Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Common name/Numbered name (Miami Problem) RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus for the proposed change. There has not been an establishment of consensus in favor of of a rule favoring the use of local common names for roads having a designated highway segment as part of a longer road with a common name. However, the absence of such a rule does not by itself dictate the names for the eight South Florida streets highlighted as examples; the appropriate name for each of these may still be considered on a case-by-case basis, which will necessarily take into account both the degree to which each usage is common, and the preference for consistency in article titles about similar topics. bd2412 T 16:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

In light of the lack of consensus reached in the requests to move Miami area-based common name-titled articles to numbered highway-titled articles and numbered highway-titled articles to common name-titled articles, should the common name of a road prevail as the article's title if:

  1. The numbered highway is a segment of the road that:
    1. Is shorter in length than the commonly-named road; and
    2. Lies completely (or with very minor deviation) from one terminus to the other terminus on that same road; and
  2. The common name is able to meet the article title criteria of precision, conciseness and naturalness?

-DyluckTRocket (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

SEE HERE FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION

Common name/Numbered name survey

  • Oppose. In general, local roads tend to not be notable. However, state highways tend to be notable. Therefore, it makes more sense to have the state highway designation take precedence, since in a lot of cases, the road probably wouldn't (or shouldn't) even have an article if it wasn't a state highway. This is the case even if locally the name is used more than the highway designation (since this is usually the case even for long, regionally important highways—for example, in northwest Oklahoma City, SH-3 is referred to universally as "Northwest Expressway", even though SH-3 is a 616-mile (991 km) highway that runs clear from Colorado to Arkansas). There is also the problem with title consistency; since we have a vast body of roads with the title "xxx State Highway/Route yy", it makes more sense to keep all the state highway names on that convention rather than to have some state highways titled under random roads, especially because state highway disambiguation is a solved problem, whereas there might be hundreds of roads with the same local name, even in the same state, so disambiguation is required. State road markers are usually prominent on maps, as well. It is also much simpler to have redirects from several local road names to one state highway designation than the other way around. Due to all of these reasons, I would oppose any guideline encouraging the use of local names over the state highway numbers in any situation. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Scott5114. Otherwise we open the can of worms leading to stuff like California State Highway 17. --Rschen7754 00:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Scott5114; he summarized my opinion pretty well. This is a naming convention, a guideline, and in a few cases, exceptions based on policy could be fashioned and discussed on an individual basis. However, this convention needs to be fairly clear for application to the widest number of cases. Imzadi 1979 → 00:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - State highway numbers should be the preferred method of naming the article over street names. Many state highways have multiple street names. Also, the route numbers are more notable than the road names, though the latter may be more popular locally. Dough4872 03:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with what I meant in my proposal, so I have made an appropriate addendum for clarification. I have added my thoughts in the discussion below. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I think more people refer to local roads by name than by route number, so it'd make sense for this to be the naming convention. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 12:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose — The common names of these roads are likely to be unfamiliar to anyone outside of the Miami area and most of these routes are concurrent with a numbered street that seems to be given equal billing in the field. Therefore, I do not think WP:COMMONNAME can be used here to justify keeping the articles at the "common name." Even if the state highway is a subset of common named road, the articles concentrate on the state highway. I do not see a problem with naming the article for a state highway even if much of the material is about the non-state portions. The common names will still redirect to the state highway number article title, so finding the road will not be a problem for those who know the non-numerical common name. The only situation in which a common or local name should be used is if the same named road includes two differently numbered highways, as in Old Court Road. Red Road comes closest to this exception, but does not fit it.  VC  18:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose use the numbered system as a standard, noting local names in the article text. Creating redirects from a local name to the numbered name if needed. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm late to the party, but I wish to express my support for using name-like names when those are truly the primary name for a highway or road. The Miami example has focused this discussion on the situation of local names for local roads, thus losing sight of the fact that some major roads are universally referred to by names rather than numbers. A conclusion for Miami should not be imposed on the rest of the world. It would be a very bad idea to insist that all articles about named roads like Taconic State Parkway, Dan Ryan Expressway, Bronx River Parkway, and the less widely known Pellissippi Parkway must be titled by road numbers rather than the names by which they are commonly known. --Orlady (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
    • There is a big difference between the freeways you listed and the urban and suburban arterials that are up for discussion here. The first three are very well known names that pass the common name test with flying colors. The fourth, speaking only partially authoritatively, passes the Red Road test, as Pellissippi Parkway is a continuous highway that includes the entire lengths of both Interstate 140 and Tennessee State Route 162. Consensus on Pellissippi Parkway could shift if the entire length ever became I-140, but for now it seems obvious to keep the article title.  VC  17:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
      • And for the case of the Dan Ryan example, there's the Interstate 90 in Illinois counter example. Since all of the Jane Addams Tollway and the Chicago Skyway are part of that state's segment of I-90, they were merged and redirected there. Yes, we have the concurrency of both I-90 and I-94 on the Dan Ryan, but rather than have 3 separate articles cover that section of freeway, we could have 2: all of the content on the Dan Ryan gets merged to Interstate 94 in Illinois and the appropriate content about it is duplicated in Interstate 90 in Illinois. There's ample precedent for duplication cause by roadway concurrencies: U.S. Route 41 in Michigan and M-28 (Michigan highway) each cover 60 miles (97 km) of the same roadway. U.S. Route 2 in Michigan overlaps with U.S. Route 41 in Michigan for 37 miles (60 km), of which 8 miles (13 km) is also M-35 (Michigan highway). These Michigan articles are all Featured. In any case, a commonly used name like "Dan Ryan Expressway" doesn't preclude an upmerger into a larger topic like "Interstate 94 in Illinois", especially when it removes one level of duplication (2 articles vs. 3). Imzadi 1979 → 18:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Mostly per WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Official names. When you have a name that is clearly well know and understood and actually used in the wild, why not use it? This is especially true when the alternative is to apply a name that does not cover the entire stretch of the road. Let's admit, that there is not going to be a perfect solution and is going to work for everyone. It is interesting to see how few comments there are here from those who are not regulars on the US road project. We need to remember that the focus is the reader and what the reader expects. Locally, I get questions about why some state highway ends in the middle of the road? Basically this is a problem with GPS devices which give a preference to a numbered designation, but sometimes show both. But it show a rear problem that the oppose position helps to continue. The argument that local roads tend to not be notable may or may not be true. The same can be said about numbered routes. However when a road is notable, why not use the local road name when it is the common name? Maybe the compromise is to use the numbered route, but allow renames to the common name when it is widely used, or even the most commonly used? No matter what, a blanket oppose to common names is just wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I'll echo Vegaswikian's comments above. There are countless examples across the country where a road name is used with more frequency than the route numbers and I think in those cases the common name should be used. I'm specifically thinking of most freeways around Los Angeles, New York and Chicago to name a few. There's also other routes outside of urban areas such as the Mohawk Trail or Mass Pike in Massachusetts, the Merritt or Wilbur Cross Parkways in CT and to a lessor extent, the Lincoln Highway which goes from New York City to San Francisco. Dbroer (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    • We are arguing for the use of route numbers instead of common names in article titles for locally known topics, such as the list of eight Miami streets that people outside of southeastern Florida are unlikely to be familiar with. We are not arguing for the use of common names instead of route numbers in article titles for nationally known topics like the ones you list. Full stop.  VC  20:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
