Talk:California State Route 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 20:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

State Route 2 (California)→ California State Route 2– Return to original page name agreed upon by consensus and the WP:CASR Wikiproject.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

[edit] Discussion

• Support move wholeheartedly, this is a consensus defined name and also a correct name per the State of California. Also helps the page not violate disambig guidelines.JohnnyBGood 23:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose move wholeheartedly. Everything JohnnyBGood says is incorrect. For instance, there are 26900 matches for "State Route" vs. 148 matches for "California State Route" on the Caltrans website. Google News gives similar results of 231 (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 2", disambiguation is to be done with parentheses. There is no such thing as "California State Route 2" under out disambiguation conventions, just as there is no such thing as "UK politician John Smith" or "politician Jim Brown". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Did you attempt a non specific to caltrans search. I did I came up with 1.2 million instances of state route but 36 million instances of California state route. JohnnyBGood 00:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what searches did you use? Those numbers don't make sense by simple arithmetic. I get 67500 for "California State Route" and 1350000 for California "State Route". Sure, the latter will be inflated somewhat, as it will deal with pages about other states that have the word "California", so this comparison isn't all that useful. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The same searches you did. Also I'd like to direct people's attention to the federal gov't's opinion on the matter.JohnnyBGood 00:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Caltrans names the routes. The FHWA simply disambiguated by adding "California" to the beginning, which is not the method we use on Wikipedia. If we're going to cherry-pick, how about [1], where the FHWA uses "State Route 99 in California"? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Intersting find. Maybe that's where they should be put. But that's a discussion for another time.JohnnyBGood 00:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh... that's the discussion we're having now. It's pretty clear that the name is "State Route X", and the "California" is tacked on in different methods of disambiguation. On Wikipedia, we disambiguate using parentheses. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you'll look most articles are moving away from parenthetical disambig. Many of your own additions are that way as well for the interstate state specific articles. Not to mention all of the US Routes, cities, etc... But parentesis would only be needed if it's agreed that the default name isn't CASR which is what we're discussing here.JohnnyBGood 00:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Actually if you'll look most articles are moving away from parenthetical disambig." What are you talking about? Interstate 76 (east)? U.S. Route 48 (1926)? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Recognize this Interstate 80 in California, I believe you started that article.JohnnyBGood 00:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah. That's not a separate Interstate 80, but the section of I-80 in California. That has nothing to do with this discussion. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually they're all different routes, specifically the CA section of I-80. You and I both know that as far as the state of California is concerned I-80 is CA 80.JohnnyBGood 01:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's also Interstate 80. This again has nothing to do with the present discussion; I will probably not respond to anything else about it. I don't think anyone is suggesting "California Interstate 80". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Use the parentheses per SPUI, keep redirects for the other plausible titles. Then we can uses use the pipe trick, set up a disambiguation page at State Route 2, which would list all the "Routes Two" in every state that has one, etc., etc. — Mar. 21, '06 [00:16] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Support the move. I hate article titles that always need to be piped. The obvious way to refer to a California roadway in another article is "California State Route 2". Using parens in the title is madness. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If you're referring to it in a general article, like "list of scenic roads in the United States" or something, sure, linking to "California State Route 2" makes sense as a somewhat informal method of disambiguating; that's what redirects are for. But in the majority of cases, namely California-specific articles, the text should read "State Route 2" without the "California", for the same reason cities are piped like "Ducksheep, California|Ducksheep". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Not so. If I'm working in a context where the state has not already been specified (which I would guess is about half the time), then "Ducksheep, California" can be used just fine as is, w/o piping. "State Route 2 (California)" always has to be piped in article useage (except maybe in a table). -- Mwanner | Talk 00:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Read Wikipedia:Pipe trick - you don't need anything after the pipe. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
        • OK, but if I were writing about CA SR 2 from within an article on Oregon, e.g., I'd end up piping it as "[[State Route 2 (California)|California State Route 2]]". Madness! --
          • Why not just [[California State Route 2]]? Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways/Completion list exists to ensure that those redirects will exist. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Except then we have useless redirects floating around which makes things more complicated. Common names here: we're not going to the extreme of Highway 237 but noone calls it State Route 237 (California). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
              • "Useless redirects"? What the fuck? As for your second point, even less people call it "California State Route 237". Your arguments are nonexistent. Please stop grasping at straws. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
                • 4 Support to 2 Oppose? I'm not the one grasping at straws here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • None of those support "votes" give any valid reasons. It's just a bunch of groupthink. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
                    • By your book. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support the move. This is the naming convention agreed to at WP:CASH, and no other proposed "overall road naming convention" has reached consensus. Gentgeen 02:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a circular argument. "It's consensus because it's consensus." --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's what people want. Sorry. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • If there are no good reasons for it, then it won't be moved. Sorry. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Except there are. I'm not going to waste my breath repeating them as we've stated them over and over again. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
        • As no good reasons have been given here, it will not be moved. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Per your opinion. The sysop who moves this page will not make a 4 support to 2 oppose suddenly become a 1 support to 4 oppose. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
            • As with VFD, RM is not a vote. No valid arguments for moving have been brought forth. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
              • But a sysop can't flat out override consensus. I know because I am one. And valid arguments? By your book they aren't valid. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
                • You have an incorrect view of vandalism. I don't think I trust your view of consensus. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • Says the person to whom an incorrect judgement would favor. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • My opinion is not a circular arguement. If you actually read what I wrote, I stated that a naming convention covering articles on California's state highways was established at WP:CASH. I then noted that no other naming convention had reached consensus to overturn the established guideline, therefore, the page should be returned to its original title in order to comply with the WikiProject's guidelines. And finally, I find that you do not enter into discussions with any intention of reaching consensus, but just to bully others until your view is adopted because others give up due to frustration; it won't work with me. Gentgeen 06:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Or with me. That is not something I will stand for. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Or I said the fly. I may have backed off as of late, but I'm not gone either by any stretch.Gateman1997 06:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Reasons coming when I get some time. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support move, the destination is the agreed apon name per the Wikiproject, is an official state name maybe not with the most google hits (most of which are wikimirrors in either search presented), and helps to avoid unneccesary disambig creep as has been pointed out above. Also it makes linking easier from other articles. (Also WP:Disambiguation is only a guideline anyway ;)).Gateman1997 05:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Groupthink. What the hell is "disambig creep"? Read Wikipedia:Pipe trick and strikeout the bit about making linking easier. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Disambig creep is another way of saying, "creating unneeded disambiguation". Also I won't strikeout the easier linking comment as it's true as evidence above.Gateman1997 05:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding "California" to the beginning is your method of disambiguation, and is incorrect. As for linking, please read Wikipedia:Pipe trick until you understand it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand pipe trick. It shouldn't be your primary linking method, it's a fallback if the fullname is too long. Also adding California to the beginning is not a disambig method, it's one of several official names for these routes.Gateman1997 05:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop attacking the CASR WP. And yes we understand the pipe trick but no it's not worth the extra time spent implementing this entirely new system just so that you can use the pipe trick (witness Oceanside (CA) redirects that you have been creating? ) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support

