Welcome to mapoid.com on July 6 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (U.S. state and territory highways)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WT:USSH

Archives
1 2 3


Contents

[edit] Voting to pass this

The following discussion is an archived debate of the vote. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the vote was support. --TMF T - C 13:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Remember that the 100 edit rule applies. Also, the no comments with the votes still applies. Any comments left will be forcibly removed by a judging administrator. Please vote using three tildes (~~~), not four.

Um? can we allow comments somewhere else??? I'm certainly interested in them. especially the opposes, I want to hear what they propose instead (that fits within the framework of where we are so far, no repudiating the whole thing, that's just not useful) ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Presumably, that would go under "Discussion". However, if you find freakofnurture's inline comments ("Oppose in the name of all that's fucking holy.") to be "interesting"... =) Powers T 15:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
... Ya, I saw it... what I am interested in is what alternative is on the table that he supports, which is why I think a comment area somewhere makes sense. That vote, as it stands, counts for zero (or less) in my book, as it's neither useful nor collegial. Hopefully he'll choose to share some positive thinking on what he'd rather see, directly below. ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion

Is the implementation perfect? No. But I urge you (as a fellow editor, not as the creator of the poll) to support this for the sake of consensus and to get this issue over with and to move on. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Those footnotes are ugly. Is there really any question over whether someone will be willing/able to make the page moves required? Powers T 15:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I like how we went from "move them only if there's consensus at the state level" to "move them, screw the state level". --SPUI (T - C) 18:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I am willing to move the pages. Correction: I will be willing to move the pages when I find the time. Probably won't get to it for a few months. And the admins made that call. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. We are voting on whether we support the policy above, but it can still be edited? I am not voting on something that may change. What I support now could change and I could oppose it later on. I will refrain from voting until the policy page is finalized and protected to prevent editing during the voting. --Holderca1 16:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Everything that has been decided by Poll 1 and Poll 2 is pretty much set, which is the table of states and their respective methods of titling and referencing...It is going to correspond to whatever was decided before so that's not getting edited. Everything else is just style guidelines that everyone has pretty much agreed upon, or what we've always been doing. The big thing is the article titles, if there's a controversial edit to anything else, I'm sure it'd get reverted and discussed first. However, it might not be a bad idea to stop editing tonight (9/25) at midnight that way everyone can be sure they approve what's been written by the 9/26 23:59 UTC deadline. Stratosphere (U T) 23:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I thought about that but I didn't get around to implementing that. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this over with, or are we leaving it open a little longer? Stratosphere (U T) 14:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support
  1. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)
  2. TMF T - C
  3. Stratosphere (U T)
  4. --TinMan (t - c)
  5. Royalbroil
  6. Sonic3KMaster(talk)
  7. — Homefryes Say•Do
  8. --Station Attendant
  9. --• master_sonLets talk
  10. –Pedriana (talk)
  11. Powers
  12. physicq210
  13. Vegaswikian
  14. xxpor ( Talk | Contribs )
  15. Northenglish (NORTH)
  16. Seicer (talk) (contribs)
  17. Peter O. (Talk)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose in the name of all that's fucking holy. —freak(talk) 19:05, Sep. 25, 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Result
  1. Endorse "Support" --CBD 17:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Endorse "Support" ... And thanks to those that have participated to this point. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Endorse "Support". —Nightstallion (?) 17:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Endorse "Support" --Syrthiss 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Endorse "Support" CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Endorse Ashibaka tock 21:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Virginia historical routes

I came across a DAB link in this article: Virginia State Route 7. It points to a historical route, and the link given is State Route 7 (Virginia 1918-1923). This redirects to Virginia State Route 3, which also has a DAB on it with the link State Route 3 (Virginia 1918-1923). Shouldn't these redirects be moved to Virginia State Route 7 (1918-1923) and Virginia State Route 3 (1918-1923) per WP:USSH?

Others include:

And I'm not sure about this one: State Route 13 (Norfolk, Virginia)

--Son (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions or guidelines?

This page seems to be having a bit of an identity crisis. It calls itself "Manual of Style...", but the cat is "Wikipedia naming conventions", and it does in fact seem to be a set of naming conventions, that is, article title naming conventions. Is anyone opposed to an upgrade? Naming conventions are closer to policy than to guidelines. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Same here, but I just want to make sure there's no hoops to jump through to make this happen. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that there are no hoops to jump through, because anything that concerns the titles of articles has to be a naming convention. I'm going through every page that uses the Style template and reporting on what's happening to each page to WT:MOS later tonite, so I'm sure if anyone has a problem with what I'm doing, they'll let us know. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, because we've been screwed with stuff like this before... --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. As Crook Nixon said, I am not a dick. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is both a naming convention and a style guide for how to write the highway name. --NE2 11:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing it by reading quickly, the page covers what page name to use, how to handle redirects, and how to link to it. It says that the same name should be used in the text, but that's the name that appears in the title. This is probably why this page was put in "Wikipedia naming conventions". I assume the information is working well (I don't see evidence of complaints), and as long as it's working, it's a "naming convention", which is closer to being policy than a guideline. Is there any information on this page which should not be considered (close to) policy? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
"How to link to it" includes stuff like writing "State Route 99" most of the time even though the article name is "California State Route 99". --NE2 12:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Whenever you get additional content that concerns style, language or formatting, I would support adding this page into the "Wikipedia style guidelines" cat. (Although my personal preference would be for you guys to have two pages if needed, one for style and one for naming conventions.) A sentence or two is not enough to consider this page a style manual. I don't see a need to change the page name; the cat at the bottom and the infobox at the top should be clear. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The whole "official name" column specifies what to call it in text. --NE2 13:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right. I was unconvinced until I got to my own state, North Carolina. You guys got that right: we always call Highway 62 "NC 62". This is not a naming convention, but it is a style convention, and you have enough of them. Okay, your choice: do you want to trust the readers to understand the difference between policy and style, or do you want to break it into two pages? If you want to keep it on one page, I really think we need a new infobox that explains the difference. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I just asked on WT:MoS#Being clear about naming conventions vs style guidelines for wording for a new "dual" infobox. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

←Ah, I just found Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide/Compliance and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (exit lists) (I'm doing the sweep today on WhatLinksHere to Template:style-guidelines.) Now we've got enough material for (at least) two pages. I don't want to interfere with your wikiproject, which is chugging along just fine without any "help" from us style guidelines people, but is there any objection to being clear about which parts concern article titles, redirects and links (naming conventions/policy) and which parts concern article text (style guidelines)? Could you have separate pages for naming conventions vs. style guidelines? The only real judgment call on the 3 pages seems to be the table on this page; any way you want to handle that is fine. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota, North/South Dakotas

Thouhg on interstate-guide those states for state/neutral shields is shade in black the state-name-interstate shields is still common in some route numbers. Like I-94, 90 of Minnesota. They use both types of shields like Maryland do, so they can be use on article body only and as long as is avoid from routeboxes. --Freewayguy (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? This page has nothing to do with that. --Holderca1 talk 20:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Highway shields in text

I haven't seen this directly addressed in either the US highway manual of style or the icon section of the MOS: What is the consensus on use of highway shields within the body of a non-highway article? See Dover, New Hampshire#Geography for an example. My feeling is that the shields don't belong in plain prose sections, but I haven't found guidance one way or the other. --Ken Gallager (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. Roads project guidelines state not to use shield images in prose [1] although that city article is not technically under the scope of the U.S. Roads project. WP:MOSFLAG does say not to use them in prose when talking about flags of countries [2]. --Polaron | Talk 18:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
What I was looking for. Thanks very much. --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(U.S._state_and_territory_highways)"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs