Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

  1. Blnguyen
  2. FayssalF
  3. FloNight
  4. FT2
  5. Jdforrester
  6. Jpgordon
  7. Newyorkbrad
  8. Sam Blacketer
  9. Thebainer
  10. UninvitedCompany
  11. Paul August
  12. Matthew Brown (Morven)

Recused:

  1. Kirill Lokshin

Away/inactive:

  1. Charles Matthews
  2. Deskana

[edit] Input from arbcom members with personal knowledge and insight into the situation

(any?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FT2 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. El_C 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing he might be asking for Kirill's insight into how WikiProject's work. If I was an arbitrator, I'd be asking Kirill how some WikiProjects (in his case Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History) work well, and seeing if he has any insights into how to "heal" the problems that seem to have arisen at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads (or whatever it is called). By the way, is it acceptable to ask why an arbitrator recused? Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I assume it's because of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#What's the use of a project tag on the talk page? --NE2 05:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
That might explain it. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed decision

I assume that the Committee is not done making proposals in regards to this case? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Anybody? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
My understanding, after having had a quick chat with a member of the ArbCom, is that the IRC case and the Working Group on nationalist disputes is currently consuming much of the committee's attention — I expect that once that particular dust settles down they'll have the resources to finish working with the other cases, including this one. — Coren (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dismissal?

You have to be kidding me. This is more than a content dispute. Otherwise ArbCom would never have taken the case on in the first place. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As Edit Centric said previously, "user conduct, arising from content issues." 哦，是吗？(O-person) 20:25, 18 February 2008 (GMT)
Right, but the conduct of all involved needs to be examined. I'd hate to have all the time spent by all parties bringing this case to ArbCom be wasted by having it turn out to be a frivolity. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A request to the arbitrators

You have not addressed any specific editors in this case yet. Say their conduct was right, their conduct was wrong, whatever - at least say something about the specific editors - it's only fair. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I do find it odd - and rather erroneous - that no user conduct is being addressed by ArbCom even though it is said conduct that prompted this case in the first place. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Could we at least receive confirmation that ArbCom has been made aware of this request? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Anybody? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've taken note of the request and will raise it on our mailing list. The committee tries to enact "general" remedies that could help solve an issue without criticizing individual editors, when that approach seems reasonably likely to help solve the problem here. If the feeling here is that that's not the case, that's certainly something we would have to take note of. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been an outsider to the whole ArbCom issue concerning USRD. I've attempted to stay away, abide by the temporary guidelines and just keep editing and improving MI highway articles. As a result, MI's article quality has had a significant increase in quality last month as I've stayed out of some of the politics here. My simple request is this: it's time for a decision. This has gone on way too long. Various issues brought up are affecting any further progress. The COI discussion has all USRD editors scared to do any Good Article Reviews for other state project's articles. For instance, I only edit MI articles, but with the ArbCom action pending, I have yet to review anything from CA, CT, etc. even though I can under the GA review rules. From my perspective, there's a community of editors who meet on IRC, chat and discuss articles. We talk about methods of improvment, what criteria for difference quality classes apply. We egg each other on to improve articles. We watch the WikiWork stats and compete to get our favorite project higher up the board. In short, I've joined a community of fellow editors, and MI articles have improved.

I'm frustrated by those that feel that established consensus can be blindly ignored. There's being WP:BOLD and there's stirring up trouble. I won't name specific names, but too often a specific editor (or two) begins wholesale changes affecting many, many articles across multiple state projects without consensus. This becomes very disruptive to all the projects. I'm quite protective of the MI highways articles. I welcome any change for the better, but sometimes change for change's sake is not better. From an outsider, it's time for a decision. Something enforceable. We need to be able to point to something concrete and say, "you violated the rules set forth. Please stop or face the consequences." I don't like that, but all of the proposed "remedies" all feel very "warm and fuzzy", all read like restatements of general principals. It's time for something more. We need this cycle to end. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

An addendum for the ArbCom: I feel that if specific editors are not addressed and the decision passes as is, we'll be back within the next 6-8 months. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest "NE2 is a silly sausage and should not challenge the serious businessmen." --NE2 12:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dissenting opinions are okay. Without them change couldn't be accomplished. It's when that opinion is forced upon others, when they've formed a consensus to the contrary, that it becomes a problem. This is the issue I feel needs to be addressed most by ArbCom. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly part of my point, if not exactly said that way, Scott. The two of us haven't agreed 100% in the past, and we won't in the future, but we continue to work together, as one USRD community to write, edit and improve articles. --Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I read through all the material here (and much of the previous material too, such as the RfCs) and drafted the principles and made a start on the findings of fact before I went away in January. Since then much of our time has been consumed with other things, so yes, this case has received less attention. As Brad said above, we like to take a general approach where possible, rather than singling people out, but if the participants here want something more concrete, then so be it.