      • OK, but I still support using common names in article titles for locally known topics for the reasons cited above. Stick with the common name as the route is known by, not some arbitrary number issued by a state or county office for administrative purposes. Full stop. Dbroer (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I think we have a problem with that though. Let's take a hypothetical example to illustrate the problem. In Anytown, Anystate, there's an arterial roadway called Main Street that connects on both ends of downtown to Freeway 1. Now the locals normally call it Main Street, but to the Anystate Department of Transportation, it's Highway 601. Based on our Notability policy, "Main Street (Anytown, Anystate)" would not get its own article; there aren't that many independent, secondary, reliable sources written about Main Street, as a subject. Sure, there are plenty of sources talking about a building on the National Register of Historic Places located on the street, or the routine minor car accidents downtown, but none that focus on the street itself. However, as a part of Wikipedia's coverage of the state highway system in Anystate, a topic that is notable in and of itself, there are several articles spun out of the main articles and lists of that system, including one on Highway 601. All of the major topics about a state highway can be documented (traffic counts, maintenance and ownership, lengths, history of the highway designation, etc) for Highway 601. In this case, if this Main Street wasn't a state highway, it would fail notability guidelines, and it would not have its own article. However, as Highway 601, it meets the criteria and gets an article. In this case, where the reason for the necessary notability to be granted an article is the state highway designation, that name should be the title and primary emphasis of the article. We can, and should, cover the other aspects of the roadway as well. Imzadi 1979 → 22:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
          • You can easily have a redirect from a state highway directory to the local or proper name an define the name as part of the article. Knowing the name or titling the article based on its proper name as opposed to it's route number. I would almost equate it with a patent number vs. the name of the invention. Most people would know it by its name, not number but you need the number to find details about the patent. Likewise, there are articles about people that use their common name instead of their given name, like Bill Clinton vs. William Jefferson Clinton. I just think that we should maintain that protocol here. As for notability, if the majority of the secondary sources refer to the road by it's name as oppose to its route number, I just think that is more evidence that we should use the name because that is how readers would find more information save administrative data as you pointed out but even there, the article would have the number as well. I can give some local examples where the newspaper would refer to certain numbered roads by their name and it's not just routine stuff. I would also say that it wouldn't fail the notability argument because it has a name and a number. Could we use the proper name and then the route number? e.g. Main Street (SR 601)? Dbroer (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
            • If the sources that establish the notability use the numbered name, that's what should matter. Passing references with the alternate name don't establish the notability. In my example, "Main Street" is not notable, and it would not survive at AfD as an article if it weren't a state highway. It's the Highway 601 name and status that confer the notability to maintain a Wikipedia article, and that's where the article should be titled. The Bill vs. William Clinton situation isn't analogous. Imzadi 1979 → 00:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
              • Actually, WP:N and WP:AT are two different guidelines. Does WP:N cover the article names? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
              • I was referring to sources that refer to the name and not the route number. That would determine notability for the name over the route number. I would argue that more people in CT refer to route 15 as the Wilbur Cross Parkway but that's probably known outside the region. There's other examples like Riverdale Road near Springfield, MA that is US 5 or the Mohawk Trail that is Route 2. There's also the Kancamagus Highway which is NH 112, The QEW in Ontario which is route 405, the Baltimore-Washington Parkway which is Route 295, War Memorial Drive which is US 150 or Knoxville which is SR 40 both in Peoria, IL, Chinden Blvd which is US 20 in Boise, ID. There's just lots of local/regional routes that are more known by their name and not their route number. Dbroer (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
                • In several of your examples though, you'd have sources to assert the notability of the names, which isn't the situation we're dealing with in my hypothetical Highway 601 (Main Street) example, nor in the Miami Street examples that instigated this discussion. In a few of your set of examples, the named highways are subsets of a larger logical topic, and they'd be "upmerged" into that topic. Riverdale Road is a subset of U.S. Route 5 in Massachusetts, and it could be adequately covered as part of that larger topic. If necessary, based on size concerns, they could be spun out as separate articles. Imzadi 1979 → 02:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
                  • The examples I gave included routes in cities and towns as well as across regions so take your pick - whatever the issue there are numerous examples of routes that are known more by their names than route numbers. Using your example of Main Street, War Memorial Blvd in Peoria is analogous. It's known as War Memorial, not US 150. But, since it's a subset, it would be covered at that level in your example, so how about Business Routes or the "secret routes" in Connecticut or Iowa? Those are numbered but not even known by their numbers and in most cases only cross one town. I'm sure there are examples in other states but I'm not going to take the time to list them right now. Suffice to say, where there's a few, there's others. Dbroer (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I fear that the scope of my intent is getting out of hand, i.e. a can of worms has been opened. What I originally intended it for was the succinctly described conditions above, and not an open invitation to rename every single numbered road to a common name. For most commonly-named roads with notability, they are part of a longer route that is common to more than one named segment of road: Numbered Route XY contains locally-named Road AB and Road CD. The way I see it, Route XY automatically gets naming priority over AB and CD because of this factor unless Road AB etc. is a notable-enough segment of Route XY to stand on its own merit without the Route XY designation. What I'm proposing here is for the opposite: Road AB contains all (or with a very minor deviation) of Route XY, and the length of Route XY is less than the length of Road AB. Pending the outcome of this proposal, perhaps we can look at expanding the scope at that time. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • My apologies if it seemed like I was trying to do that. I brought up other place because no matter where, Miami or elsewhere, I support that use of noted local names over a highway number when it contains the entirety of the numbered highway. Dbroer (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Then this RfC needs to be closed, and restarted with a narrower focus, quite possibly in a totally different location if it's only to apply to Miami-area roadways. Starting an RfC here means the application of any changes will be applied nationally as a change to this naming convention's text. Imzadi 1979 → 23:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I disagree that this RfC needs to be closed. The RfC was inspired by the Miami Problem, but not intended to specifically be limited to the Miami Problem. After all of the worms of the past two days, we are making progress by returning to that basis. I recommend we start a new section at the bottom with these very fine algebraic geometric representations. DyluckTRocket, can you re-set the table for us?  VC  04:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I can see that this problem would not be limited to the Miami area – I'm just not yet familiar with other parts of the US where this may also be applicable. Anyway, I've provided further clarification below. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Common name/Numbered name discussion

