Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/California/Archive 3

Adding Mile By Mile external links
I'm in the process of adding external links to he highway guides I've created for many North American Highway. Someone suggested that I should let the highway community know I'm doing that so they don't think I'm link spamming. I've got detailed photos and text of lots of stuff along the highways in Canada, Mexico and USA. I'd welcome your thoughts on my project and the links. If folks want to use photos (I've got thousands of lovely photos) from my highway guides, feel free to use them but do give credit. Thanks, James Love James Love 13:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * From "my" web site? You are not allowed to add links to your own web site. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  22:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If the links are useful, there's nothing wrong with adding links to your own site. -- Scott ei&#960;  07:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have consensus. See Talk:Jesus. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Other commercial links
Now someone has added a link from every highway article to I don't see any ads, presumably it's commercial. What do we do about this and "Mile By Mile"? Keep any of or all of these links? -Will Beback 08:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.westernexitguide.com/CA/CA_1_1_14.htm Western Exit Guide - California 1
 * Is the exit number information replicated anywhere else? -- Scott ei&#960;  07:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

New Markers
I have put new SVG markers for California. I would like to encourage the use of the Caltrans term marker for the standalone sign "California 72", etc. and shield for just the overlay sign with the number "22 Long Beach". at least for the naming in templates The new markers are not perfect, but they are in a vector format that should be modifiable. The biggest problems are that the nose of the 3-digit ones are too pointed, routes that have a "1" in them are inappropriately spaced, and certain numbers need to be aligned by hand (see California 4). The 2-digit ones do meet spec, before anyone asks. Joydawg 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How about putting in the blanks as well? It seems odd to see these new signs along with the templates, sections for state law, etc. that have the old blanks in them. --Geopgeop 09:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

New Routeboxca2?
Has anyone been working on junction templates? Creating smaller icons suitable for the junction box? The Major cities box on California State Route 1 looks bad. Any suggestions for a new design? Joydawg 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks fine... only California State Route 1 and California State Route 99 look bad since they are the longest California State Routes. I don't see any problems with the current template. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. We might need to cut down CA1 and CA99 to just major interchanges but the rest are fine.Gateman1997 21:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I was referring more to the Wiki markup not visual appearance. But actually, I'm adopting the opinion that most of the data in that box is too technical to begin with, and will focus my time on the body of these articles Joydawg 02:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the current box is fine as is. We might consider limiting it to "Major" cities and remove the reference to the California Highway code and possibly shrinking the legend vertically. But other then that the current box should stay as is.JohnnyBGood 01:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

SVG images?
Anyone know why the SVG images aren't taking on routes like California State Route 150?Gateman1997 06:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's Wikipedia's caching system. The SVG change was made in a template, not a direct edit to the page.  The next edit of the page itself will force a refresh.  Joydawg 22:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone going to upload the SVG version of Image:CA-blank.gif? Templates that still use the old gif are now looking out of place. --Geopgeop 15:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I put some up under Image:CA blank.svg and Image:CA blank wide.svg. I also made a commons page for future shield work  Joydawg 00:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I changed the templates to use the SVGs. (It took me a while to figure it out.) --Geopgeop 11:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If anyone hasn't noticed, those images were deleted from Commons due to duplication by SPUI's Image:California blank.svg and Image:California blank wide.svg images. However, they were deleted prematurely as they were still in use in the articles instead of being orphaned off first.  --Geopgeop 22:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal
I have just created Portal:U.S. Roads. If you have any feedback, please place it under "Portal" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads.Rt66lt 03:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Junctions with County roads
If a county road joins a state route, and the county road has an article of its own, can/should those be included in the infobox junction list, or is that reserved for just state and federal highways? (E.g., the north end of TUO J59 where it hits SR-108.) —RandallJones 02:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because of space, it needs to be State Routes, Interstates or U.S. Routes in the infobox. It's fine to link from the article though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

California Routebox
This area is for discussion on possible changes to the CA routebox. Certain users, specifically SPUI have objections to the current userbox. Personally I think the current box is fine provided it is tweaked a little (specifically removing or shrinking the legend and ensuring that only MAJOR cities are listed). Please discuss your opinions on the matter here.Gateman1997 02:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep with minor revisions as above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 02:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I think you fail to keep some important info in those boxes you created and they fail to take into account years of work by other editors too. However they are a nice attempt.Gateman1997 02:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What information is lost? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 02:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The major interchanges and the cities portion, both of which are vital.Gateman1997 02:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Both of which are in their own sections. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 03:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd personally prefer they remain centralized as they help define a particular road. Specifically the major cities, but also the interchanges. Plus we do not have maps for all 350 CA state highways.Gateman1997 03:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the infobox is just too big with all that information. We should give a few basics in the infobox and the details in other sections. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 03:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about a trade off, MAJOR cities and MAJOR interchanges remain in the infobox. Minor interchanges (as part of an exit list) and a full city list can be in the article.Gateman1997 05:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe a few very major intersections, like Interstates are now. Cities would be included with those intersections. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 06:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why minor cities and junctions need to be eliminated. For Interstates yes since they're so long. Here, no. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the infobox is too long with them. An infobox is not for that level of detail. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 06:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree we don't need minor cities (for instance CA1 used to have every XX Beach along it near LA regardless of how unimportant), I do think that if we eliminate any interchanges it should be on articles that are significantly too long, which mainly refers to 1 and 99. In those two cases it should be MAJOR state to state internchanges like CA1 at CA17 along with US and Interstate crossings. I believe handling it on a case by case basis should be our course if we move forward with this.Gateman1997 08:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

