`::::::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 