1. While consensus has not been reached on either side of this debate at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Numbered_highways, page moves to promote disambiguation should be reverted until consensus has been reached either way.
2. If consensus has been reached at WP:CASH to have names as "CA RT X" then this should remain until consensus has been reached at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Numbered_highways.
3. The editor's pipe trick is not a valid reason for naming an article.

--Censorwolf 14:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose The use of parentheses is a standard disambiguation method used in many encyclopedias and dictionaries. Appropriate redirects will take care of the other possible names used. We should use correct nomenclature as much as possible. Polaron 14:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Include same reasons as other opposition above. California is not part of the name. Pipe trick is moot, since most links aren't going to use it, but this naming presents the type of road up front, just like it has been done for Interstates, U.S. Routes, and County Routes Joydawg 00:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, just a side note, it's not used on County Routes because it can't be due to cross county Routes and it not being an official name of them. There is no reference to them as California County Routes, however there multiple cited references to California State Routes. Also I'd point out that most of the Interstate and US moves were done with minimal consensus as well. Gateman1997 02:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Noted wrt county routes. References to "California State Route..." outside of Wikipedia are probably disambiguation though (just not in Wikipedia style) and not proper names. Also, can someone briefly summarize what happened with Interstate/US moves. These talk pages can get to be quite hairy, but if there's a precedent to be applied one way or the other, it would help. Joydawg 05:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably not... noting a recent argument from the talk of WP:NC/NH it's more complete to have the proper noun and phrase "California State Route". With the US moves (there weren;t any Interstate ones), basically SPUI started moving pages and people complained but gave up. We're not letting that happen here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

