Trichome

thcscience_admin
For the former failed proposal, see Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Old.

Per the Arbitration Committee Highways case Remedy #5: Consensus encouraged, this poll has been devised to create a guideline regarding the naming of United States state highways.

All portions of the poll are now complete. The results are available below.

Timeline[edit]

Note: This timeline is not set in stone. Dates can be adjusted if there are not enough votes.

Since this is such a large debate, it needs to be broken down into chunks (that are spaced apart enough so that we don't get tired and so we can cool down...also, the dishes need to be done. :)

  • By 23:59 UTC on August 8: have process finalized. Give input on talk page. Process finalized.
  • By 23:59 UTC on August 11: have five judging admins picked. These admins cannot vote on the policy. (If needed more time will be allotted.) Five Six admins picked.

Part I: Principle[edit]

  • By 23:59 UTC on August 18: Have discussion; here we are voting on PRINCIPLE (for example, State_Name Road_Type xx or Road_Type xx (State_Name)) Principles drawn up.
  • By 23:59 UTC on August 18: Start voting. You must have 100 edits to vote. Discussion may continue.
  • By 23:59 UTC on August 31: End voting. However, if fifteen votes have not been cast, or if there is no majority, then extend until September 5. Voting has ended.
  • By 23:59 UTC on September 1: Admin judges cast votes based on poll and announce a decision. Unanimous decision reached.
  • By 23:59 UTC on September 3: (Rest period) Voting on Part II has begun.

Part II: Individual state conventions[edit]

  • By 23:59 UTC on September 3: Preliminary list of conventions vote begins (one section for each state, that is where voting will occur. Transclusions onto state highway WP talk pages are acceptable as well, BUT YOU MUST SET THEM UP at /Part2). Here we are voting on "Highway" versus "Route" versus "State Route" etc. for each state individually.
  • By 23:59 UTC on September 12: Voting ends. Voting has ended.
  • By 23:59 UTC on September 14: Admin judges cast votes based on polls and announce a decision. (2 days since that is a lot of votes!) All conventions decided.

Part III: Convention Implementation[edit]

  • By 23:59 UTC on September 17: Policy drafting begins at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways) and other (sub) pages (no uncontroversial moves, Interstate and U.S. Route conventions same as they always have been, etc). Policy drafted.
  • By 23:59 UTC on September 21: Voting begins. Voting has begun. (revisions may occur still)
  • By 23:59 UTC on September 26: Voting ends. Voting has ended.
  • By 23:59 UTC on September 27: Admin judges cast votes based on poll and announce a decision. Admins have endorsed decision in support of measure.
  • By 23:59 UTC on September 27: Results official, and a policy is made official Policy official.
  • By 23:59 UTC on September 28: Divide up page move work. Page move work divided up pretty much.
  • By 11:59 UTC on September 29: Curps, WP:ANI, ArbCom given 12 hours notice so we are not blocked, with a complete list of usernames involved. Also, all non-admin page move signups must take place by this time. Done.
  • By 11:59 UTC on September 30: Page moves may begin. If you have signed up below, move pages now.
  • By 23:59 UTC on November 22: Page moves should be finished. (hopefully)
  • By 23:59 UTC on December 31: Preferably, all redirects should be created. (This and the next few are working dates, goals. They are not set in stone.)
  • By 23:59 UTC on June 31, 2007: Preferably, all links should be fixed. Also, all states should preferably be at P1 (except KS and MI).

Frequently asked questions[edit]

Q: Why such a long process?

A: So that everyone feels it is fair and impartial. This encourages the community spirit. And remember, the U.S. Constitution was not written overnight.

Q: Will states have leeway to choose their own name?

A: To an extent, as they will be able to choose "State Route", "Highway", "State Highway", etc.

Q:What if a state already has a stable convention?

A: It depends on your definition of "stable." Washington has a "stable" convention because its pages were mass-moved there, and then the move restrictions came, banning further moves. But if you're referring to states such as Maryland that have a convention already discussed.... if the convention follows the new principle then it will most likely be the convention adopted if you can link to a discussion. If it does not, then modifications may be in store.

Judging Administrators[edit]

For information regarding the nominations of these administrators, please click here.

The editors named below are the judging administrators of this poll, who have volunteered their time to keep this poll sane and to help and encourage editors to follow the ground rules of this poll. A round of applause for all five six of them.

Part I: Principle[edit]

Part I has concluded. For the discussion and votes, please click here.

The principle adopted was Principle I. The format of all state highway article titles shall be [State Name] [Road Term] XX with the exception of Kansas and Michigan (explained here).

Administrator judgment[edit]

Administrators have adjusted the outcome as follows: click here for text.

Every state (except MI and KS) must follow P1 at some point in the future (that point varies depending on the situation in the state). States that will temporarily remain at P2 (NJ, CT, WI, TX, and OK) can be moved once someone is willing to do the work -- even if that person is from outside the project, and even if the project objects.