An example of what I'd like to see done would be as follows (and I'll use California State Route 17 as an example since we're all familiar with it. First I think the legend should be minimized or eliminated all together. It does admittedly add to cluttered look to the page in it's current state. Second I'd agree with putting the "CS&HC Sec. 317" link as a link from the "Route 17" indentifier currently above it as SPUI has in his infobox model, this would also consolidate and eliminate clutter. Third, can we move the KM distance measurement to the same line as the milage, this would eliminate an unneeded vertical line. Fourth would be for the extremely long routes like 1 and 99 to consolidate the infobox listing to major interchanges only. I believe these changes come to a nice middle ground between the current box and those who object to the current box. It would significantly shrink and consolidate the current box incorporating some of SPUIs design without giving much of the current box's content or any need to retag any existing pages.Gateman1997 08:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Even California State Route 1 with only the "major interchanges" is still way too big. I'll work on a possible compromise. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 09:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How's this? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 09:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Too few interchanges IMHO. Also any changes should be made to the existing box, not some new box for simplicity sake. Remember one page long in 8x6 is more then acceptable.Gateman1997 09:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The old box is not adaptable to that format, in which the cities and junctions are combined. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 09:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to join them I think. As long as the cities are limited to major cites. Another alternative I would entertain for discussion is something similar to Interstate 270 (Illinois-Missouri). Note if we eliminate the legend from the current CA box and make some minor modification for the CA HW code and limit the cities, it's not too different from this featured article in terms of routebox length. Having a list of 20 or so junctions in the routebox is definitely precedented all over multiple projects, boxes and routes.Gateman1997 10:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If they are not joined the box is too long. I-270 was never updated for the new format; I will fix that. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 10:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep with minor revisions to the current box. No need to undo alot of hard work simply to make it subjectively "nicer looking".JohnnyBGood 19:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is my example of what we should do. Note that the Bus 80 box is based on the standard CA box so these changes shouldn't be that hard, and notice how compacted it is and how much cleaner it looks. The only other change on CA routes would be putting the road code as a link from the route name in the box, however that doesn't apply to this particular route.JohnnyBGood 20:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Gateman here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I like SPUI's design a lot. It fits much better to the level of detail Wikipedia should have.  Postmile logs are way too technical.  The point of the box is to have something to look at a glance and glean important facts quickly. It is not a centralized table to dump data into. If other information is necessary, it can be placed into the article body. Joydawg 00:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Who says that Wikipedia can't be detailed? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that Wikipedia can't be detailed.  It's the extent (in depth and scope)  I'm concerned with.  And more specifically in this situation, cramming the infobox.  You should also note what I said, which is that there can be many other places within in an article for placing information, such as creating separate sections and tables for more technically-oriented data. Joydawg 06:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

How do people feel about the changes I've made to the box? I used Gateman's suggestions as a guide. The only thing left to do is to make the Route name in the box the link to the Calif Hwy code. I tried doing it but was not able to. If someone could assist I'd be grateful.JohnnyBGood 01:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I like them. It's much better looking and should placate those that wanted a change.Gateman1997 02:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see the difference - it still keeps all the junctions in the box, and a separate section for cities. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 08:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is what we want right? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly as long as we keep the information in there I don't care how it's presented. But Juntions, cities, and mile markers are a must.JohnnyBGood 23:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would we want that? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 14:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel by keeping mile markers in the box, we're losing sight that the box is probably a place best to summarize important points and display key facts about the article. Is there a problem placing mile markers in a separate table, like it has been done for exit lists? Joydawg 22:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling a vote below. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars
For the information of all: Revert wars have broken out at the California and New York State Highway/route WikiProjects. Mass moves of pages and removal of routeboxes have occurred. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction: mass reversions to too-big infoboxes have occured. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 00:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads has been opened. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

San Bernardino
I am not going to go through the edit summaries to figure out who the editor is, but someone, probably associated with this WikiProject, can't spell San Bernardino correctly. I just corrected a bunch of internal links to San Bernardino, California and San Bernardino County, California in California state route articles that were originally spelled San Bernadino. Blank Verse 21:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Might have been me... I'm sorry. The sad thing is I was born in that county. :( --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Untagged images
User:Joydawg has uploaded about 80+ highway signs but failed to put any source or license tag on them. I am turning this problem over to you fine folks at this project. Please make it go away. Here's a dynamically updated list (at the toolserver). Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I added tags. I'm not sure why you made the request here instead of on my talk page, but whatever, it's done. Joydawg 23:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting me guys...
I guess it was worth a shot at doing, but next time I'll ask, Rschen and SPUI.

By the way, Rschen's robot unabbreviated the "U.S. 101" links in the junction box. I now read "U.S. Route 101" in full. Fix it, thanks, and keep up the good work! --Geopgeop 11:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion
I strongly advise all parties to not use the term "vandalism" when making reverts. I think this is what is going wrong with some of the issues that are debated on CA roads. Y'all have a MedCab case, try to work it out. Thank you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe not vandalism (except for edits to the WP:CASH page.) But there's no mediator yet. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, but that is one thing I noticed a lot is this term being used a lot, and from the links I saw at WP:AN/I, I do not think it was vandalism, so what I can suggest is to have an outside person look at it or just simply say "revert, please do not do this again, let's discuss." User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

State Route 264
As no one has created State Route 264's article as of yet, I would like to point out, as said on its new talk page, that it is a pre-1964 route only, and that I just want to know, should it redirect to a specific pre-1964 routes page, or redirect to its present-day State Route 223? --Geopgeop 11:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say it should redirect to 223, but it also shouldn't be listed along with post-1964 routes. The post-1964 routes evolved from the pre-1964 sign routes, not the legislative routes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 07:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