With U.S. Routes I wasn't sure if the moves would be a good idea, so I asked on the wikiproject talk and moved several as a test. When no one complained I moved the rest. On the other hand, here I know what the correct names are. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, I believe that I did object. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Residents of 49 states, when talking about this roadway, would call it "California State Route 2," just as they would use the name "California Proposition 76" to refer to the ballot initiative that is actually, under state law, simply called "Proposition 76," and refer to Cruz Bustamante as the "Lieutenant Governor of California" when in fact his official title according to the state constitution is "Lieutenant Governor." 49 states is common enough for me. --phh 03:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure you how you're able to make such a definitive statement about people in 49 states. The Google test doesn't support it. If I search for "proposition 13 california", within the first 100 results on Google, the only string matches for "California Proposition 13" are 2 from Wikipedia. All other references seem to vary, like "California's Proposition 13" or "Proposition 13 in California". For state routes, I see an FHWA page talking about "State Route 99 in California". I'm not convinced that there's a dominant style that's being ignored here that could trump the number of other reasons the opposition has brought up. Joydawg 22:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Then I suggest you not let the sun go down on articles like California Proposition 76 (2005) and List of Lieutenant Governors of California, when clearly they should be called Proposition 76 (California) (2005) and List of Lieutenant Governors (California). --phh 22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Each type of article has its own set of problems. From the prop titles you cite, it seems like there's a state and a date disambiguation that needs to happen (i.e. Prop 65) which complicates things. The Lt. Gov. thing seems fine, because it falls in line with standards like Governor of California. I think atanamir's discussion below highlights well the type of problems that this class of articles need to resolve. Joydawg 23:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, it turns out that there's no such office as "Governor of California" in the state constitution either--all they have is a "Governor". Shall we move that article to Governor (California), too? The reason I ask, you see, is that there's not an atom's worth of difference between that "controversy" and this one. --phh 06:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• No, parenthetical disambiguation is not the only way to go. In that case, "of" works just fine. But look at the first line of the article. It separates Governor and California to prevent misinterpretation. Beautiful! But "of" won't work here. If there's something better than parens, I'd love for it to be presented. Joydawg 08:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. This naming convention is better to standardise the names of all the road articles and matches that of the Interstates and US Highways. atanamir 04:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • But the Interstate and U.S. Route systems are much different. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with that; however, in the larger scope (trying to better unify each state's respective route systems), the ()-form dab makes more sense. One of the biggest arguments given in favour of California State Route 17 is that it is the 'official' name; as stated above, Route 17 is the 'true' official name for the route, in which case, the word 'california' simply serves as a disambiguation mechanism. Thus, in accordance with rest of wikipedia, I think that the disamb. mechanism should be in parens after the article name. atanamir 05:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
      • One more thing -- however, if a better -- scratch that -- ANY -- unified naming system is devised and gains consensus, I am all for that. But as of now, this system seems to make the most sense to me. atanamir 05:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It's not really the same as the rest of Wikipedia. But thanks for your flexible approach and willingness to work together. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Although I know this won't end the debate, I've been looking around for some examples of ways people like to dab. Here are a few of the distinct categories which I've found which are more related to our topic at hand.

1. Geographical Locations - This is an obvious way. Differentiating between someplace like Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri isn't like Kansas City (Missouri) or Kansas City (Kansas). So, the comma is how they do it there.

As a side note, Georgia uses parens. I know, commas here don't really work -- Georgia, Country and Georgia, US State look awkward. And Country Georgia And US State Georgia don't really work either. So, I'm not bringing this up as an official example.

1. Places bearing the same name in different states. Example would be Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation). Here, they use the parentheses for dab'ing. Abraham Lincoln High School (Los Angeles) and Abraham Lincoln High School (San Francisco). This seems to make sense as well; better than Abraham Lincoln High School, San Francisco, California.
2. Roads. This is another closely realted one, which is an acutal implemented use of the topic of debate right now. A594 road. My personal opinion comes after this colon: This seems to relate most closely to our system; two roads bearing the same number / name, 'A594 road', in two different locations. The equivalent to this using the 'old' (or existing) system would be Cumbria A594 Road or Leiceister A594 Road. Although I think they both work, the parentheses seem 'cleaner' to me. Again, just opinion.

I think what I'm trying to get at here is that every state has its respective numbered route system; each state has its own wikiproject, but they all fall under the parent project 'US Roads'. Thus, drawing on the current examples, we should try to think of a system that is the most clean and efficient way to do it that makes sense to the user and is equally applicable to all states. Hopefully these examples will bring some insight and direction to this. atanamir 07:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. For all the reasons listed by many users above. ^BlankVerse 08:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per SPUI. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, we should use the official name when possible. Ashibaka tock 03:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Which is "California State Route". --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • ^{[citation needed]} --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I could say the same to you. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I've provided said sources. Here's a specific one: [2]

          IRTE: Signed Interstate route number.

          This item is used to display highways that are signed Interstate to the traveling public.

          USRTE: Signed US route number

          This item is used to display highways that are signed US to the traveling public.

          SRTE: Signed State route number

          This item is used to display highways that are signed State to the traveling public.

