Talk:List of Washington State Routes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the Washington State Highway WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to highways in Washington. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Original routes 2 Beach driving 3 Massive change to list 4 News flash, SPUI was right all along 5 Notes for if we ever get this page unprotected. 6 Protection 7 SR 237 8 Duplication 9 State Route Templates 10 Decision making time

[edit] Original routes

From a 1925 map:

WASHINGTON STATE HIGHWAYS

PRIMARY HIGHWAYS

• 1 Pacific Highway Oregon (Portland)-British Columbia (Blaine)
• 2 Sunset Highway Seattle?-Idaho (Spokane Bridge)
• 3 Inland Empire Highway Teanaway-British Columbia (Laurier)
• 5 National Park Highway System Seattle-Yakima, west of Ethel-east of Mt. Rainier, Kosmos-Tacoma
• 6 Pend Oreille Highway Spokane-British Columbia (north of Metaline Falls)
• 7 North Central Highway Ellensburg-Davenport
• 8 North Bank Highway Vancouver-Buena? Zillah?
• 9 Olympic Highway Olympia-west of Olympia (loop)
• 10 Chelan and Okanogan Highway Quincy-British Columbia (north of Oroville)
• 11 Central Washington Highway Pasco-west of Spokane
• 12 Ocean Beach Highway Kelso-Chehalis, northwest of Naselle-Oregon (Astoria)
• 13 Willapa-Grays Harbor Highway Raymond-east of Aberdeen
• 14 Navy Yard Highway south of Potlatch-Harper?
• 15 Inland Empire Highway Eastern Route Idaho (Lewiston)-Malden

SECONDARY HIGHWAYS

• 4 Tonasket-San Poil Highway Tonasket-Wilbur
• 21 State Road No. 21 Charleston-Port Gamble? Kingston?
• 22 State Road No. 22 Davenport-Kettle Falls
• 23 Methow Valley Highway southwest of Pateros-Ruby?
• 24 Cascade Wagon Road Marbremount?-Twisp?

A few more and details at [1] and of course [2]

[edit] Beach driving

I can't find an "official citation" I'll look for one later, but this shows up on a simple google search [3].

I have a few pics of beach "street signs" but they are too foggy to read, and plenty of pics of my car sitting on the beach, but that isn't a cite. I'll find a WSDOT page later, because they used to have a good one about it. SchmuckyTheCat 08:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Here we go:

• Beaches are public highways, RCW 79A.05.693 [4]
• Parts of beaches are reserved for pedestrians certain parts of the year, 79A.05.655. [5].

There is still a better WSDOT page. SchmuckyTheCat 08:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, a WSDOT reference would be better - the law says nothing about them being state highways, just public highways. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

public highway = state highway. cite from ocean shores police dept [6]. SchmuckyTheCat 19:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"(b) "Public highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel." "Public highway" means every street, road, or highway in this state. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massive change to list

Why was this list changed to link to a whole bunch of redirects? What's more, this is starting to resemble the fiasco that happened in California. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Because those are the correct names. They will be moved there eventually. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Add this to the med cabal case. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, you're just looking for anything to use against me. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've found plenty at CA. I don't need this to make a case. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As someone who lives here, in addition to your citation of the RCW, I can verify they are indeed always called "State Route XX" (and more often, but informally, "SR XX") and never "Washington State Route XX". Once the articles are all moved, the redirects won't be an issue. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Internationally they are "Washington State Route x".^{[citation needed]} Also, SPUI needs to gain consensus for these mass moves. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hang on.. he needs consensus for correcting the articles? So if an article about a President has the wrong birthdate, and SPUI has a source for the correct date, he needs to gain consensus for the change before he can make it? And what's this "internationally" deal? Do you have a source that overrides what Washington state (and Washington media, and Washington locals) call their state routes/etc? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No but SPUI needs consensus for 300 page moves, don't you think? Especially when people oppose them and revet them back. Specifically, WP:AN/I has now placed a highway page move ban on all of us for this massive edit warring. We've discussed at WP:NC/NH and SPUI has no consensus. We've had discussions regarding the infobox at WT:CASH and SPUI has lost. We've tried mediation and SPUI does not want to cooperate. We've filed an RFC and so far SPUI does not want to either. You get the picture? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Not if he's moving the pages to the correct names (and taking into account Wikipedia guidelines for disambiguation per the Manual of Style). Unless your position is that a consensus of people can, for example, have George W. Bush's birthdate changed to the wrong date in the face of evidence/proof indicating it's wrong. Also, please don't see debates as "win" or "lose"; that's when you lose sight of what really matters here: making sure Wikipedia is correct (and regarding the MoS concerns, consistant). And back to consensus for page moves; if page moves were such a huge problem, I imagine the facility would be restricted to sysops (in other words: regular editors wouldn't be able to do it if it wasn't supposed to be doable). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, people disagree that they are called "State Route x (Washington)". Read my response to SPUI's RFC in a few minutes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