'''Modify routeboxca2 per below. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There was no result to a non-binding poll. --SPUI (T - C) 17:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I admit it was non-binding, but 6 out of 8 votes for modify falls within the 70-80% consensus range. -- Northenglish 18:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox decision
As SPUI is intent on removing routeboxca2 and replacing it with his less-informative Infobox CA Route regardless of consensus, this is a vote/ consensus-making page/ whatever you want to call it. Please vote Keep routeboxca2 as is, Modify routeboxca2 or Change to Infobox CA Route. At the end of five days (minimum), the result of the discussion will be carried out. If consensus (70-80%) forms then that consensus will be taken. Otherwise, we will go with majority (since there has to be a infobox). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Modify routeboxca2 to include the year created and only major junctions and cities. Otherwise Keep.JohnnyBGood 23:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Year created has already been added. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a comment: there should probably be strict criteria for what is considered a major city or a major junction. Something like cities with a population of at least 50,000 or junctions with freeways only and/or with some minimum AADT (say 100,000?). This should keep the size of the infobox (regardless of which one is chosen) small and make clear what can and cannot be included. Polaron 17:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Modify routeboxca2 to move the browse state highways to the bottom as the OK and Interstate articles are. Otherwise keep. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's obvious what my "vote" is. Any infobox that lists cities and junctions separately is too big. Any infobox that lists all junctions is too big. Any infobox that lists all cities is too big. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 07:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All "votes" which keep this monstrosity should be thrown out. That is the "modified" version. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 12:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Modify routeboxca2 - as per above. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 10:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Modify routeboxca2 - as per JohnnyBGood. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 16:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to note, migration from Routeboxca to Routeboxca2 is done. Also, Modify as per Rschen7754.  --Geopgeop 10:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Modify routeboxca2 as per JohnnyBGood. —RandallJones 19:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Change to Infobox CA Route. Stop the creeping trend toward information overkill (read: "It must be encyclopedic if it contains a ton of stuff") here. --ILike2BeAnonymous 08:44, 28 March 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.

Polls are eeevil
This vote seems premature, divisive, and generally ill-considered. I look back up the page a bit and everyone was making some effort to work out a mutually acceptable solution that everyone hated equally. Rather then trying to jam something down the throat of the world with a vote, can't everyone just take two valium and go back to working together eh? But while I'm here, I like the smaller more concise templete, otherwise it's creeping towards the horror of Bundesautobahn 1. - brenneman  {L}  13:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There seems to be SOME sorta compromise evolving. Give it a l'il time. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 16:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not really. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 16:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I hate to admit I agree with SPUI on this point. No clear agreement, consensus, or trend in support of either position has developed or looks to be developing.JohnnyBGood 18:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Decision?
It's been a long time. Next time I'm on if noone objects I'll close debate with 75% consensus to make modifications but keep routeboxca2. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather interesting "primary" and "secondary" proposal from 1996
It might be interesting (not necessarily in an article) to compare the "secondary" routes with the ones that are being relinquished. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 22:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It might also be interesting to look for routes that have been relinquished but weren't proposed as secondary. SR 160 from the south line of Sacramento north to I-5 is one example. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 00:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

California State Route 272
Please see its talk page: Talk:California State Route 272. --Geopgeop 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Done
All California State Route * articles have been created, not including the pre-1964 legislative routes. Let's finish up with the tweaking and expanding and redirecting! --Geopgeop 07:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and not SPUI's State Route * (California) articles/redirects, that's why there's still redlinks. --Geopgeop 07:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting document...
If we used this PDF, it could have saved us some amount of work, considering it's from Caltrans itself (although this document is from 1995, and it's only meant as a quick reference document.) Actually, much of the Caltrans website is accessible to the public, no 403 errors so far. --Geopgeop 07:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Revamp completion list
Even though the completion list, WikiProject California State Highways/Completion list is in our namespace, I wanted to make the list look better. So I created this, User:Geopgeop/WP:CASH completion list, down to Route 7 using data from the existing list. Also, the template used on that page, Template:casr list, may have its contents replaced by the text in User:Geopgeop/CASR list. If the rest of the project members like this, I may replace our old one with this, as I think the long strings of text, even if it's only part of our project, just makes things too hard to look at. --Geopgeop 07:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have a complete working page now, but this table is 85 kilobytes long, divided into three sections. It MIGHT be editable by older browsers by sections, and I guess it's longer than I thought it would be. I removed the template, because if it's only in one page repeated many times, that's too much as well. Now here's the choice: long text that's hard to distinguish from each other, or repeating numbers that shows the name when hovered on, plus special names and shields? --Geopgeop 08:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that all routes have articles, the only purpose of the completion list is to make the redirects. I don't see the point in revamping it. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems ) 18:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll leave the project's completion list alone. --Geopgeop 14:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Routeboxcamini elimination
While I'm not a fan of replacing Template:routeboxca2 with Template:Infobox CA Route (see above), the green browse box in the latter does make the article cleaner, and also replaces Template:Routeboxcamini. I do hear some proposals such as moving the browse box to the bottom of the article, but mainly for now I propose to modify routeboxca2 to include multiple routes (see California State Route 19 (164) vs. California State Route 74 (740)) and delete routeboxcamini in the process. (Funny, I helped make routeboxcamini in the first place when I asked for one a while back.) --Geopgeop 14:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah if someone knows how to do it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