By "very minor deviation", I mean like in the example of Florida State Road 973 (Galloway Road) which uses a 190-yard-long (170 m) section of SW 132nd Street so as to link U.S. 1 to Galloway Road as the two roads do not have a direct intersection. Perhaps some more detailed criteria for this could be worked out? -DyluckTRocket (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think splitting the articles into two, one for "common" and one for "numbered" segments of the road would work without creating two articles that can't stand on their own very well and have less chances for improvement, and thus should be avoided. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I did my own personal survey of the highways in the discussions about moving the road name article to the state highway article to aid my understanding:

  • Bird Road: SR 976 includes about two-thirds of the length of Bird Road. The article focuses mostly on the state highway portion.
  • Coral Reef Drive: SR 992 includes about a quarter of the length of Coral Reef Drive. The Route description talks about much of the county portion in addition to the state portion, but the article still tips to the state portion.
  • Coral Way (street): SR 972 includes about a quarter of the length of Coral Way. The article is focused evenly on the state and county portions. The county portion is notable for passing through Coral Way (neighborhood), a neighborhood of Miami named for the street. The neighborhood article is pretty well developed and could absorb the information about the county portion of the highway if the street article were moved and reduced to just information about the state highway. The disambiguation could be removed if the street and neighborhood articles were merged.
  • Flagler Street: SR 968 is about three-fourths of the length of Flagler Street. The article is almost entirely about the state highway portion. The state highway includes a one-way pair for which one direction is not on Flagler Street.
  • Galloway Road: SR 973 is about one-third of the length of Galloway Road. The road is split into seven sections, of which the part that includes the state highway is the longest. The Route description evenly covers the county and state portions, but the article still tilts toward the state portion.
  • Kendall Drive: SR 94 is about three-quarters of the length of Kendall Drive. The article focuses mostly on the state highway portion.
  • Le Jeune Road: SR 953 is about three-quarters of the length of Le Jeune Road. The article focuses mostly on the state highway portion.
  • Sunset Drive: SR 986 includes a little over half of the length of Sunset Drive. The article focuses mostly on the state highway portion.

All of these road names but Flagler Street are signed concurrently with or subservient to numbered streets. It is not clear (to me, anyway) whether these names or the numbered street names are in more common usage.  VC  02:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I also found the Template:Greater Miami navbox, which has a list of 50 Major thoroughfares. That is presumably a list of streets that some editors would like to see used in preference to state route numbers.

  • East 6th Avenue: SR 915
  • North 36th Street: US 27 in Florida
  • North 54th Street: SR 944
  • North 79th Street: SR 934
  • North 103rd Street: SR 932
  • North 125th Street: SR 922
  • North 135th Street: SR 916
  • West 7th Avenue: US 441 in Florida
  • West 12th Avenue: SR 933
  • West 27th Avenue: SR 9
  • West 107th Avenue: SR 985
  • Allapattah Road: SR 989
  • Alton Road: SR 907
  • Bird Road: redirects from SR 976. WP:USST article.
  • Biscayne Boulevard: US 1 in Florida
  • Brickell Avenue: US 1 in Florida. Brickell Avenue is a well known street in itself, so it could become a standalone WP:USST article.
  • Broad Causeway: SR 922. Broad Causeway may be notable enough for its own article.
  • Collins Avenue: WP:USST article. Very well known street.
  • Coral Reef Drive: redirects from SR 992. WP:USST and USRD article.
  • Coral Way: redirects from SR 972 to Coral Way (street). WP:USST and USRD article. The non-state portion of Coral Way includes a well known canopied section that may be notable enough to become its own street article.
  • County Line Road: SR 852
  • Douglas Road: WP:USST article. Officially Douglas Road (Miami).
  • Flagler Street: redirects from SR 968. Is a WP:USST article. The street may be notable enough to spin off as its own article separate from a SR 968 article.
  • Galloway Road: redirects from SR 973. WP:USST and USRD article.
  • Gratigny: SR 924
  • Ives Dairy Road: former SR 854
  • Julia Tuttle Causeway: I-195 (Florida). The causeway forms the eastern half of I-195. Is very likely notable enough to have its own article.
  • Kendall Drive: redirects from SR 94
  • John F. Kennedy Causeway: SR 934. JFK Causeway may be notable enough for its own article.
  • Killian: SR 990. There is extensive description of the county portion of the highway.
  • Krome Avenue: SR 997
  • William Lehman Causeway: SR 856. This is a causeway in name only; the over-water portion is very short.
  • Le Jeune Road: redirects from SR 953
  • Ludlam Road: WP:USST article
  • MacArthur Causeway: Article about the causeway
  • Miami Avenue: WP:USST article
  • Miami Gardens Drive: SR 860
  • Milam Dairy Road: SR 969
  • Miracle Mile: Miracle Mile (Coral Gables). WP:USST article
  • Okeechobee Road: US 27 in Florida
  • Old Cutler Road: WP:USST article
  • Port Boulevard: SR 886
  • Quail Roost Drive: SR 994
  • Red Road: Red Road (Miami). WP:USST article. Red Road, which has two segments, includes portions of SR 959 and SR 823. However, Red Road is not the redirect target of either. SR 959 is entirely on Red Road. SR 823 is on Red Road and Flamingo Road.
  • Rickenbacker Causeway: Article about the causeway
  • South Dixie Highway: US 1 in Florida
  • Sunset Drive: redirects from SR 986
  • Tamiami Trail: USRD article about the Miami to Tampa highway. Notable enough to be its own article.
  • Venetian Causeway: Article about the causeway
  • West Dixie Highway: SR 909