These disputes seem to follow a regular pattern. NE2 will make some edits or changes somewhere, other assorted USRD people will dispute it, there may or may not be some debate on the matter and then someone from USRD will assert the existence of a consensus and that will be that. Yes, NE2 has been needlessly bold at times (moving Portal:U.S. Roads for example) but others at USRD (such as Rschen7754, to single someone out) have been intransigent and reluctant to explain prior consensuses that they assert to exist.

I could work this up into formal findings of fact and remedies, but given that everyone involved is ultimately a good faith contributor aiming to improve the encyclopaedia, and that the problems largely boil down to difficulties in communication, I had hoped that a more productive solution could be found. --bainer (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this is a slight misrepresentation of the facts. In many, if not most cases, the "USRD people" have formed a consensus against NE2 at the time of the discussion. I cite the auto trails discussion - we explicitly stated that we did not want auto trails as part of state highway WikiProjects, but NE2 went against the consensus, formed that very day. In addition to this, discussions have always taken place following NE2's controversial actions - can you cite an instance where that has not occurred? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Another recent example of where what you claim did not occur. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editors working to implement guidelines that have wide consensus support within the community need not rehash the discussion of a general guideline each time they apply it.

I'm curious how this should be applied. I reverted U.S. Route 50 in California to match WP:LEAD#Bold title and was warned for edit warring. --NE2 02:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Note the guideline is not clear cut here: U.S. Route 50 is not strictly the subject of that article and the guideline says "Avoid links in the bold title words." In this case it seems "the title is simply descriptive". –Pomte 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what's not clear-cut about it; I agree with your analysis that nothing should be bolded. --NE2 07:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I would have to agree as well. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I misinterpreted your position based on a wrong diff. –Pomte 04:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time to move on?

After reading through the Mantanmoreland case, I'm starting to doubt whether ArbCom really will help us here. I think what we really need is some sort of structured discussion. If I were to request a mediation on the topic of project scopes - or a larger topic - would the "major players" here all participate in good faith and listen to all sides? --NE2 04:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is that case relevant? The apparent ability of ArbCom to handle one case has no bearing on its past decisions. --Coredesat 04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It's relevant to whether ArbCom will actually "fix" anything; the proposed decision on the highways case shows a lack of useful remedies. I thought this was just because they were busy and had not gotten around to it, but I'm not so sure about that now. --NE2 05:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
While the scope dispute needs to be resolved - the main issues relate to user conduct. These issues need to be resolved. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any user conduct remedies either here, or indication that there will be any. --NE2 05:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The main problem that we have is that you act as though you're the project, when you're not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you see the ArbCom doing anything about that "problem"? --NE2 05:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Even though I don't like it when NE2 reverts some of my (admittedly unhelpful) edits, NE2 has, however, started discussions to help resolve the disputes. Sometimes, he lets things go, either he thinks it's time to move on or he just doesn't want to break the 3RR. And to Rschen7754, I know I'm not perfect, but neither are you. Right now, my interpretation of NE2 is that, although he can be stubborn sometimes, like you said he's not the project; he's just a dedicated contributor to the project. My problem with him is that sometimes, he doesn't let me integrate my ideas into the project, and yes, some of my ideas are valid. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You can't expect the ArbCom to do many things at once. The Mantanmoreland case appears to have greater priority at this time. This case is not closed; additional proposals can still be made on the workshop page. --Coredesat 05:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be talking about inaction due to other cases - which is valid, but doesn't explain why the Mantanmoreland case isn't producing anything useful. --NE2 05:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, at any rate, whether it is or not doesn't have anything to do with this case. --Coredesat 05:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Since it's the same arbitrators, it sort of does... --NE2 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not it's ArbCom sanctionable, this is the main problem that is leading to our disagreements. You're not always right. Heck, I'm not always right. This got SPUI into trouble as well. I've probably gotten bitten at one time or another for trying to act as the project myself. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I swore to myself when I came back that I wouldn't get involved in the Arbcom case. Well, hopefully just adding my $0.02 here doesn't qualify as getting involved. :-P

The problem isn't that NE2 thinks he's the project. It's that sometimes he thinks he can make the encyclopedia better by ignoring the project (and sometimes consensus) and doing his own thing. If anything it's the opposite of him thinking he's the project. Unlike with SPUI, I'm confident that while NE2 can be stubborn at times, every single one of his edits has been done in good faith.