SPUI and JohnnyBGood move wars
As seeing that these move wars have yet to cease to stop, I'm offering a slight break from mainstream policy to try and settle this one. As someone who by nature is neutral in the dispute (I'm from Canada and heck, I don't even know what the official names of the major highways I drive on are) I think it might be easier to go to binding arbitration sans ArbCom as it seems like a lot of other efforts have failed to solve the dispute. If all parties involved are willing, I'd be more than happy to look at the evidence for naming in both syntax-es and find one that can be used. I know its not perfect but this has gone on long enough. If you feel there is someone more qualified yet still impartial to facilitate this, please let me know -- Tawker 18:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would support your Canadian ) arbitration of this if SPUI is willing. JohnnyBGood t c 19:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm very leery of binding arbitration, as I know I'm correct. Thus I'll have to say no. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 19:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If other people want it I'll go for it... but at this point I think that it's the only thing that will work. I can't participate much in it though since I'm gone a lot... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Offer2
Seeing SPUI is leery of the binding arbitration, how about we try something non binding but will hopefully open up the discussion. Can both of you please make arguments below, maybe it will help see each others position and maybe a compromise can be reached -- Tawker 19:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon, but I believe SPUI has made it abundantly clear for a long time that he does not intend to abide by any solution that he doesn't agree with 100 percent—even if you don't have any history with him you need only read his rationale for rejecting binding arbitration to get a pretty good idea of what we have to deal with. That being the case, it's hard for me to understand why anyone with a stake in this matter would see participating in a non-binding discussion as anything but a complete waste of time. I really genuinely hate to throw cold water on what is obviously a sincere effort at dialogue, but we've been down this road before, with spectacularly unsuccessful results, and I would need someone to give me a convincing reason to believe this discussion won't end exactly the same way. --phh (t/c) 21:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to mention a RFC. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The RFC was far from conclusive. atanamir 23:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct. Hence arb may be the only solution. SPUI has said he won't listen to consensus or compromise. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. If no one else feels up to kicking it to arbcom I'll get to it when I can if I have time tomorrow. I'm too pooped for today. JohnnyBGood t c 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguments from JohnnyBGood
My argument is much the same as Rschen's. Someone searching for these routes isn't going to search for just "State Route X" as they're not stupid. They will use a qualifier and putting the state name first is the most natural and I would argue the most used method. No one will search for it by parathesis and in this case I believe common names should definitely trump disabiguation if not for common sense then because the common names policy is older. And per common names policy the article should reside where most likely to be searched. Not to mention that the state of California isn't even clear on what it officially calls them per info presented both below and elsewhere. Yes they use State Route X more then anything, but they also use California State Route X and Route X. JohnnyBGood t c 23:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're confusing common names with "educated search queries". Also remember that if you really want to go with common names, they'll be at "Highway 17" and "The 5" etc. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 23:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't consider "California State Route X" an educated inquiry? And also I wouldn't argue that "The 5" is a common name so much as it's slang, there is a difference. JohnnyBGood t c 00:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguments from SPUI
The name is State Route X. For instance, there are 32400 matches for "State Route" vs. 119 matches for "California State Route" on the Caltrans website. Google News gives similar results of 84 (for California "State Route" - see the results to verify that they are about California) vs. 1 (for "California State Route"). As the name is "State Route X", disambiguation is to be done with parentheses. There is no such thing as "California State Route X" under our disambiguation conventions, just as there is no such thing as "UK politician John Smith" or "politician Jim Brown". There are various other arguments at Talk:State Route 2 (California), but it all boils down to "California State Route X" being a method of disambiguation that we don't use. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 20:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See my main comment below for why your Google News article isn't valid, but 65 of those now 89 articles are from within California, and I saw the results to verify that 21 are not about California. -- Northenglish 19:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguments from Rschen7754
Um... they are known as "California State Routes." If you were sitting in a restaurant in Alabama (for example) you would call it "California State Route 55" since Alabama has state routes too. Since Wikipedia is written for an international audience then that is what you need to do. Disambiguation is not effective here since they are actually known as California State Routes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You continue to deny all the evidence we've given you and stubbornly hold to the incorrect assumption they are called "California State Routes". atanamir 23:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Common names, people. Common sense too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Read my below post. atanamir 23:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * From Disambiguation:"When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page." Who would confuse California State Route 23 with Arizona State Route 23? Hmm. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone who is searching for it's offical and correct name in California or Arizona, 'State Route 23'. atanamir 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Common people? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what common people you're talking about. Everyone around me just says "the 85" or "the 405".  If you want common names, then it would all be at The 58 (California) and The 405 (California), and norcal highways will be at Highway 85 (California) 85 (California), Highway 17 (California).  atanamir 22:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, if the Alabaman had any knowledge of grammar, he would call it "Californian State Route 55," to disambiguate the route by state, but people don't use parentheses when speaking, so the correct way to disambiguate on Wikipedia would be "State Route 55 (California)." --Rory096 22:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for pointlessly responding to a 3-week-old comment. However, this point was brought up elsewhere and disproven.  "California State Route 55" is perfectly grammatically correct.  See Adjectival use of nouns. -- Northenglish 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, he's using the "California" to disambiguate. In real life, that's generally how people disambiguate something, as they can't speak with parentheses.  On Wikipedia, however, we disambiguate with a word in parentheses, like (California).  --Rory096 19:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Arguments from PHenry
Apologies for my presumptiousness in adding a subsection for myself; this is going to be kind of long. Against my better judgment, as I do feel this is likely to be a waste of time, I'll wade in here with my own view. If nothing else, it's an opportunity to refine my argument in advance of the binding arbitration that's inevitably going to have to happen is probably about to happen.