I was specifically looking for a street that contains two different state highways on different parts of the same road. An example of such a thing is Old Court Road, which carries Maryland Routes 125 and 133, which are separated from Old Court Road's endpoints and each other by county sections of the highway. The closest thing to that in this list is Red Road.  VC  16:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue that these articles are facing is that one type of naming seems to break the another's convention according to WP:CRITERIA. As the counter-argument put forward at the Name to Number Proposal shows, WP:COMMONNAME (and to a lesser extent, WP:OFFICIAL) was the preferred method of naming those articles as it was more recognisable and natural. The counter-argument put forward at the Number to Name Proposal was that the State Highway-hoodiness of those roads gave them notability (WP:N) and that WP:USSH allows for a more precise and consistent method of naming the roads. I believe that both of these arguments are equally valid, and that a compromise needs to be reached between the two. As VC pointed out, Old Court Road already provides a precedent to my suggestion with it wholly containing not one but two separate state highways in Maryland and is more precise as to what I meant. I think there's been confusion as to how my proposal would apply, as it appears that the opposing arguments address it not in the light of the qualifiers but with a broadbrush approach. I can see from a map of OK SH-3 how it could be called the Northwest Expressway in Oklahoma City; but would it be referred to that name in Broken Bow or Guymon? I doubt it. And it seems pretty obvious to me that the designation of CA SR-17 is intrinsic to one section of a notable road that is numbered otherwise from its northern terminus (though, please forgive my ignorance as to any prior contention). In both of these cases, according to my proposal, the State Highway article titles would apply and it would make sense that they would apply. I'm fairly confident in saying that the status quo would continue to apply to the vast majority of articles in USRD's care. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Closing this thread

This discussion has been mostly dead for two weeks. Can an uninvolved admin make a finding and close this down?  VC  01:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I concur. It seems consensus has been reached. Where to from here? -DyluckTRocket (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Step 1 would be for an admin to move the content and history of each of the eight articles to the Florida State Road XXX article name and create a redirect at the "common name" article. Step 2 is to rewrite the Lead of each article so it refers to the topic primarily as Florida State Road XXX instead of the "common name."  VC  17:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of "Miami Problem" proposal

Since there's been some confusion as to what I've proposed here, I've created a diagram to explain what this guideline would apply to (updated August 20 07:00 UTC). This proposal is for the road/route combinations that meet conditions 1 and 2 at the start of this section and as illustrated in the diagram that may occur anywhere in the United States and not just Miami. Just so that I'm doubly clear, this proposal is not an open invitation to change the title of every numbered route article to a common name title.

Please (re-)state whether or not you support this proposal here. I would also like to hear thoughts on what would be considered an acceptable "very minor deviation". -DyluckTRocket (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Still oppose—and I think your diagram is still confusing things. It's implying that AB is always the focus of the article, when that isn't always the case, and it's using misleading and inaccurate/imprecise terminology. Some points:
    1. What you are calling "numbered routes" or "XY" should be "official state highway designations" or "official county road designations". Some state highways and county roads are assigned letters, not numbers.
    2. Some "official state highway designations" are names, like the New Jersey Turnpike or Florida's Turnpike, and any number, like Route 700 or SR 91, it might have is for internal inventory purposes.
    3. Some minor roadways are only notable because they bear an official state highway designation. In that case, it doesn't matter what the locals call the road, if it weren't a state highway, we wouldn't have an article about it. These articles should be titled at the official designations, because they are part of the series of articles composing the totality of the topic on a state's highway system.
    4. Having an official county road designation doesn't mean a roadway is notable.
    5. In cases where a larger subject roadway encompasses several related, shorter roadway names, we can and should merge them together where practical. This is the fourth example in your gray box. Interstate 90 in Illinois encompasses several shorter named tollways and expressways in the Chicago area, and the article encompasses all of them.
    6. In some cases, we may end up with overlapping and seemingly redundant articles, which is fine. Some of your grayed out examples could conceivably have articles on both the XY and the AB... and that's fine so long as the AB can demonstrate independent notability.
    Your proposal doesn't satisfy my numbered points, and until it does, I continue to oppose it. Imzadi 1979 → 01:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Imzadi1979 and my oppose above. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose For individual cases this may be an appropriate solution, but I am a bit nervous about making this a general rule when we can't foresee all the cases that this would apply to. --Rschen7754 04:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, with some categorical exceptions, per WP:CRITERIA. I use the term "local name" to refer to the descriptive name of a road as opposed to the "numerical name" assigned by some level of government. WP:CRITERIA characteristics:
    1. Recognizability: In most cases, if a route under a numerical name is short enough that it has only one local name, it likely does not qualify as recognizable. If it is recognizable, it is likely a famous street known more for its surroundings than for being a state highway. If that is the case, the local name should be notable enough to have its own article. If recognizability cannot be established, then the highway should use the appropriate nomenclature established in the state route naming convention several years ago, from which a reader will instantly know the article is about a state highway, but need to dig deeper to find out which one.
      • I conjecture recognizability will become the main principle of this discussion. I realize recognizability is subjective. To make it less so, we need to define the scope of recognizability. Is the local name recognizable on a county level? State level? Nationally? Internationally?
    2. Naturalness: Almost all local names are more natural than state highway designations, but very few are distinctive enough to lend themselves to use without disambiguation or prominent enough to stake a claim as being the primary topic. There are hundreds of Telegraph Roads, River Roads, and Post Roads; thousands of roads named after someone's mill (Jones Mill Road), a local waterway (Beaver Creek Road), or a nearby town (Clarksville Pike); and tens of thousands of Main Streets. Having to use parentheses in an article title is not natural; in fact, by comparison, the numerical name rolls better off the tongue.
    3. Precision: In most cases, the numerical name is more precise than the local name, particularly when the local name needs to be disambiguated with a parenthetical.
    4. Conciseness: By itself, the local name is more concise, but the often-necessary disambiguation makes it less concise than the numerical name.
    5. Consistency: Numerical names are consistent by definition. This highway is a state route in a particular state. Local names are more interesting, but they are far from consistent.