He is not moving them to the correct names. Under the law, is called "state route number 3."[7] SPUI is full of reasons why this correct name is not actually the correct correct name, but regardless of which side you come down on it is clear that the question of what constitutes the "correct" name does not have a clearly and unambiguously right answer. Moreover, "correct" isn't even the standard to be applying here; naming conventions (common names) is, and I would suggest that the average user is much more likely to search on "Washington State Route 3" than on "State Route 3 (Washington)." Because there is in fact no definitively "correct" answer either way, any change in the convention is subject to consensus... so why are you seeking to exempt SPUI, alone among the 1,000,000+ registered Wikipedians, from the process? --phh 05:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop confusing the issue. The laws use "state route number X" but WSDOT uses "State Route X" or "SR X". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

WSDOT doesn't own the highways, or create them. The DOT can use whatever jargon it wants to refer to them, but that does not make it "correct" if it doesn't align with the law. You are the one who is confusing the issue. --phh 14:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

WSDOT maintains, manages and signs the highways. They also de facto create them - if they were to post a route that's not defined by law, the legislature can't go out and remove the signs. (This does happen with some spurs and business routes.) "state route number X", "state route no. X" and "state route X" are equivalent, and there's one that's clearly used regularly. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Protection requested. 50+ reversions this month is a bit much; I think a cool-down period is in order. I don't care either way which syntax is used for routes, but having this constantly appear at the top of my watchlist is kind of silly. Travisl 23:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Any chance everyone here could agree to stop the silly revert war until a consensus is reached? There are obviously two conflicting opinions here, but is there some reason discussion won't work? Constant reverts certainly don't make things enjoyable for anyone here. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 06:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Since I saw the protection request, I've gone ahead and protected the article due to the constant edit warring. Has anyone here tried any dispute resolution? I didn't see an RfC for the article (my internet connection is acting funny at the moment though, so it wasn't a thorough look) -- would that be a good place to start? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 07:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We've tried discussion, mediation, user RFC, everything. The other side just doesn't understand naming conventions. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 11:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

SPUI's hostility toward any potential solution that differs from his personal preference in any way is amply documented here, here, here, here, here, here, and in many other places I don't have the time to look up at the moment. --phh (^t/_c) 12:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Make that "hostility towards the WRONG solution" and you're spot on. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 14:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I rest my case. --phh (^t/_c) 15:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean you'll stop revert warring? If so, thanks, glad we got this worked out. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We have standard naming conventions that articles should follow (especially for the case of disambiguation). Until there's a consensus to override these standards, we should follow them. SPUI isn't trying to force his "personal preference", he's trying to force the standard naming convention that the community has decided we should use (I note that WP:NC/NH did not result in a uniform naming convention standard for highways; it only agreed that each highway system should be handled on a case by case basis). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You're simply wrong. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is really quite clear:

“

When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?”

Rationale:

“

…We want to maximize the incidence that people who make a link guessing the article name, guess correctly; people guessing a different name may think there is no article yet, which may cause duplication. Using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more.”

And in fact, the page is full of examples—I count at least 13—where the common name is favored over a more "correct" version.

