state highway should be disambiguated by putting said region first. Thus the state name should come first - Florida State Road 50 is preferable to State Road 50 (Florida). B.Wind 04:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: *No. --Censorwolf 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Florida state highway should be disambiguated by putting said region first. Thus the state name should come first - Florida State Road 50 is preferable to State Road 50 (Florida). B.Wind 04:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation by use of (State Name)

message: *Yes. Why argue for inconsistency? --Censorwolf 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistent Names within a State, not across US project tho

message: There seems to be pretty good consensus for this part - let's try to come up with a proposal to put through the bureaucracy. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should get a consensus on both items before we move forward, just so we don't rehash everything 2x. I'd like to see a few more votes occuring either way for the disambiguation item first. --Censorwolf 14:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a preference for the official names in use by the DOT should be stated? ...Scott5114 03:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't have wide agreement. Let's get this through and then figure out that stuff. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We need to specifically reference that the common name takes precedence for the article name, with re-directs from less-common name(s) or even the official name, as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28common_names%29 guidelines, like was implied with the redirect of State Road 300 (Florida) to St. George Island Bridge. --Censorwolf 14:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? This is a proposal for the naming of articles that contain the route number in their title. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 17:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough, but the redirect of State Road 300 (Florida) to St. George Island Bridge is a good example of an exception that follows the common-name rule apparently. --Censorwolf 19:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that it just follows a different rule - that for bridges - as in this case the bridge is more prominent than the state road. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, something like that. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. --Censorwolf 19:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistent names within a state