I will wait a little before introducing some categorical exceptions.  VC  11:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm addressing the presented concerns in this thread here in reply to all of the above. First of all, I have updated the diagram to further clarify what I meant and, I hope, address some of the concerns with it. I'm sorry for any confusion I may have caused. As Imzadi1979 pointed out, the only reason why the common name is the focus of the diagram is because that is what the article title would be if and when the guideline applied to that particular situation, not due to any personal bias or the like. I'm trying to be as neutral as I can here. Overall, I'm not proposing sweeping changes to WP:USRD's inventory of articles; just a guideline for when a situation highlighted by the Miami Problem occurs. I already agree with most points of concern.
I'm going to go through Imzadi1979's points one-by-one first:
  1. I hope I am now using better or the correct terminology in the diagram in regards to the difference between the common and officially-designated names.
  2. As above. Also, as per established practice, an officially-designated name would continue to apply over a number used for internal inventory purposes (e.g. HEFT and not Florida State Road 821).
  3. Like VC, I think this is the crux of conjecture; everything else is a technicality. I've addressed my views of this below these numbered points.
  4. This guideline is not designed to nor should be used to circumvent the notability criteria for a county-designated road. The status quo would continue for them.
  5. The fourth example in the grey box is meant to illustrate situations like Oklahoma State Highway 3, as Scott5114 highlighted, which I believe covers the majority of articles under WP:USRD's care: an officially-designated route (XY) contains multiple commonly-named roads (AB, CD ... n1n2). The article would continue to be called by the official name. Also, I support merging of articles as in the case of Interstate 90 in Illinois: this, too, would also continue, especially since the officially-designated route is longer than and is unconstrained by the common names (thus not falling under this guideline at all). Furthermore, in the case of sub-pages of longer routes, such as the state pages of national routes, these would also continue in their current format.
  6. I totally agree with Imzadi1979 here. If a common name segment of an officially-designated route can demonstrate independent notability, it should continue to be or else become its own article. Once again, the common name is a segment of the official route (XY > AB), so the guideline would not apply.
I feel most of the arguments in opposition so far have been on the basis of notability, and have tried to qualify by opposing the objective, technical aspects of the proposed guideline (which the first condition covers). VC has pointed out what the true issue of contention is with the guideline by referring it back to WP:CRITERIA, the subjective aspects of the proposed guideline (the second condition). The title criteria is what sparked me to suggest the guideline in the first place! Let me recap what's happened in regards to that:
  1. I put forward a move request on eight articles that are still referred to by their common names. This was rejected on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME (WP:UCN), with the argument that WP:USSH is applied in contradiction to WP:COMMONNAME and thus the Recognisable WP:CRITERIA, going so far to say: "WP:COMMONNAME is clear that WP prefers commonly used names to 'official' names when there is a conflict".
  2. Apparently emboldened by this decision, a counter-proposal was put forward after the first proposal's closure to move four articles from their official-designation titles to their common names. This argument was rejected on the basis of notability, which has been repeated many times in the arguments against this proposed guideline. VC suggested that a RfC should be made regarding this issue: you're looking at it right now. (On a side note, I find it odd that Florida State Road 990/"Killian" was not suggested for a move in the counter-proposal: my guess is due to it being both Killian Parkway and Killian Drive.)
So, let us put any technical issues aside, here, as I feel they've been addressed; or if not, are secondary in importance. What the real issue is regarding these articles and any others like it is that, in striving to meet WP:CRITERIA, it either sacrifices WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NOTABILITY. The method I'm proposing is intended to be a compromise between WP:UCN and WP:N, and can act as a reference for this situation across the entire project. Perhaps in my endeavouring to be succinct I haven't made my intentions clear, but there it is in black and white.
In regards to VC's concerns regarding WP:CRITERIA, the use of the common name leans more in favour of Recognisability and Naturalness, while the use of the official name leans more towards Precision, Conciseness and Consistency (particularly the last one). If you want to go on a simple majority rule, then the official name wins 3 to 2. Judging by the arguments, though, particularly when I tried to change the commonly-named articles to officially-named ones, it seems to me like a lot of weight is put on Recognisability and Naturalness, suggesting ordinality rather than cardinality of the criteria. Is this the case? I don't know for sure, but if Recognisability alone was able to quash my move request, then that is what I feel the greatest concern is, too. This is something that, should this guideline be approved, that we will have to work out criteria for. Do we use the newspaper of record of the city or state the road's in? Do we use state DOT inventories? Or what do we do? We can't rely on original research and do straw polls; even so, I'm sure the answer will be similar to if I was to ask someone in Brisbane whether they know it as and call it Route 32 or Milton Road (and I'm fairly sure it's the latter). I'm pretty confident to say that the Recognisable road name for most people interested in a road are going to be those who are local to it. Does that make it notable? Probably not as much as, say, State Route XYZ123, and I concede that fact; but, it brings it into line with WP:UCN. The same goes for Naturalness; yes, they will probably need parentheses on articles. As it is, I want to see Galloway Road become Galloway Road (Miami) even though there's no other article called that due to the simple fact that when I type "Galloway Road" into Google Maps, none of the auto-suggested Galloway Roads are in Miami. Doing so would make it more Precise, but at the cost of being Concise; and certainly at the cost of Consistency. Heck, I suggested the move in the first place so that they would be Consistent; but, apparently that doesn't weigh much in the face of WP:UCN. With this guideline, the article titles would be Consistent - consistent with this guideline as an exception to the normal consistency of WP:USRD's articles. It would also meet WP:UCN and be notable for those most likely to read the articles. Look, I agree it's not perfect, but it's better than having this issue unresolved. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I want to say I support this, but it's clear that I don't understand either this proposal or whatever it is that the current rule is supposed to say. It's next to impossible to implement a general guideline if it is this difficult to understand. --Orlady (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The proposal says that if State Route X entirely runs on Named Road A and State Route X is shorter than Named Road A, then Named Road A may be used as the name of the article instead of State Route X. State Route X should be used in all other cases.  VC  22:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interstate 595 problem