So take an average user, selected at random from the million-plus user base of English Wikipedia. Inform the user that there is a state highway in California that has been assigned the number 7, and ask her to locate the article on the subject. What will she type into the search box? I submit that in the vast majority of cases, she is going to type either "california state highway 7" or "california state route 7". If she is a moron or perhaps a crazy person, she might type "route 7", but no rational person is going to believe that that is the best way to reach an article on a local highway in California. If she is familiar with the Wikipedia disambiguation guidelines, and if she believes that "route 7" is likely to be a popular enough search term to warrant disambiguation, she might go out of her way to type "state highway 7 (california)" or "state route 7 (california)". What percentage of users is likely to do that? My guess: it's pretty small. Use common sense.

So even if we concede that you're right about the "correct" names, which you aren't, at best it's a case where two naming convention policies conflict with each other: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). If you'd like to have a civil discussion about the applicability of each policy to this situation in the interests of finding a solution that everyone can live with, then let's go. But don't try to pretend that you have the only possible correct answer and that therefore no discussion is necessary. --phh (^t/_c) 18:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The average visitor to Wikipedia would probably try "State Route XXX" first. Since many states have routes, those of course conflict. Proper disambiguation says we put the specifier in paranthesis (so "State Route 520 (Washington)"). That a visitor might try "Washing State Route XXX" after realizing that there are numerous overlaps for "State Route XXX" means, to me, that we should try and cover those via redirects (and SPUI has suggested this repeatedly; this covers the search field issue and also allows us to have the actual article at the correct name). But the correct name, the name used most commonly, is "SR XXX" (which is an abbreviation for "State Route XXX"). KING-5 news calls them "SR XXX", the Seattle Post-Intelligencer call them "SR XXX", locals call them "SR XXX" (or more likely, just "Route XXX"), and I wouldn't be surprised to see media outside Washington call them "SR XXX in Washington state" or "State Route XXX in Washington state". —Locke Cole • t • c 18:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I really, really doubt that someone in, say, Ohio would believe that, in a global encyclopedia, the most logical place to find an article about the state highway that runs past Microsoft in the state of Washington would be "State Route 520." But hey, at least this is an actual discussion! I could live with your proposed convention if it were arrived at through a process in which interested editors discussed the matter, civilly and assuming good faith, and determined it to be the best way to apply the binding WP:NC policy. What I don't like is being steamrolled by two people who've decided that no one else's opinions are valid because they've decided for themselves what's "correct," so everyone else can go fuck themselves. I resist that attitude, and if I have to keep resisting it, I will. Nonetheless, I'd very much prefer to resolve this some other way. --phh (^t/_c) 19:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News flash, SPUI was right all along

— May. 13, '06 [06:48] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

From the other side of the pond, I'd say that what the DOT says is the thing to go with. I'm all for the formal designation, over the informal, because if we are trying to educate, we should let people know what the correct name is, rather than reinforcing incorrect versions. That's the whole point of redirects: people can type in something dumb, and they end up in the place with the correct name! Noisy | Talk 16:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no danger of us reinforcing people using the incorrect name. "State Route XXX" is the correct way for a person inside the state of Washington to refer to a state route inside the state of Washington. "Washington State Route XXX" is the way many people outside the state of Washington to refer to such a route. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of Wikipedia users are outside the state of Washington, so let's use that name, all right?

"Washington State Route XXX" is not an incorrect name, it is a sort of disambiguation. And parentheses are not the only way to disambiguate on Wikipedia. This has already been discussed ad nauseum at the Arbcom case Freakofnurture took the above e-mail from, as well as Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California_State_Highways.

In other words...

• News Flash: We already knew what the correct name for the road was; that doesn't necessarily mean it's the correct name for the article.
• Your contribution to the move warring was unnecessary, unwarranted, and unwelcome.
• We're in Arbcom, we've got people trying to help us solve this issue. For God's sake, can't we just hold back until this is done?