Part II: Individual state conventions[edit]

Part II has concluded. For the discussions, votes, and individual conventions ratified, please click here.

The content below is transcluded from Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Part3

Part 3: Implementing the convention[edit]

A. Official policy[edit]

The official policy draft is located at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways). Feel free to edit the proposal.

Voting takes place here and there:

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

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

Vote[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support[edit]
  1. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)
  2. TMF T - C
  3. Stratosphere (U T)
  4. --TinMan (t - c)
  5. Royalbroil
  6. Sonic3KMaster(talk)
  7. — Homefryes Say•Do
  8. --Station Attendant
  9. --• master_sonLets talk
  10. –Pedriana (talk)
  11. Powers
  12. physicq210
  13. Vegaswikian
  14. xxpor ( Talk | Contribs )
  15. Northenglish (NORTH)
  16. Seicer (talk) (contribs)
  17. Peter O. (Talk)
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose in the name of all that's fucking holy. —freak(talk) 19:05, Sep. 25, 2006 (UTC)
Result[edit]
  1. Endorse "Support" --CBD 17:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse "Support" ... And thanks to those that have participated to this point. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse "Support". —Nightstallion (?) 17:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse "Support" --Syrthiss 19:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse "Support" CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse Ashibaka tock 21:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.

B. Page moves[edit]

Page moves take place only after the policy has passed. (You can sign up though).

First of all, the following need to be notified:

Secondly, sign up for moves. Strike out ones that you have completed. Fix double redirects, but do not "fix" any other links to the old name. It would be helpful to create the redirects ASAP too.

ALL NON-ADMIN USERS MUST BE SIGNED UP BY THE TIME WE NOTIFY CURPS (see above for time). This is so you do not get blocked by Curps. Admins are automatically whitelisted.

How to mass move pages: 1) Move the page, showing WP:SRNC for justification 2) Check for double redirects 3) Check all possible sources for articles- that would be lists, categories, stub categories, WikiProject templates 4) Create redirects with a completion list (if time allows)


States that require no changes[edit]

  1. American Samoa
  2. District of Columbia
  3. Guam
  4. Idaho
  5. Illinois
  6. Kansas
  7. Louisiana
  8. Maryland
  9. Michigan
  10. Minnesota
  11. New Hampshire
  12. New York
  13. Northern Mariana Islands
  14. Pennsylvania
  15. United States Virgin Islands
  16. Virginia
  17. Wyoming

States that are finished[edit]

  1. Alabama- by Rschen7754
  2. Alaska - by TwinsMetsFan
  3. Arizona- by Rschen7754
  4. Arkansas - by Poccil
  5. California - by Rschen7754
  6. Connecticut - by Northenglish
  7. Colorado - by TwinsMetsFan
  8. Delaware - by Jeff02
  9. Florida - by Northenglish
  10. Georgia - by Pedriana
  11. Hawaii - by TwinsMetsFan
  12. Indiana - by TwinsMetsFan
  13. Iowa - by Master son
  14. Kentucky- by NE2
  15. Maine- by Sam8
  16. Massachusetts - by Poccil
  17. Mississippi- by Rschen7754
  18. Missouri - by Poccil
  19. Montana - by TwinsMetsFan
  20. Nebraska - by Rschen7754
  21. Nevada - by Physicq210
  22. New Jersey - by Northenglish
  23. New Mexico - by Rschen7754
  24. North Carolina- by NE2
  25. North Dakota- by Alexwcovington
  26. Ohio - by Homefryes
  27. Oklahoma - by Rschen7754
  28. Oregon- by Northenglish
  29. Puerto Rico - by Rschen7754
  30. Rhode Island - by Rschen7754
  31. South Carolina- by NE2
  32. South Dakota- by Master son
  33. Tennessee- by Rschen7754
  34. Texas- by Rschen7754
  35. Utah- by Rschen7754
  36. Vermont - by TwinsMetsFan
  37. Washington - by Northenglish
  38. West Virginia- by NE2
  39. Wisconsin- by Rschen7754

Signups for User:Rschen7754bot[edit]

This bot can only convert links such as "Iowa State Highway xx" to "Iowa Highway xx". After I fix the U.S. Routes I can do some states. If you want to sign up a state for this, add it to the list below. Don't convert P2 links to P1 if it goes against WP:USSH. Only links to existing pages can be fixed at this time. Apologies.

  • New Mexico

Signups for AWB[edit]

NE2 has run AWB on a lot of states to change links and text for all routes, whether or not they have articles. If you want others done, you can add the state below or let me know. AWB can also help fix double redirects after moves by generating a list of all possible redirects and then applying regexes to the redirect pages.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SRNC

Leave a Reply