Look at Talk:Interstate 595. I proposed a move of Interstate 595 to Interstate 595 (disambiguation) and Interstate 595 (Florida) (the only highway officially signed as I-595) to Interstate 595. But people were against the move, not paying enough attention; they were under the impression that this move was as arbitrary as a move of Interstate 295 (Florida) to Interstate 295. It was not. All 8 (or more generally, at least 2) of the highways on the Interstate 295 dis-ambiguation page are officially signed as "Interstate 295", and each highway has a vicinity where residents know the highway as "Interstate 295". On the other hand, for Interstate 595, the Florida highway is officially signed and known as Interstate 595, but the Maryland highway is not. I find it very natural to think that someone who searches for Interstate 595 will very unlikely want to find the Maryland highway because people who live there know the highway as part of US 50, and will unlikely expect Wikipedia to have an article about the highway titled Interstate 595. It's surprising that people support equal-topic dis-ambiguation for the Florida and Maryland highways in this case as if both were officially signed as Interstate 595. Any questions?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one big suggestion. Drop the combative attitude. Make a case without denigrating other editors. As for your points, I'd support moving The Florida I-595 to primary topic and using a hatnote to point to the unsigned Maryland highway, which despite your protestations, is still officially I-595 albeit unsigned. (I-296 is still officially I-296, even though Michigan has had official permission not to sign it for 35 years now.) When there are only two ambiguous titles, one primary with a hatnote to the other would be appropriate. However, we have the proposal out of Maryland to number the I-170 freeway and an uncompleted stub of I-70 in Baltimore as I-595, and there's the Virginia proposal for a segment of US 1. Even if we could discount the I-70/I-170 situation (like we mostly discount the 1958 proposal out of Michigan to number what is now I-275 as I-73 and what is now I-696 as I-98), we can't currently eliminate the Virginia proposal. That means 3 ambiguous titles, and that means a disambiguation page.
The short version: if there were only Florida and the current Maryland highways, we could do this with a hatnote. However, we have a three- or four-way ambiguity, so the status quo is appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 23:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
You're implying that I want the dis-ambiguation page deleted, rather than moving it to Interstate 595 (disambiguation). Moving the page won't affect what it means; and it doesn't imply that we don't need it. Georgia guy (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Long-standing consensus is not to use "(disambiguation)" as part of an article title in these cases. Various templates are built with the underlying assumption that an undisambiguated Interstate Highway is either the national article (for a 2dI) or a disambiguation page (for a 3dI, when not unique). Your proposal would upset that assumption. That's one example, and proposing changes to the scheme of the naming conventions has been viewed as highly contentious. Imzadi 1979 → 01:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Look at Interstate 410 for an analogy. This is the only other Interstate highway number with exactly one highway that's current, official, and signed; and at least 2 highways that don't meet this criterion. Georgia guy (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
For I-595, I oppose making the Florida route the primary topic since there is also a current route in Maryland, even though it is unsigned, along with a couple former routes. As for I-410, I am okay with the Texas route being the primary topic since it is the only current route and a dab page handles the former routes well. If there are two or more current Interstates of the same number, then none of them should be the primary topic, regardless of signage. Dough4872 23:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
You mean, many Marylanders know the highway as if it were actually signed as I-595 (whether it is or not)?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
No, most Maryland residents know the freeway connecting Washington and Annapolis as US 50 but it is still officially I-595 according to the official FHWA and MDSHA sources. Therefore, there are officially two current I-595's that exist along with the couple planned ones that were cancelled. Signage or lack thereof should not determine the primary topic, as Maryland may choose one day to sign that portion of US 50 as I-595. Therefore, I feel the status quo is best. Dough4872 00:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
See this. It suggests that the event you're talking about is very unlikely. Do you have any arguments supporting the statement that it's possible?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I still think using signage as the barometer for what the primary topic should be is not the best way and that we should stick to disambiguating if there are at least two current roads with the designation, in addition to the two former roads. Dough4872 00:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Why?? Why should current-official-unsigned highways be as significant as current-official-signed highways?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
My $.02 we should be using common names in articles (except where it is not practical to do so, which admittedly does happen a lot with road articles). Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not roadgeeks. As such if the general public is not aware of the I-595 designation, that should not be the article title provided the common title (US 50) is workable (which it is in this case). Of course the I-595 designation does need to be mentioned (preferably in the lead) of the article and redirects should be created, as appropriate. I will admit that there are several scenarios where no common title is workable and we have little choice but to use the unsigned designation for the article title. Now if we were writing an article for Roadgeekapedia, I would have a different POV.Dave (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I get it, that what I'm basically implying in this case is that the I-595 (Maryland) article be merged back into the US 50 article (since both articles already exist). I do believe it is appropriate in this case. If consensus is against the merge, then I guess we have no choice but to use I-595 (Maryland) as the article title. Given that, the Interstate in Florida is the primary topic to a general audience, to Georgia Guy's point. I'll leave it to others to determine how badly that would break templates and if we should not go with that convention to avoid breaking templates. i'm out of the loop on templates. Dave (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Of all of the goals of article titles, one is consistency, and the proposal would completely toss out a consistency goal in this case. Even though there is nothing else named "M-185" or "M185", we still use M-185 (Michigan highway) as the title to be consistent with the couple hundred other articles on highways in Michigan. There are multiple I-595s, but if there were only the two, I wouldn't have an issue with using the un-disambiguated title for the Florida one with a hatnote to the Maryland one. However there are others, and it's not appropriate to use hatnotes to point to multiple alternate articles. For that reason, and to stay consistent with the other auxiliary Interstate Highway articles, the un-disambiguated title should be the disambiguation page and each highway gets the appropriate state name to give each a unique title, even if those titles are used on redirects. Imzadi 1979 → 01:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
You're saying, "...and it's not appropriate to use hatnotes to point to multiple alternate articles." But this is not what I want. I merely want Interstate 595 (Florida) to be at Interstate 595 with a hatnote pointing solely to the dis-ambiguation page at Interstate 595 (disambiguation). And note the part of this discussion absent from the part we already had; this brought up a new title, Interstate 410, to compare Interstate 595 with. Georgia guy (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: The I-410 example should be changed to conform to the predominant situation followed by the other 3dIs. There a few rules at work here:

  1. If there is only one highway with the designation, then no disambiguation is necessary. Because the templates have assumed disambiguation by state, we have a redirect. For an example, Interstate 696 is unique, and so that templates would continue to link to it, Interstate 696 (Michigan) was created as a redirect.
  2. If there are exactly two highways with the same designation, and if both are current, then neither is the primary topic. See Interstate 375 and both Interstate 375 (Michigan) and Interstate 375 (Florida). For intentional links to the disambiguation page, there is the Interstate 375 (disambiguation) redirect.
  3. If there are exactly two highways with the same designation, and one was unbuilt/cancelled, then the current highway is the primary topic. The unbuilt/cancelled highway is disambiguated. A hatnote links readers from the primary topic to the secondary topic, as in Interstate 605 and Interstate 605 (Washington)
  4. If there are more than two highways with the same designation, the same rule is followed as example 2. See Interstate 270 and the four highways listed there for an example. Also note that for the Illinois–Missouri example, there is a pair of state-specific redirect from those two states to keep the templates happy.

There are multiple goals in determining what to title an article. One is to keep titles concise, but another is to keep them consistent. Your proposal would satisfy the former but not the latter. Imzadi 1979 → 07:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep articles consistent?? Now, what is the current status quo of Interstate 595 consistent with?? My answer would be as follows: if the dis-ambiguation page George Bush had 4 people, exactly one of which is well-known as "George Bush", and each of the other 3 people is a person whose legal name is "George Bush" (middle name irrelevant,) but who is best known by a name like "Gus Bush". (I'm not saying that this is the status quo of the George Bush dis-ambiguation page; I'm merely giving this as an example of what the status quo of Interstate 595 keeps the page consistent with.) Georgia guy (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Your example doesn't quite apply, Georgia guy. I want to keep the titling scheme consistent with other highway articles. How articles on biographies of politicians are title is not exactly relevant to a naming convention on highways in the United States. Imzadi 1979 → 04:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep titles consistent?? Now, when is an appropriate situation for keeping titles consistent?? If the article subjects have consistent descriptions, then it makes sense for the article titles to be consistent. But look at this inconsistency:
  • Interstate 295 (Florida) = One of 7 Interstate highways in the United States currently signed as I-295; it can be distinguished from the other I-295's by the state it's in.
  • Interstate 595 (Florida) = The only Interstate highway in the United States currently signed as I-595.

The subjects have inconsistent descriptions; so I see the "keep titles consistent" artificial here. Georgia guy (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The guideline says to use the "Interstate X (State)" naming convention for auxiliary interstates whenever the route number is repeated in more than one location. The guideline also does not use the "Interstate X (disambiguation)" theme, because of the state disambiguation practice. The naming of highway articles in this guideline is not contingent upon the status of highway signs on the route.
A similar case existed with Interstate 580. Prior to 2012, there was Interstate 580 (California) and an active but unsigned designation for Interstate 580 (Nevada) (a former Interstate 580 (Nebraska) designation also existed). Even though only the one I-580 in California was actually signed from the 1980's until 2012 (when Nevada I-580 was completed and signed), Wikipedia has used Interstate 580 as a disambiguation page since 2005.
Even though the Maryland I-595 may not be signed, it still exists as a separate entity from I-595 in Florida. Thus, the state name disambiguation is still needed for these articles, as what was done with the I-580 situation. Moving the title as proposed introduces an article naming inconsistency that is not currently present and that goes against precedent. Georgia guy, if you can produce a logical argument for changing article titles against guideline and current practice (and that isn't solely based on an "it's the only signed I-595 in the country" reasoning), then I'd certainly be willing to entertain it. -- LJ ↗ 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
For the Maryland highway, it's known by Marylanders as a part of US highway 50. Someone who wants to find an article on the highway would expect it to be found at US 50, not at Interstate 595. In fact, there's already an article titled U.S. Route 50 in Maryland, which is what someone would most likely expect. Now, here are 2 questions for you to answer:
  1. What if there were a Wikia wiki whose subject is the state of Florida?? What would you support??
  2. What if there were a Wikia wiki whose subject is the state of Maryland?? What would you support??

My answers are:

  1. Interstate 595 should actually be an article on that wiki.
  2. Interstate 595 should re-direct to U.S. Route 50 on that wiki.

What are you answers?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This isn't Wikia, and how they do things has no relevance here. --Rschen7754 19:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm asking these questions to show exactly the difference between a current-official-signed Interstate highway designation and an Interstate highway designation that's former, future, or unsigned. I see current-official-signed Interstate highways as more natural to expect than former, future, or unsigned highways. Many Interstate highways occur at least twice as current-official-signed highways, an example is Interstate 295. All the current-official-signed I-295's are known as I-295 by the residents of their vicinity. So it would make sense for someone who wants to search for any of those to search for the name Interstate 295. But Interstate 595 occurs only once as a current-official-signed highway. I'm sure that someone who searches for Interstate 595 will most likely want to find an article on the Florida highway; it's signed as I-595 and it's known by the residents of its vicinity as I-595. The Maryland highway is an unsigned I-595; the local residents of its vicinity know it as part of US 50. So it's most likely that someone will expect an article on the Maryland highway to be titled U.S. Route 50 in Maryland; I strongly doubt that someone who wants to search for the Maryland highway will type "Interstate 595". Georgia guy (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
If I want to read articles about every current official interstate numbered 595, having no prior knowledge of any of them, it is unreasonable to expect me to search for "U.S. Route 50".
You're pretty much repeating yourself now. I'm fairly convinced at this point that you don't have a reasonable rationale or explanation (other than signing status) to explain why we should rename the I-595 articles as something inconsistent with the long-established article naming convention. Time to let it go... -- LJ ↗ 21:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Now, if you really want to keep me from having this discussion again, you should create a Wikipedia essay. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
So in other words, WP:IDHT? --Rschen7754 21:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion to rename U.S. Highway System articles

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#Major_proposal_to_rename_USH_articles about renaming U.S. Highway System articles. Your input is appreciated. –Fredddie™ 22:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