-- Northenglish 21:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

His name really is Samuel Clemens but he is at Mark Twain. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Strawman. The most common name is not "Washington State Route X". --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is everywhere outside the state of Washington. Please don't say I need {{fact}}. Be honest with me for a second. What state are you from? Assuming it's not Missouri, what would you call the road from Hermitage to Lebanon that carries signs? I would call it "Missouri State Highway 64", and I'm assuming Rschen, PHenry, and others would as well. That's what we mean by common names. I'm not in anyway trying to say that it's more common or more correct than simply "State Highway 64". WP:D is clear; parentheses are not the only way to disambiguate. "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." These names aren't more common or more correct, but they're far from uncommon and incorrect... and they are more complete, thus as per WP:D we should use the more complete names such as Washington State Route 302, California State Route 1, and Missouri State Highway 64. -- Northenglish 18:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You're dead wrong - see [9]. No matches outside Wikipedia. These full names are not "more complete", just plain incorrect. --SPUI (T - C) 22:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the Revised Code of Washington, all of the state routes are in the format: State Route Number XX. Neither Washington State Route XX nor State Route XX (Washington) is technically correct. I've never heard anyone call highway 99 "Washington State Route 99," but I have heard it called State Route 99. Sonic3KMaster ^(talk) 07:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comment says that you misunderstand disambiguation - an article name of "State Route 99 (Washington)" means exactly what you say - that it is called "State Route 99". --SPUI (T - C) 06:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, SPUI, I see the search results. But I'm not dead wrong. I like how you conveniently failed to answer my question. What would you, as someone who I assume lives outside Missouri (I chose Missouri randomly), call ? Try searching google for "state highway 64 in missouri" or "missouri's state highway 64". You get nothing, not even inside Wikipedia. Now do a search for missouri "state highway 64". Oh, of course you're going to get 11,000 hits, but have you read what I wrote on Arbcom? A quick scan of the first four pages of results shows that every one of them is either (a) about a different State Highway 64 or (b) from a site that is about Missouri.

The question here is not what do people inside a certain state call their own state route. Wikipedia is for a global audience. In titling our articles, we have the unique task of figuring out what to call a state highway without having defined the state first.

Imagine this scenario. Two hikers meet up in Mt. Hood National Forest. It's in Oregon, but it's quite close to Washington, and neither knows which state the other is from. One hiker wants to tell the other that he found a nice hiking spot along . (Imagine for a moment that there is a somewhere in the state, although even if there weren't, specification might still be necessary.) How would this hiker both refer to the route and the state? There are three ways I can think of, and since you love Google so much, here are their search results, too.

• "Washington State Route 4" 28, 16 of which are not from Wikipedia or a mirror.
• "State Route 4 in Washington" 4
• "Washington's State Route 4" 0

Like it or not, people do call it that. -- Northenglish 00:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comment says that you misunderstand disambiguation - an article name of "State Route 4 (Washington)" means that it is called "State Route 4". --SPUI (T - C) 06:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to reason with SPUI is not a productive use of anyone's time. —phh (^t/_c) 17:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Going by what the RCW says seems even more incorrect. Sonic3KMaster's link says that it should be called "State Route Number 99". I don't know of anyone who uses the word "number" when they're talking about a state route in the state. Anecdotally, most people I know just call it "highway 99" or "highway 16" or "highway 512".

Incidentally, I needed to find the wiki page for US-180 to add a photo a couple days ago. I'm fairly new to this, so I searched for "US Highway 180" and had a heck of a time tracking it down (eventually I made it to U.S. Route 180, but only after I picked a different US highway page, hit its redirect, and then edited its URL to be 180). As long as there's enough redirects, I don't much care what we end up calling WA SR-XX, as long as it's consistent. Travisl 23:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that'll teach me. I wrote a big long response, and it didn't show up. I must have just looked at the preview and not made sure I actually saved it. Anyway...