WP:D defines disambiguation as "the process of resolving ambiguity—the conflict that occurs when a term is closely associated with two or more different topics." In addition, the parenthentical method of disambiguation is used to differentiate article titles that would otherwise be identical. Now, it may appear as though I just said the same thing twice using different words, but there's actually a subtle difference between the two.

As Nohat notes, Wikipedia actually uses several different methods to "disambiguate" similarly named topics. For example, there are seven kings named Charles I on Wikipedia, and not one of them gets parentheses. There's an article at Watergate scandal, while Watergate (scandal) doesn't even exist as a redirect. Turning our attention back to California, we can see that Proposition 13 redirects to a disambiguated page… but it's disambiguated by the date, not the location: California Proposition 13 (1978). I could go on like this all day, but I think my point is made.

So why do some disambiguated articles get parentheses, and some don't? I believe there's a method to the madness.

In proper English usage, a parenthetical phrase within a sentence can be dropped and the sentence will still be gramatically correct. Likewise, an unwritten (as far as I know) but widely followed convention has evolved at Wikipedia that holds that parentheses are used for articles that, for lack of a better term, "wish" they could exist at the undisambiguated title. Probably the most well-known example of parenthetical disambiguation on the English Wikipedia is Georgia (country) vs. Georgia (U.S. state). The state in the American South and the country in the Caucasus have the misfortune to share exactly the same verbal identity. Atlanta is the capital of what? "Georgia," period, end of discussion. Tblisi is the capital of what? "Georgia," period, end of discussion. They get disambiguated with parentheses because each one has an equal, logical claim to the undisambiguated article title and neither one can have it. Just as dropping a parenthetical phrase from a sentence should allow the sentence to stand on its own, it should be possible to ignore a parenthetical disambiguation and have the remainder of the article title stand as a full, accurate, and logical descriptor of the article's subject matter.

Governor of California doesn't have the same kind of claim on the name "Governor" as either of the Georgias does on "Georgia," nor does Charles I of Spain have the same kind of claim on "Charles I." In both cases, the location is an important part of their verbal identity. Try answering the question: What is Arnold Schwarzenegger's job? "He's the governor." I assure you, that answer leaves a lot to be desired up here, where we have a governor of our own and it's sure as hell not Arnold Schwarzenegger. "He's the governor of California"—now we're getting somewhere.

(stay with me--this is the important part)

The practical application of this convention is that when parentheses are used to disambiguate articles, it should be at least somewhat plausible that someone looking for one of the disambiguated articles would go to the "root" page first. If someone's interested in the state of Georgia, is it believable that they might go to Georgia first? Absolutely. If someone's interested in the governor of California, is it believable that they might go to Governor first? No. They would go to "Governor of California." I challenge anyone anywhere to prove me wrong. Imagine a disambiguation page at Governor:


 * The word governor has several meanings.


 * Governor (position), an executive-level position in many governments and organizations.
 * Governor (Alabama), the chief executive of the U.S. state of Alabama.
 * Governor (Alaska), the chief executive of the U.S. state of Alaska.
 * Governor (Arizona), the chief executive of the U.S. state of Arizona.
 * Governor (Arkansas), the chief executive of the U.S. state of Arkansas.
 * Governor (California), the chief executive of the U.S. state of California.
 * (etc.)

I hope we can all agree that this would be, to put it lightly, absurd. Is this not also the case with, say, "Route 8"? I can think of exactly three state (i.e., non-Interstate, non-U.S.) highways in the United States that someone who doesn't actually live in the state might search for at an undisambiguated title: Highway 1 in California, Highway A1A in Florida, and maybe Highway 17 in California. Everything else, jeez, you'd have to be crazy to seek out an article called "Route 8" except out of some weird listcrufty desire to find out how many locales have a highway designated "8."

I recognize that not everyone is going to see this "verbal identity" thing as I do, and for what it's worth I think the other side's arguments have considerable merit as well. This is merely my attempt at an explanation of my own thought process on the matter, and I hope it helps people understand it better. —phh (t/c) 01:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguments from User:Northenglish
I know I'm slow to respond here; it's difficult when this discussion is taking place in at least five different places.

My response to User:PHenry? Hurrah to the voice of reason! Each side in this dispute has made some valid points, but is too stubborn to see the points the other side has made. I think we've all gotten to the point where we can agree that the legal, official, and dare I say correct name for the road (not necessarily the article) is "State Route XX". People who call it "California State Route XX" are not wrong, they are performing a type of disambiguation that is conventional outside of Wikipedia.

Despite what SPUI says, people who call it "California State Route XX" do exist. SPUI and Polaron cited Google searches to attempt to disprove this. I found it hard to believe this data, so I performed a Google search of my own. I used Google News instead the main search engine because it would give me far fewer results, and an opportunity to actually study my data. Sure enough, I got 89 results for California "State Route" and 0 for "California state route", and of course the logical reaction is that this proves what SPUI's been saying. But not necessarily. Of those 89, 65 were from California news sources, who have no need to disambiguate within their own state, and 21 were from sources from other states, talking about state routes within those states, and just happened to mention the word "California" somewhere else in the article. One of the links was dead, leaving 2 news articles that simply used "state route" to refer to a road outside their own state. Interestingly, neither of these articles were about state routes in California, but let's pretend for a moment that they were. 2 out of 89 actually prove the point SPUI was trying to make. If we extrapolate that to the main data listed above, that would mean that less than 43,000 of the 1.9 million search results Polaron cites actually apply, compared to the 62,000 search results for "California state route".

If that didn't make sense, don't worry. My only point with that statistical breakdown is that citing a search result makes no sense. The fact is you have a large number of people right here on Wikipedia who are more than happy to call it "California State Route XX".

Whether or not putting the word "California" in front of that name is mere disambiguation is irrelevant because parentheses are not the only way to disambiguate on Wikipedia. Polaron says, "If look at the label "State Route X" as a proper noun then the parenthetical disambiguation would make more sense." Maybe, but maybe not. How does that explain the Charles I disambiguation that PHenry cited: Charles I of England, Charles I of France, Charles I of Spain, etc. It uses the disambiguation convention that people use outside of Wikipedia in everyday speech. What about Philadelphia (disambiguation) which leads to such articles as Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Tennessee, and Philadelphia, Mississippi? There's plenty of precedent for using an outside convention taken from everyday speech, and that's what I feel should be done here.-- Northenglish 19:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As proof of multiple conventions existing for disambiguation, review this, taken from WP:D.

For disambiguating specific topic pages, several options are available: 1. When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Titan   rocket), that should be used. 2. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be: * the generic class that includes the topic (for example, Mercury (element), Seal (mammal)); or       * the subject or context to which the topic applies (for example, Union (set theory), Inflation (economics)). 3. Rarely, an adjective describing the topic can be used, but it's usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses.
 * Item #1 applies more than aptly here. -- Northenglish 00:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also note item #3: it's usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses. I concur with PHenry and Northenglish 100%.  howch e  ng   {chat} 22:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguments II from User:Northenglish
This is in response to several comments made either below, on my talk page, or the discussion on AN/I reagarding User:Freakofnurture's move warring.

As I, and several others, have said several times before, we all agree that the correct, official, proper name is "State Route X". However, this is not and has never been the sole consideration for titling Wikipedia articles. Even if it were, we need to disambiguate, and as I have said just a few lines above, parentheses are not the only way to disambiguate on Wikipedia, WP:D is clear on this.

So why am I repeating myself? ... Well... I suppose just to introduce my other points. Freakofnature states on my talk page that my city, state disambiguation example above does not apply, because "the postal service uses a comma to disambiguate cities, making the resulting ordered pairs the de facto names for U.S. cities" (emphasis mine). But I remind you, just because something is de facto does not make it official; there are many, many people who would be extremely angry with you if you tried to claim English was the official language of the United States, even though its usage makes it so de facto. If these designations by the postal service were official, the article New York City would instead be located at New York, New York. It is not even located at its actual official name, City of New York. As for Freakofnurture about how we use the comma disambiguation even when the name is completely disambiguous, such as Prudhoe Bay, Alaska and Gun Barrel City, Texas, he's right, we do, just as we use disambiguation on articles like Washington State Route 539 and Washington State Route 302 Spur (or with parentheses if you prefer) even though as far as I can tell these are the only articles on Wikipedia about any State Route 539 or 302 Spur. We use disambiguation even when it is theoretically unnecessary for two reasons: first, because in practice it actually becomes necessary, and second, to maintain consistency. If anything, this makes the proposed state route disambiguation more similar to the city, state disambiguation, not less.