          LRTE: Legislative route number

          This item is used to display the State Highway Route as defined in the Caltrans Statutes

          sections 300 - 635. This item is also used to display the legislative symbol on maps.

        • --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
          • But of course it will be "California State Route". What else are they referring to, Idaho State Routes? So the California is understood. But outside of Caltrans it's not. Hence we have "California State Route." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
            • You are speaking of disambiguation, not the official name. Why else do we not have "U.S. Interstate 95"? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Bingo, this is the key assertion that Rschen7554 is repeatedly stating but not providing evidence for. He/she is making arbitrary suppositions about Caltrans etc to support the idea that California is part of some official name. You'd think that if evidence was to be brought out anywhere, it should be here, if this is truly a 'landmark' discussion. And before it's declared yet again that the old name is consensus, after this discussion, I hardly think that stands anymore. The only "official" usage we have are repeated citations of State Route, so that's all we should use, in conjunction with an approriate form of disambiguation. Joydawg 06:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Try common sense? Also who types in "State Route 23" into the search field? They'll type in or expect "California State Route 23" instead. Common names here- who exactly has heard of "State Route 67 (California)"? We're not going to the extreme of "California 78" but we can;t use a name noone has heard of.And where is your consensus to move everything to "State Route x (CAlifornia)"? And we don't use "U.S. Interstate 95" because the "U.S." is understood- it's the Interstate Highway system which people know is from the U.S. If there are other Interstate systems out there, they're sure not what most (English-speaking) people think of when they see "Interstate." Here the California is not understoof. It goes at the front because that's what people refer to them as in the international audience. If some Arizonian referred to CA-35 as "State Route 35" he would not get his point across. His saying "State Route 35 (California)" would be strange. However "California State Route 35" would sound the best and be technically correct. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • Good, we've moved off the official name claim, and to use the analogy, drawn another straw. Let me step back to part of what Gateman1997 said about unnecessary disambiguation. If just putting California in front was good enough, I would agree with his viewpoint to not bother changing things. The problem is that it some how it's gotten to be accepted that it's part of an official name (you certaintly got that impression). But it's not. The parens clearly indicate that. I just read the Interstate Highway System article (hooray!) and I don't know where you're drawing this magical U.S. prefix from. They're called Interstate X for the most part, and so no one's wasting their time arguing it. If there was another country that had a similar system and called all their component pieces Interstate X, yes, we'd disambiguate it like Interstate X (NewCountry). WRT these hypothetical people that keep popping up, I'll even go along with you say and that there's a pour soul who loves to click "Go" with California State Route X. There's a redirect that will take her to the right page. It's no different than if I continue to use "Oprah" to take me to "Oprah Winfrey". I take back what I said about progress, since we've now moved from 49 angry states to a whole seething international audience, with a helpless Arizonian thrown in for good measure :-P If I did what you said about that poor Arizona soul would be do, because the Wikipedia article about Georgia is called Georgia (U.S. state), I'd have to constantly say the U.S. state part when referring to say, a list of Southern states. Human conversations have context to disambiguate, Wikipedia article titles do not. You're entitled to your opinion of it sounding the best, no beef there, but please stop saying technically correct. If we could justifiably say that, we wouldn't be wasting our time like this. Did I say a new consensus had been reached? No. All I meant to imply is that there's been enough valid discussion on this topic that blindly saying that the current consensus should be treated as a sacrament is nonsense. Joydawg 08:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
                    • The bringing up of 'common names' also risks sending us back into the ca/sr 17 debate as well. atanamir 09:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. AjaxSmack 08:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would expect all state routes to use the same format, so I am doubtful that any particular article is the best place to discuss naming guidelines, as this is a guideline that should be decided in general first, and then applied to all route. Voting individually will retain the current inconsistant naming structure. For reference, the current usuage broken down by states (quickly done, so may have some mistakes) is as follows. Regards, MartinRe 09:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Entries that use "State Route X": Alabama , Arizona , Arkansas , Colorado , Georgia , Hawaii , Illinois , Indiana , Iowa , Kansas , Kentucky , Maine , Maryland , Michigan , Minnesota , Mississippi , Missouri , Montana , Nevada , New Hampshire , New Mexico , New York , New York , North Carolina , Ohio , Oklahoma , Pennsylvania , Rhode Island , South Dakota , State highways in Alaska , Tennessee , Texas , Utah , Vermont , Virginia , Washington , West Virginia , Wisconsin
  • Entries that use Route X (State): Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey
  • Entries that are mixed: California, Oregon
• Also within that [category] are other inconstistancies, some entries have "Highways in State X", others have State highways in state X", others have "State X highways". MartinRe 09:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • • Yes, this is being debated at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Numbered_highways. --Censorwolf 14:46, 24 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.