Holy copy and paste, Batman! Would someone mind pointing out to me where in my previous post I said anything about parenthetical disambiguation that would lead SPUI to believe I "misunderstand" it. Unlike my previous posts, not once did I mention anything about parentheses or articles titled "State Route 4 (Washington)". The purpose of my previous post was not to debate disambiguation methods, rather it was to show SPUI through reason (something I will continue to do, PHenry, fruitless or not) that people do call these roads "Washington State Route XX" and it is a valid, more complete name. Perhaps SPUI's misunderstanding came from my statement: "The question here is not what do people inside a certain state call their own state route. Wikipedia is for a global audience. In titling our articles, we have the unique task of figuring out what to call a state highway without having defined the state first." I suppose I shall try to explain that further.

Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. This means that we are not concerned with what the state of Washington calls their own state routes; we are concerned with what the globe calls them. The official name does matter, particularly when determining whether to title the articles "State Route" or "State Highway" or "State Road" or something else entirely, but it does not end at the official name. Let's take PHenry's Charles I example from our debate on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California State Highways, and pretend for a moment with me that we're talking about living kings, although it truly doesn't matter. A peasant in England would undoubtedly refer to his king as simply Charles I, just as a peasant in Spain would refer to his king as simply Charles I. According to your logic, SPUI, we would title these articles Charles I (England) and Charles I (Spain), since that is what people in those countries call their own kings. (Notice how I understand perfectly well what disambiguation means.) But that's not what these articles are titled. Why not? Well, the English subject would refer to the Spanish king by the more complete name of Charles I of Spain, just as the Spanish subject would refer to the English king by the more complete name of Charles I of England, in order to disambiguate from their own kings. Furthermore, someone from neutral Australia would refer to both kings by their more complete names to disambiguate them from each other, since if they said just "Charles I", it would not be clear which country they were talking about. Here on Wikipedia, we use the global, more complete names.

The global, more complete name for is "Washington State Route 4". The reason search results for phrases like "washington state route" are so much lower than washington "state route" is because people rarely have to refer to a state route without it already being clear what state they are talking about, but this exactly what one has to do when titling an article in a global encyclopedia. There are still plenty of search results to show that it is a valid, more complete name. I apologize for not linking to my search results in my previous post, but here are two I found particularly interesting: from the National Park Service and from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, two federal government agencies.

Did you notice how Travisl said "WA SR-XX" at the end of his post? Short for Washington State Route?

I noticed how you still have conveniently failed to answer my question. What would you call ?

As proof that I do understand disambiguation, let me explain it to you. WP:D outlines a variety of different methods for disambiguation. Parenthetical disambiguation in the form of A (B) does, in fact, refer to a topic whose proper name is A, and is used when there is another topic called A that as PHenry explained (also on the WP:CASH talk page) has equal right to the name A, and would be disambiguated with the form A (C). Another way of stating this "equal right" theory is that when a user types A into the search box, there's a fairly equal chance they would be searching for A (B) or A (C), and further, when a user is searching for A (B) or A (C) they would be likely to type A into the search box. But keep in mind that parentheses are not the only way to disambiguate according to WP:D. WP:D also outlines the more complete names method, and clearly states that it should be used when possible, instead of parentheses. More complete names, in this case disambiguation of the form B A, are used when even though simply A is the proper name, a user is more likely to type B A into the search box because he or she is already aware of the need for disambiguation.

-- Northenglish 22:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes for if we ever get this page unprotected.

• The "eastern strip" of two-digit highways should start at U.S. 97, not the Columbia River. SR 22 is entirely east of US 97 and west of the Columbia River, as is about half of SR 24.
• In the second paragraph of the "Numbering Pattern" section, I propose we use the phrase "child route" instead of spur route, in order to differentiate between (for example) SR 160 and SR 16 Spur.
• US 101 Alternate is a current route, not former/proposed. It's a short route near Ilwaco, bypassing the section of 101 that runs west to Long Beach and back.
• SR 168 is listed under current routes when it is actually proposed (as is SR 704).
• I propose we list SRs 161, 162, 164, 165, 167, 168, and 169 as children of SR 410 (functionally SR 16) instead of directly children of SR 16, since none of them connect to SR 16 and they all connect to SR 410. Highways of Washington State follows this logic as well.
• SR 397 is listed as a child of US 95; it should be listed as a child of US 395.