As per WP:D, we should disambiguate using the more complete name, not by overusing parentheses when a perfectly good rephrase will do. -- Northenglish 23:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if everyone involved in this could accept at least two things as being true and beyond any need for discussion:
 * "State Route X" is, in many states, the full, correct, and official naming convention for highways, or close to the official naming convention.
 * Per WP:NC and its subpages, there are many cases in which the full, correct and official name for a thing is not used for the title of the article on that thing.
 * Is this an uncontroversial enough statement for everyone? --—phh (t/c) 16:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For everyone, I don't know, but I hope so. But it is for me, as I've been saying all along.  Good to know I have a backer! -- Northenglish 18:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with those statements. I don't however agree that part 2 applies here. --SPUI (T - C) 23:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, glad we're having civilized discussion. Now tell us why. -- Northenglish 04:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguments from other parties / comments / stuff like that
An argument from the other side is always that "would someone search 'state route 58 (california) with the parentheses'? Common names, c'mon!'.  This has a number of faults to it, foremost being that the disambiguaion policy of wikipedia is already at odds with common names.  I would not search "The X Files (film)," but i'd search "The X Files movie" or just "X-Files movie".  Furthermore, there are already a number of parenthesis-disambiguated roads on wikipedia, such as Autoroute (Quebec).  There are autoroute systems in more than one province in quebec, and it's not Quebec Autoroute -- that is a redirect, which is fine with me.  Another example, which is rather related to roads, are rivers -- different rivers, with the same name, flowing in different places.  The Rio Hondo is one of them.  If i wanted to search for the Rio Hondo River in California, i'd probably search sometihng like "California Rio Hondo River" or "Rio Hondo River in California", not where the article currently resides, Rio Hondo (California). Same with the other Rio Hondo Rivers, like Rio Hondo (Belize). Many other rivers also use this disambiguation scheme, Such as Rio Grande. For further arguments about the "common names", if i were to search for the Courier font, i'd type in Courier font if i was new to wikipedia, not Courier (typeface). This is a clear example where the correct name is State Route X as defined by caltrans, and it is State Route X in the state of California becuse Washington also has their state highways marked as State Route X, so parentheses are used in this case, State Route X (California) and State Route X (Washington). Some may argue that Caltrans also uses California State Route X at times -- This is ONLY on the CalNEXUS page, listing the exit numbers. This is also being updated -- all the routes before SR-20 have been changed to State Route X instead of California State Route X. They were updated in April 2006, versus the other pages, which were updated in 2004. atanamir 20:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * User:PHenry has brought up that there could be exceptions -- in the case of Governor in the US, it is Governor of California and Governor of Nebraska, not Governor (California) and Governor (Nebraska). My only argument against this is that a governor is a single job function that is identical across all states, so they do not count as being disambiguated.  However, I'm not denying that exceptions exist, and this could be one of them. atanamir 20:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's another reason - the term "Governor of California" is widely used. "California State Route X" is not. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 22:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that anyone who lives near the border of California (on either side) does commonly use "California State Route X" (or just "California X"). I live on the edge of New York state, and it just doesn't make sense to say, for example, "Route 55", because there's a 55 in New York and a 55 in New Jersey.  So you say "New York Route 55".  Disambiguation doesn't just happen in encyclopedias-- it happens every day in conversation. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that. However we disambiguate in a certain way here - with parentheses. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 23:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not in Governor of California, we don't. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is it "governor of california" and not "california governor". Anyway, this brings up a third method of disambiguation, which is "State Route X in California". First of all, does everyone agree what the proper name is? Is this only a matter of disambiguation method? Polaron 23:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd think that everyone would agree that it's "State Route X", but Rschen7754 seems to not understand even that. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 23:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While I would like to see them stay at California State Route XX. I could be persuaded to support State Route XX in California much like we're doing with US and Interstate Routes. And then have a disabig page at State Route XX linking to the various states. JohnnyBGood t c 23:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would we want to use 'in' as the disambiguation method is parentheses is the official policy? I'm not against your method, I'm just asking why should we choose 'in' over ''? atanamir 23:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There are countless cases where disambiguation is not done with parentheses. Generally, parentheses are only used when there is no other "more specific" name that could be used, even if that name is not the "official" name. For example:
 * Apollo program, not Apollo (space program)
 * Chile pepper, not Chile (food) or Chile (fruit)
 * Prism magazine, not Prism (magazine)
 * Linguistic reconstruction, not Reconstruction (linguistics)
 * and so on.
 * It does not really obtain that Wikipedia policy mandates disambiguation using parentheses. It is perfectly acceptable and supported by precedent to disambiguate without using parentheses, instead prepending or appending a disambiguating term without parentheses, as long as the new term makes sense and is not itself ambiguous. IMHO, the original titles of these articles, "California State Highway X", were the best, as they were the least surprising. Nohat 23:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Those are all phrases that are in common use. "California State Route X" and "California State Highway X" are not so. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 23:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But people do call them "California State Highway X". Google searches for such things return plenty of results, even when excluding Wikipedia articles. Granted, those more specific names are not as common as the ambiguous ones, but we can't use the ambiguous ones because they're ambiguous, and we have to pick between unambiguous names. We could use "State Highway X (California)", but no one calls them that, whereas some people actually do call them "California State Highway X". On balance, if having to choose between "California State Highway X" and "State Highway X (California)", the former has the benefit of some actual use in real life. Nohat 00:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 62,000+ google hits for "California State Route" seems to meet any fair definition of "in common use". -- Mwanner | Talk 00:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's still less than 1/10 of "state route" +california -"california state route" with more than 1.9 million hits. Polaron 00:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what I fucking hate. People do not understand parenthetical disambiguation. Using A (B) as a title does not in any way say that "A (B)" is a commonly used form. It says that "A" is a commonly used form. This is why I just go ahead and move war - if someone who has been around as long as you does not understand, there really is no way to get through to the other side. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 00:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it's not quite as black and white as you think it is. There are many inconsistencies in Wikipedia's naming conventions and policies, and the case at hand is one where there is no clear precedent. The "use common names" conventions and the disambiguation conventions are not coherent. One does not necessarily trump the other, and the disambiguation conventions allow for a great deal of freedom to decide on a case-by-case basis what type and format of disambiguated name to use, nowhere explicitly conceding tie-breaking to the "common names" convention. In a case where the conventions do not point to a clear best choice, as in the case at hand, we have to consider all the advantages and disadvantages of each option and decide on that. Bloody-mindedness (for all meanings of that term) gains little here. Nohat 01:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand what I meant. You're speaking of "A (B)" as if that's what's supposed to be compared in common usage. It is "A". --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understood exactly what you meant. It just is not a relevant point. The point is that the "use common names" policy applies in the case where there is a common unambiguous name. In this case, the common names are ambiguous, so there is also the question of disambiguation to contend with. Both convetions should be satisfied as much as possible, but there are conflicting demands and some kind of compromise has to be found. When it comes to disambiguation, there are generally two options: "B A" or "A (B)". Disambiguation conventions sometimes prefer a less common name if it eschews parentheses. There is some precedent for preferring "B A" if such a thing is possible, even if that name is not quite as common as just "A". That is what is going on here, and that is why a strict application of the conventions doesn't result in a entirely satisfactory solution. We have to consider each of the options on their merits, and parenthesized disambiguation has a big demerit in that its ugliness and awkwardness means it is sometimes dispreferred to a disambiguated form that avoid parentheses. Nohat 02:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what i was arguing in this original post. People don't call it Time (magazine) or The X Files (film) -- they just call them "Time Magazine" or "X Files movie", but the article should not be there.  With "State Highway X (California)," it should be interpreted that most poeple call ie "State Highway X", which is disambiguated to be the "State Highway X" that is in the state of California.  We dont say "Mouse (computing)", but probalby it would be "Computer mouse". That is how disambiguation works.  atanamir 01:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's say that, instead of numbered routes, the state highway system named the roads after, say former presidents. For example, Lincoln Route, Roosevelt Route, Washington Route, etc. What if another state, say Maryland, had a similar set of presidential routes? Would you disambiguate by "Maryland Lincoln Route" and "California Lincoln Route" or would you go with "Lincoln Route (California)" and "Lincoln Route (Maryland)"? If look at the label "State Route X" as a proper noun then the parenthetical disambiguation would make more sense. Polaron 02:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The titles in question have the identifier after the word "route", whereas in these hypothetical examples, they are before the word "route". The rules of syntax vary too much to be able to draw any kind of conclusion from hypothetical examples so different from the cases in question. The proper noun argument isn't very persuasive, either. "California State Highway 17" is just as much a proper noun as "State Highway 17". In any case, considering things as proper nouns doesn't really strke me as a reasons why parenthetical disambiguation would "make more sense". Nohat 06:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions and redirects
Just a brief comment (from someone passing through) on the debate above about naming conventions for US State Highways. I was wondering why the "location" disambiguation style briefly mentioned above is not more widely adopted? Something like State Highway 17, California? Even failing this, why aren't lots of the red links above (the examples of other possible titles) redirects? If those who are arguing about search terms are serious about people searching for other terms, they would be making all possible combinations of disambiguation titles into redirects. This is not always great fun, but might help. An example is the redirects pointing at Thomas-François Dalibard. There are a total of 21 of them (permutations involving 'ç', the hyphen and an apostrophe), as you can see here: Talk:Thomas-François Dalibard. Carcharoth 12:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have an idea. This could be helpful. --Sunfazer | Talk 21:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason the "location" style hasn't been considered is because roads are not locations. Regardless of what SPUI & co. claim, people do call these roads "California State Route X", but do not call them "State Route X, California"; where as people do say "Philadelphia, Tennessee", particularly if they're afraid it might be confused with the much larger Philadelphia in Pennsylvania.
 * As for why the "red links" have not been made into redirects, it is because people do not type "Chile (fruit)" or "Apollo (space program)" into the search box; they type "Chile" or "Apollo". They are then taken to a disambiguation page (indirectly, since both these terms have a more common usage), from where they can choose the specific instance of "Apollo" or "Chile" they'd meant to search for. -- Northenglish 02:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Any redirects which would help avoid the accidental creation of duplicate articles (through duplicate effort, I might add), would be most welcome. I will reiterate that the majority (but not all) references to numbered highways in California will be from (a) articles about other numbered highways in California, or (b) articles about cities in California which are found along those roads, making the state name redundant in most contexts. Regardless of which titles the highway articles ultimately occupy, typing
 * &#91;&#91;State Route 1 (California)&#124;&#93;&#93;
 * which expands to
 * &#91;&#91;State Route 1 (California)&#124;State Route 1&#93;&#93;
 * is easier to type in situations where the state name is already contextually stated, and it also produces the correct name of the route being referred to. However, I do wish the so called "pipe trick" worked with commas for "City, State" pairs as well. Explicitly specifying "California State Route X" would be helpful in an article about a national highway, or about state's highway which happens to connect to it at a state line, or about a non-road topic altogether. — May. 19, '06 [04:47] < [ freak]|[ talk] >

