Talk:Texas State Highway 249

Untitled
Updated Information; will get some pictures of the highway - Fitzharry 01:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Naming of the article
I was in a dispute with Kinu over the name of the highway in the article space (i.e., adding "Texas" to the name of the highway). I feel my edit is necessary to avoid confusing one article that uses "State Highway" with another (i.e., "Oklahoma State Highway 6", "Texas State Highway 6", etc.).

TxDOT's website mentions names of the highways that align with Kinu, so I must maintain his edit...however, that doesn't change that I feel adding "Texas" to the name is still necessary due to my above reasons, regardless of WP:USSH. If we can use "Texas State Highway", etc., in the article name, I don't see why we can't use it in the article space. Loyalmoonie (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the substance of the previous edit. The state name isn't part of the highway name, so it's not needed in the prose. Article titles and the article subject's name in prose need not match perfectly, and frequently they don't. "Bill Clinton" is the title of that article, but the former president's full name of "William Jefferson Clinton" is given on first usage and the abbreviated form of just his surname is used thereafter. For highways, we list the full official naming on first mention and then use the abbreviated form thereafter in the prose, including captions, infoboxes and tables.
 * Now, if this highway terminated at a state line and connected to another State Highway X across the border, it would be appropriate, even necessary, to mention the other state's name in some fashion in the prose. That would not mean we had to resort to "Oklahoma State Highway X"; "SH X in Oklahoma" is just as valid and appropriate.
 * As to WP:USSH, that page is the result of ArbCom-mandated voting from 2006, so it has status unlike most parts of the MOS or other Naming Conventions. In short, we don't disregard it lightly, or often.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, adding the state name is redundant. The lead sentence reads, dropping extraneous names that are another issue: "State Highway 249 (SH 249)is a 49.443-mile (79.571 km) generally north–south highway in Southeast Texas." We don't need that to list the state name twice. As a point of comparison, various Featured Articles on US Highways had their lead sentences edited similar to "US Highway X is a United States Numbered Highway in the US state of Michigan" because it would be quite redundant to mention yet again that the state is in the US.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, would it still be redundant if "Texas State Highway X" is used only in the opening sentence - as with my own edits - and nothing further?--Loyalmoonie (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, Loyalmoonie: "Texas State Highway 249 (SH 249) is a 49.443-mile (79.571 km) generally north–south highway in Southeast Texas." (italics added to highlight redundancy).  Imzadi 1979  →   23:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)