message: The current straw polls seem to imply...  well, not very much, without determining what the common names actually are, presumably on a state-by-state, or system-by-system basis.  (Unless either is proposing to overrule common names, which doesn't appear to be the case.)  Are there any cases in which that's fairly generally agreed, to start off with?  Alai 23:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By some interpretations of "use common names", this would overrule "use common names" within the state. For instance, northern California often uses "Highway XX", while southern California uses "The XX". Ducksheep City, California may use "Quackbaa XX". But we'd have to use a system-wide name throughout the state. Thus California State Highway 17 would not be there unless we agree that everything is titled "California State Highway XX". This does not say anything about State Type XX vs. Type XX (State), though I would argue that the disambiguation conventions specify the latter, whether or not this part passes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Assuming what's in the table is what's still used - I haven't necessarily updated it since I've fixed Florida, New Jersey and Massachusetts. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: But doesn't that contradict with the second principle above? That there are no exceptions? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Or better yet, rather than systematically applying a naming convention that results in article titles that are contrary to their common names, we just apply the "use common names" conventions to each article individually. Systematic naming conventions are overrated. All they buy you is conflict over what system to use and then once you decide on a system, you have a mess of articles for which the system doesn't apply in an ideal way. What a waste.Nohat 23:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you have a 1 to what consensus with that option? And all that buys us is individual naming disputes over every single article? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am aware, the only time there have been significant naming disputes for highways is when someone has tried to impose a "consistent" naming scheme, where "consistent" means consistent only within itself, not consistent with reality. Nohat 02:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But once we get the system worked out then we won't have any more disputes again. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is for the sake of consistency, if we don't use a common convention things can just get messy and hard to maintain.  If it is determined that an individal route has a different common name then, well that's what redirects are for.-Jeff (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "Of course Wikipedia would favor the more unambiguous term":  no, wikipedia would mandate the common name.  If you're proposing that this convention would locally override that convention, that needs to be made much more explicit, since it's not at all clear at present.  It's one thing to say, determine the commonality on a per-group rather than a per-article basis, but quite another to say "use a different criterion entirely".  Alai 23:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops sorry, I guess I wasn't entirely clear about that.  What I meant was if a state has common conventions that are used across the state we use whichever of those conventions is most unambiguous, and if we need to disambiguate further, we use parens, and we'll use that convention for ALL articles for that state.  If a state doesn't have consistent common conventions then we should default to the DOT convention for the article names, so we won't be favoring any particular part of the state, and then we create redirects from the common conventions for each route.-Jeff (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a state has different "common conventions" that are used in different localities (or otherwise), then we should use whichever of them is the more common.  If it doesn't, we should use which terms are the most common.  What a DOT says the name is merely tells us what's official, not what's actually used.  Alai 02:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But we should use the same thing statewide though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, that works for me, at least as a strong presumption.  Alai 03:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean I'd much rather prefer the state DOT usage, but as long as it's not something dumb like "The California 405" I'm fine with it, as long as it sort of sounds official like "California State Highway" or "California State Route". --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously when we say "common names", there's an "encyclopaedic tone" threshold, and a degree of weighting towards the usage in comparable media.  (e.g., what newspapers and reference books would call them, rather than how the local farmer might give directions along same.)  Alai 04:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "California State Route X" is not the state DOT usage. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's not the issue here. The issue here is common names. Read the section heading. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who the fuck calls it "California State Route X"? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AARoads, for one. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources please. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't follow the logic that any one body "decides" common names.  Either the proposition is to go with actual usage, as with the usual guidelines (in which case some attempt should be made to establish such usage), or it's to establish an exception to said usual rule of thumb (in which case it should be billed as such).  There is indeed a touch of the deja vu all over again to this, yes.  Alai 02:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's the government's road... they paid for it, they administer it, they should decide what it's called. Somewhere in some state law, somebody decided what to call it. Granted, not everyone follows the laws, even in state government itself. But we ought to at least try. —Rob (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, frankly, we shouldn't, unless we change wikipedia guidelines (locally or globally), which are currently entirely explicit that this isn't how things are done.  Alai 00:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, see Talk:Kiev. "Official" government usage does not mandate Wikipedia's usage. Gentgeen 12:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kiev/Kyiv was much simpler to resolve then this problem.  First of all, there was no problem with consistency among large numbers of similalry titled pages.  Second of all, it was easy to demonstrate with a Google search that Kiev is much more commonly used than Kyiv by english speakers.  It is exceedingly difficult to do that for "California State Highway 99" vs. "State Highway 99" vs. "State Route 99" vs. "Highway 99" vs. "Route 99" etc.  I've tried it, and can't find a way to filter out spurious hits from the former US Highway 99, Oregon  State Route 99 and all the various permutations.  I still don't see how you can determine what the common name is.  I think the wikipedia's common name concept is not applicable to this sort of problem.  Toiyabe 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it is perfectly possible to demonstrate for a particular road that "highway" is used more commonly than "state route" or "route", as at Talk:California State Highway 17. Nohat 00:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that Google search ratio was bogus.  If you search for "Highway 17" you also get hits for U.S. Highway 17, British Columbia Provincial Highway 17, etc.  If you search for "Route 17" you also get hits for Route 17 in NJ, New York State Bicycle Route 17 etc.  Sorting those spurious hits out takes intelligence.  The ratio between the two hits can not be taken for the actual usage in California. Toiyabe 00:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the Google search ratio was done using a search for "Highway 17 +California", which eliminates most instances of results for Highways 17 in other states, and a quick glance at the first 1000 results for this search will show that all the results are concerning the highway in question. Nohat 02:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Presumably you searched for '"Highway 17" +California' and '"Route 17" +California' - the former returns ~260,000 hits, the latter ~100,000 hits.  But what you are really searching for is the phrase "Highway 17" or "Route 17" in pages that also include "California". So, for example, a page that includes the text "The California Pizza Kitchen in Paramus NJ is located off of US Highway 17" is included in your search.   Now, the highway in question is important enough that *most*, but certainly not all (my rough estimate is 90%), of the first 1000 results returned are relevant.  However the rate of relevant/irrelavant results decreases the further you go.  I don't have the time to check at around result 10,000 but I doubt it's much above 50%.  So, I still don't think this is a valid test.  Toiyabe 16:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  OK, so I tried to look at the results around 10,000, and Google won't let you get past 1,000.  So here's another way of looking at it - The search '+"Highway 17" +California +"New Hampshire"' returns ~99,000 results.  So, of the 250,000 results you got for "Highway 17" +California', 40% also include "New Hampshire".  You get a similar ratio for Colorado, Illinois and probably every other state in the union. Do you still think that search has any bearing on common usage in California?  Toiyabe 17:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  That's fine, but the problem is, not even the public knows whether to call them state routes or state highways in California. If you're going to try to permanently pin an article name on a fluid opinion, I'd opt for another naming scheme. —Rob (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's just resort to coin-flipping and random means to settle the question. —  Rickyrab | Talk 16:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's at least a sensible place to start as far as coming up with an initial proposal.  What say we:  compile a list of these on a state-by-state basis;  note which major users agree and disagree with that usage (news outlets, DOT, state DOT, references in legislation, etc);  and see if that leaves us any the wiser.  Alai 04:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we please wait until the RFC is over? It would help keep all of our stress levels down. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to inject my two cents, since the Virginia Highways WikiProject I hope to start soon will be dependant on this.  I say it's on a state-by-state basis as decided in the WikiProjects, or in the absence of a Project, decided in the appropriate high-level talk page.  I'd also like to point out Talk:Highway 401 (Ontario)#Ontario provincial highway 401 → Highway 401 where this was discussed and it failed, but again, on a state-by-state (or in that case province-by-province) basis, as British Columbia provincial highway 99 remains contrary to the routes in Ontario.  So I feel it should be done on a state-by-state basis.  --MPD01605 06:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we all (mostly) agree on that, however, the thing that's under debate now is what do we call the whole sets? Common names, or official names? ...Scott5114 07:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And the common names are... 