Just some thoughts. -- Northenglish 22:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Do you guys feel like you are ready for unprotection or not? --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not until a decision on naming convention has been made one way or the other, IMHO. -- Northenglish 13:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh that's ridiculous. This page has been protected for weeks and weeks and weeks. I'm unprotecting and if people start being naughty they'll just have to take the consequences. --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Maturity is lacking from the people involved in the move war, and now the arbitrators and admins, too. Why was it necessary to call me/what I said "ridiculous"? I didn't change any of the links that were already there, except for one that mistakenly linked to State Route 410 (California). I did, however, put my new links at Washington State Route 410 because that is where I humbly believe they should be. The text of the article is not an issue because I piped them. Why was this edit necessary? To quote SPUI, redirects are cheap. -- Northenglish 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SR 237

SR 237 was originally numbered SR 537 when the segment of SR 20 west of the current junction with SR 536 was part of SR 536. When the North Cascades Highway was completed, the western segment SR 536 was renumbered as an extension of SR 20, and SR 537 was renumbered to SR 237, as it no longer connected with a 5XX route, and did connect with SR 20. The 3 was kept to minimize confusion. -- Northenglish 22:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplication

Due to the controversy over the state route table at List of Routes in Vermont, I am proposing three designs which should simplify the page and bring it up to par per WP:MS. (This is why there is nothing listed under state routes at the moment.) The goal is to enhance readability to not only "roadgeeks", but to every user that may or may not be familar with the terminology. See my sandbox for the designs and please comment here on what design you would like to see, or if there can be any improvements to the existing set. Thanks! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I like 1A -- the graphics add a lot to the usability of the table. If there was some way to go with the graphics only, no text, I think that'd be a good option, as well.

Option 2 is no good -- I can't tell whether I should be reading across the rows to see the routes in order, or down the columns. Travisl 15:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

After talking to Atanamir, the only way to go about making the images clickable to the state route would to use some complex coding that would grossly infltate the size of the page. If you click on the image, it gives a listing of where the graphic is used, but its at the bottom and out-of-sight. I personally like Design 1, but Design 1A is also acceptable to me as well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I implemented it on List of Routes in Vermont to gauge reaction, since 1A came out better than I had expected in my sandbox. What do you think of that? The shields in the 100+ routes for Vermont were a bit more squashed than the sub-100 because of their widths but it didn't impact it as great as I would have thought. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue here on the Washington page would be to keep it so that the routes are listed by their parent route (all the 1XX's under 101, all the 5XX's under I-5, etc.) instead of in numerical order. Just something to keep in mind. -- NORTH ^talk 22:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Right after I posted that, I realized that I don't have a problem with reordering them numerically -- although I'd still wait until other users respond, as they might. -- NORTH ^talk 22:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am curious as to why that was done? I hadn't seen that on other state highway logs at the time (in the east) until I got to Washington. When I was originally making the list out in the original tables, I had most of them done, then realized that I was missing a lot of routes in between since it didn't fall numerically.

I would suggest that it would be organized similar to other state route logs, such as List of Routes in Vermont, in which the state routes are organized under four columns. I want to hear other opinions on this as well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't done on other state route pages because Washington is one of only a few states that number their routes according to such a system. Other states usually just number them sequentially and/or geographically. If you look at the lists for U.S. (List of United States Numbered Highways) and Interstate highways (here and here), they are listed in groups the way these Washington State Routes are because they have a similar (albeit opposite) numbering system. -- NORTH ^talk 02:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. I guess the question that should be asked, is how the list should be organized. Is it better to use the unique Washington route list system, or number them sequentially? The latter is used on most other state route pages and, in my opinion, would provide uniformity by using it here as well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

But why should we provide uniformity with other states when the way Washington numbers their highways isn't uniform with those other states? -- NORTH ^talk 19:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO, we should act on uniformity across the board in order to bring the average Joe the easiest method for finding a route. This may involve breaking the 'tradition' of this state highway log, but IMO, it would create a master plan for detailing how routes should be listed (numerically) versus something used for only one state. Unique or not, it can be confusing to "Roadgeeks" (such as myself) and probably others. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

But how does the current organization make it any more difficult to find a route? Are you then proposing that we reorder List of auxiliary Interstate Highways so that it goes 105, 110, 115, 124, 126, etc.? (Note that I've struck through my original comment above.) This isn't about the "tradition" on this page -- that's how they're numbered, so that's how they should be organized. -- NORTH ^talk 04:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of how it is organized in WDOT's books, a user should feel that he/she can browse the state highway pages and find uniformity in finding a state route. For instance, if a user is wanting to find SR 10, they should find it at the top of the route list, not buried half way down a page. At that point, they might just as well assume there is no SR 10. If there is a debate on this, perhaps we should conduct a poll and get some outside opinions on this matter to resolve the issue before a new log is implemented - in order to stave off any confusion? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused by your SR 10 example. It's exactly where it should be -- after 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The one's that are slightly harder to find are the 3-digit ones, not the main ones. However, the 3-digit ones are not hard to find at all either, as anyone who actually reads the introduction to the article will quickly become accustomed to the numbering system. -- NORTH ^talk 19:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that is a reasonable, as long as there is a description to how Washington numbers their routes. Being an out-of-state guest here, I found it confusing since I skipped the intro and went straight down :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for kicks, I have a list of the routes in numerical order (minus the bannered routes) here. Be warned that it's totally unreadable -- I only created it for my own reference while working on the infoboxes. -- NORTH ^talk 04:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

haha. I tried and I failed! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State Route Templates

I've made two templates for State Routes associated with I-5 and US-101. I think but they would be helpful on the State Route pages, but are they unnecessary?

	edit Washington State Routes related to U.S. Route 101
U.S 101 Alternate - SR 100 (Spur) - SR 102 - SR 103 - SR 104 - SR 105 (Spur) - SR 106 - SR 107 - SR 108 - SR 109 (Spur) SR 110 (Spur) - SR 112 - SR 113 - SR 114 - SR 115 - SR 116 - SR 117 - SR 118 Former or proposed State Routes: SR 119 - SR 111

edit Washington State Routes related to I-5

I-205 - I-405 - I-705 SR 500 - SR 501 - SR 502 - SR 503 (Spur) - SR 504 (Spur) - SR 505 - SR 506 - SR 507 - SR 508 - SR 509 SR 510 - SR 512 - SR 513 - SR 515 - SR 516 - SR 518 - SR 519 SR 520 - SR 522 - SR 523 - SR 524 (Spur) - SR 525 (Spur) - SR 526 - SR 527 - SR 528 - SR 529 (Spur) SR 530 - SR 531 - SR 532 - SR 534 - SR 538 - SR 539 SR 542 - SR 543 - SR 544 - SR 546 - SR 547 - SR 548 Former or proposed State Routes: I-605 - SR 514 - SR 517 - SR 536 - SR 537 - SR 540

Questions and comments are greatly appreciated, thanks. Sonic3KMaster(鉄也)^(talk) 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

They are awesome, except for the obvious minor errors (509 and 510 typos in the first one; should be I-5 instead of I 5).

Necessity is dependent on whether we reach a conclusion on whether we want to browse sequentially, or through the templates. No such conclusion has been reached yet.

Once change I'd like to see is to have separate lists for current and former routes -- list the current ones, then list the former ones -- rather than just an asterisk at the bottom. -- NORTH ^talk 19:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I just made the template smaller, made it I-5, and fixed some typos (I wouldn't be surprised if there are still some, though) Sonic3KMaster(鉄也)^(talk) 19:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I preferred the larger version better. Other minor gripes:

• Typo in the 101 chart: should be 109 instead of a duplicated 107
• I think it should be images for all or images for none (regarding the shield images for the I-X05 routes)

-- NORTH ^talk 19:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for being late to this, I've been out of town. I do enjoy this format, it makes the page more structured and clear. Could the widths be made consistent, such as at 90%? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decision making time

If you have an opinion on the changes proposed in the above two sections, please vote in the poll on WT:WASH. -- NORTH ^talk 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)