Some stress relief
Aah, arguments... (looks up)...sigh. Well, I have produced an image that would halt the tensions among the members of this project (for now...sigh again) and direct attention to a simple yet obvious mistake, just made in recent times. It has even gone uncorrected for some time now. Here is "State Route 80": Image:I-80 Chadbourne.jpg. Enjoy. --Geopgeop 18:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * LMAO! I was riding down 12 the other day and noticed it, thinking WTF?! I bet it's an inside joke with Caltrans. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 06:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:CASH - the shortcut
I believe this has been brought up before, in the form of a bad joke: WP:CASH, the shortcut for this WikiProject, is for California State Highways, not for money or making money. Now, to be serious: if anybody is looking for the shortcut to the WikiProject for money and related, WikiProject Numismatics, the shortcut is WP:NUMIS. This notice might have to be posted on the top of the WikiProject page, if needed. --Geopgeop 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Or a wikiproject focused on Johnny Cash. Hell, we've got WP:BEATLES... — Jun. 19, '06  [21:13] < [ freak]|[ talk] >

Route 1 exit list
Just in case, I'm creating the exit list for California State Route 1 in my userspace at User:Geopgeop/Exit list of California State Route 1. While I'm not looking to add this to the SR 1 article right now, at least can someone doulbecheck the mileage work from the first concurrency with US 101 and onward? The total mileage and the exit number at Constellation Road are off about a couple of miles and I can't figure out why. --Geopgeop 14:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of standardization
I'm new to all this highway project thing, so let me ask a stupid question: why aren't the CA highway articles standardized at all? --physicq210 00:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Uggh. Because we've been busy ay Arbitration, and some users are scared of the whole thing (not that I blame them)... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

State route naming conventions poll/Part2
Your state is invited to participate in discussions for its highway naming convention. Please feel free to participate in this discussion. If you already have a convention that follows the State Name Type xx designation, it is possible to request an exemption as well. Thanks! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  00:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Route Maps
Hi! How about a "route map" of each State Highway? I've seen that in German Autobahn articles (e.g. Bundesautobahn_1) and it looks good. Is there anybody interested in drawing? --85.178.25.73 22:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Long Beach Freeway/Santa Ana Freeway
Is there a name for the fast lane to fast lane freeway interchange, such as the one at the intersection of the Long Beach Freeway and Santa Ana Freeway? Blank Verse 09:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, after looking through Interchange (road), it is either a hybrid of something else or a rare type. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)