message: Okay, this email should end discussion of what to call it; it's just a matter of what the main article should be, and what the disambiguations should be.
:Thank you for your e-mail concerning the correct terminology when referring to Illinois marked routes. I’m not sure there is a “most right” form anymore (if there ever was one) but “Illinois Route 1” would appear to come the closest.
:In the 1920’s, routes were referred to most often as “Illinois Route 1” in formal documents. On official maps, however, they were often shown as “Ill. 1” and sometimes just “Route 1.” When used in correspondence and documents where the subject is apparent, “Illinois 1” and even “IL 1” are often used today. When route markers are not used, signing uses “Illinois 1,” although “IL 1” and “Ill 1” are sometimes used where space is a problem. By-the-way, as additions to your list, you could add “State Route 1” and “State Highway 1.”
:You might also run across “SBI 1.” In 1918, an organized system of state highways started with the first State Bond Issue (SBI) Routes. SBI 1 paid for Route 1, SBI 4 paid for Route 4, etc. Many of these old SBI numbers became the state route numbers. For example, Illinois 1 essentially follows the old SBI 1 alignment. Of course, many of the old SBI numbers no longer exist even as route numbers and new state route numbers have been added over the years.
When in doubt, ask. :-) Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois State Routes/External correspondence for full details. —Rob (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *So "Illinois Route X" is the formal name? If so then that is what we should use. The only other option that seems to make sense would be "Illinois X" however since the subject wouldn't be apparent in an encyclopedia article I don't know how useful that will be.JohnnyBGood 20:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From an out-of-stater's perspective, I would search "Illinois State Route 1", but that's after using Wikipedia.  If I were new, I'd search "Illinois Route X".  That's all I've got.  --MPD01605 01:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob, you're conflating two entirely separate issues.  It's one thing to say that "commonness" should be aggregated over a naming system (or a road system, whether it has much of naming system as such).  You might note that I've "voted" for that, above, in fact.  It's an entirely different thing to say that commonness is impossible to determine -- or should be ignored, is what you're really arguing for.  And it's a highly problematic position, as I've argued at length.  Alai 14:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IDOT stance

message: Hoping to get some clarifying input, I listed IL. (S)(R)1 on WP:RM.  What I actually got, of course, was SPUI showing up and moving it anyway.  There seems to be some sort of consensus for the new name on the basis of the above comments (however little attention this pays to the naming conventions), so perhaps fair enough (at least pro tempore).  Alai 04:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related page move 

message: I don't see where it was archived, or where it has been made a final proposal.  IMO this is ridiculous, as it gives articles counterintuitive names.  Almost no one, again IMO, is going to look up "State Route XX (State name)", but rather "State Name Route XX".   If they look up "State Name Highway XX", this can be handled by a redirect, but the proposed policy means nearly everyone looking something up is going to get redirected.  And for the life of me, I don't see how it is going to help international users that much, if at all.  I would be just as likely, maybe more, to search for  "Niedersachsen Landestraße 14" as "Landestraße 14 (Niedersachsen), to give an example.  If this is the case, don't we need to change the U.S. Highway system to "Route 79 (U.S.)" rather than "U.S. Route 79"?  FWIW, Rlquall 14:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree - most people will actually search for "State Route X" or the like, and find the disambiguation page. As for U.S. Routes, those are called U.S. Route X. Similarly, Maryland Route 3 is fine as MDSHA does use "Maryland Route X". --SPUI (T - C) 15:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree with SPUI- for an international audience it wouldn't be so. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep saying that. But you have no bloody evidence to back it up. --SPUI (T - C) 23:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, we're talking about it here now. —phh (t/c) 01:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparently still an open discussion?