NJ 23 versus Route 23 in text

I'm sure this has been discussed out the yin-yang, but I feel I must insert my thoughts. I don't think its appropriate to refer to New Jersey State Routes as simply "Route xx" in the article text, but to call Interstates and US Routes as "I-xx" and "US xx". Its inconsistent. To New Jerseyans, they are all simply "Route xx" while to NJDOT they get their prefixes (SLDIAG's all list the state routes as being "NJ xx", for example). Anyway, I'd argue that they should either all be simply "Route xx" (including the US and I routes) or that the state routes should be "NJ xx". Famartin (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, "Route xx" is used generically for any class of highway: Route 80, Route 30, Route 21. However, we apply specific abbreviations to Interstates, U.S. Highways, and even county roads. Is that correct? I personally wouldn't have any issue with changing it to "NJ xx". –Fredddie™ 13:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Correct. Famartin (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@Dough4872 and Mitchazenia: do either of you have an opinion here? Please ping any other editors who may want to voice either way. –Fredddie™ 13:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm okay with switching the state routes to "NJ X" since it seems like "Route X" is a generic term to refer to any numbered route maintained by NJDOT. Dough4872 14:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
For the states I'm familiar with state documentation uses the term "SR" and the only time I see the state abbreviation is in roadgeek websites. The convention I have used so far is to use SR when talking about a route in the same state as the subject of the article, but when taking about a state route in a different state use "CA" or "NV" or "CO", whatever, for clarity. An example of this is U.S. Route 50 in Nevada which does mention Utah State Route 201. With that said, I don't think it matters what term we use (SR, SH, Route, Highway, state abbriviation, etc.), as long as we're consistent in style in side the same article. Dave (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"U.S." vs. "US" in article titles

There was a discussion back in October 2017 about the usage of "U.S." vs. "US" in the MOS section (MOS:US) in terms of what the MOS recommends. The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.) has recommended dropping the periods for eight years now, and based on the survey of other major style guides given as a part of the discussion, our MOS was updated to encourage "US" as the default over "U.S." for commonality reasons, while allowing the continuing usage of the latter.

Should we update this naming convention for article titles to drop the periods, moving U.S. Route 66 to US Route 66, et al.? We need not worry at this time about any technical issues with moving pages; we can enlist bots, etc. to assist with the actual work. Imzadi 1979 → 15:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Honestly I don't care whether or not we use periods in "U.S." If we are gonna change the article titles, while the bots can do all the moving of pages we are also gonna need to drop the periods from prose mentions and I'm not sure a bot can do that. My concern is that we may need a lot of human work to change instances of "U.S." to "US" in articles. Dough4872 17:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
In many articles, the abbreviated form is already "US #" while the full name spelled out is "U.S. Highway/Route X", and it wouldn't actually be that hard for a bot to change all instances of "U.S." to "US" within the text of an article. Again, let's not dwell on technical issues as there are bots that can handle all of this. Imzadi 1979 → 18:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
If that's the case, I don't care about what we do. We can keep the status quo or we can drop the periods from the article titles and prose mentions, I'll be fine with either option. Dough4872 18:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
There should be no issue with a find and replace of "U.S." to "US". The only human check would be for when the dotted abbreviation is also the end of a sentence. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Is that MOS discussion fairly settled now? It seems like it started by one editor being BOLD. --Rschen7754 19:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
The change was made to the MOS page in October, and that change has been left in place at MOS:US. Imzadi 1979 → 19:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I've found this to be one of the worst inconsistencies both in US articles as well as Canadian connecting articles. Dotting abbreviations in general seems to be something that's dropped away, so... to use one, we should do this ASAP, and not A.S.A.P. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would say this is a case where the U.S. nomenclature is established, which is fine per MOS:US. It just seems like a lot of work, even as performed by bots, just for something that's essentially a cosmetic change. If this were 2005 when USRD was starting up, I'd support moving everything to US, but not today. –Fredddie™ 22:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support because I think that we should be consistent with MOS, and I don't think it would be too difficult to move the pages (post-SRNC was much worse). With that being said, I would request that this discussion remain open for at least 30 days as this could be a contentious change, and possibly consider adding a RFC tag for increased visibility. --Rschen7754 02:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral - If we wanna change the abbreviations to match, that's fine. But I'm fine if we do nothing and leave it as is. Dough4872 03:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment—the issue of dots vs. no dots messed with U.S. Route 25 in Michigan during its TFA appearance today. (See Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors for more.) The text was changed, abbreviations and all, to the dotted form (so, yes, "U.S. 25" appeared throughout the article text) for a while on the logic that because the article title itself used the dots that the text had to as well.

@Fredddie, Floydian, Rschen7754, and Dough4872:, can we circle back to this discussion? I'm reposting at WT:USRD to generate some additional input, but it would be nice to close this discussion. Imzadi 1979 → 22:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose - MOS:US seems to have been adjusted again. There is no recommendation to use one or the other, beyond stating that "U.S." should not be intermixed with other non-period-separated country abbreviations (such as UK). I suspect that there are few, if any, instances of that within this project, so it seems like a large undertaking for no real benefit. (However, I must admit a certain bias in that I find "U.S. Route 66" more aesthetically pleasing than "US Route 66".) --Sable232 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
    @Sable232: what of the current inconsistency between "U.S. Route 66" and its abbreviation, "US 66"? As for the "large undertaking", there are bots for that, so there would be little actual effort needed to make the change once a bot or two are set up to handle everything. Imzadi 1979 → 23:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
    Since it's abbreviated to keep it concise for junction lists, I think that's fine. A quick spot-check of some articles finds that in prose, the name is shortened to "U.S. X" at least as often as "US X", if not more so, so I think any existing inconsistency is irrespective of which option is selected. --Sable232 (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I maintain my original position. –Fredddie™ 23:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
    I just want to put on record that I personally think the CMOS argument is a red herring. Wikipedia is not beholden to the CMOS, so citing it to push through this change just isn't convincing me. –Fredddie™ 23:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I understand the concern, but if they don't like the periods, they're really not gonna like the rest of USSH and just about every state highway FA except Michigan. --Rschen7754 00:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I forgot that I actually supported this several months ago. I am okay with moving the articles and don't think the workload should prohibit us from doing it... however, I apparently don't feel very strongly on this either way if other editors aren't okay with the change. --Rschen7754 21:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - consider my vote to be a vote for consistency, whichever form it may take. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Again, I do not care what we do about the periods. Either change them or keep the status quo, neither one will bother me. Dough4872 03:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral - For some reason U.S. Route 66 but US 66 seems normal to me, even before I started editing on Wikipedia. But regardless of what convention we pick someone won't like it. I think any edit wars over this subject are worthy of WP:LAME.Dave (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I can honestly go either way on this. I agree with Dave and Imzadi on the aesthetically pleasing nature of U.S. Route 66 over US Route 66, and US 66 over U.S. 66 (but it could be bias in that I've gotten used to these forms in reading/editing Wikipedia). So if you twisted my arm to choose, I'd lean towards Oppose... LJ ↗ 18:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(U.S._state_and_territory_highways)/Archive_2&oldid=1256991156"