It's important to point out that it "takes two to tango". The other side of this issue is that the other "major players" do think that they're the project, when really no one is the project. The project isn't about the people, it's about the discussion and collaboration those people partake in. There should be no objection to NE2 -- or anyone else -- bringing up new ideas. After we discuss those new ideas, object all you want, but it seems to me that USRD is far too resistant to change.

IMHO, much more so here than in the SPUI case, the fault is more or less equally on both sides. -- Kéiryn 13:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Kéiryn hit it right on the head. The clan of USRD (which includes myself - though I'm loosening up quite a bit) is insisting that they're always right (I'm not naming individuals, just pointing to the group) and that is the center of this dispute. The problem here is that we must realize that WikiProjects cannot set policy only full community (as in all Wikipedia) consensus can - and that results in those such as WP:MOS or its subsets (including WP:USSH) or WP:NOT. Things like the pages under WP:USRD are simply guidelines. Its been things like this that have led to multiple edit wars, disputes, "ignorance of consensus", etc. Both Sides are as stubborn as the other.  — master sonT - C 21:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Remember that the problem that sparked this case though was when NE2 waged a war against something that was supported by five other users. He also stated twice that even if we did have a solid, otherwise uncontentious consensus, he would still ignore it - there is evidence available. This is the sort of attitude that I believe needs to be addressed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not time to move on

The parties are still playing leaderboard games. More shell projects appears to be the only reasonable solution. --NE2 03:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I guess you're not ready to move on, seeing as how everyone is willing to compromise except you. -- Kéiryn talk 03:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
What's a leaderboard game?  — master sonT - C 06:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question for the Arbitration Committee

What is the Arbitration Committee's view of NE2's opposition to the compromise proposed at compromise? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"I'll ignore that consensus, you'll start another ArbCom case, and we'll waste another two months." This isn't going to end until we get some outside input. -- Kéiryn talk 15:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I actually asked for some outside input and Kirill responded, but he seems to have been ignored. --NE2 17:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Not really, seeing as how his proposal was to tweak the categorization structure, which was also what you proposed, which was also what I proposed. I don't see how you can possibly think he was ignored when there's a big long section where we politely answer all his questions. -- Kéiryn talk 17:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal - Matthew Hoffman solution

Seeing as the Arbitration Committee has decided to abandon the Highways case (a shame, really) would they be open to suspending the case for 30 days so that a formal mediation can take place? If the mediation fails, then the case can be resumed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expression of disappointment

I find the process that this Arbitration has gone through is extremely disappointing. Several factors of me scaling back from Wikipedia includes this arbitration because of the lack of movement on it. At one point, not too long ago, I had faith in the processes within Wikipedia. I no longer have such faith, and thus am no longer very active in editing on the encyclopedia. Because of the lack of inactivity in this particular case, it suggests a problem with ArbCom and Wikipedia in general.

--Son (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There's been discussion about the status of this case, I guess on a couple of other pages, per the reminders from Rschen. We actually intend to post further remedy proposals within the next 24 hours or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence against NE2

[1] are really bad examples; the first (US 50) was in accordance with "Editors working to implement guidelines that have wide consensus support within the community need not rehash the discussion of a general guideline each time they apply it." and discussed above; the second was reverting the IP's vandalism (he was breaking a link). In [2], NY 52 is nine months old and the scope reversions were an error based on a misreading of this case's temporary injunction. If there's going to be a finding that I edit warred - which has probably been true on occasion - there should be better evidence than this.

And some of the other evidence: [3] was relating to the GA process saying that editors should "probably" avoid reviewing articles in projects they're in, and me being attacked for ignoring that. With respect to ignoring consensus, that was again applying a general guideline against a local consensus. The consensus to use "multiplex" and "decommissioned" violated WP:NEO, and in doing so made articles confusing to non-road hobbyists (as opposed to road professionals, who don't use the terms except in the case of a crossover in the communities). I don't see what [4] shows, and Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania)/archive1 was again about applying a general guideline (Naming conventions) to a specific case. Violation of guidelines is always a valid reason to oppose a featured article. --NE2 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that the "Target audience" principle, which was apparently (unless it doesn't support any of the findings of fact or remedies) added to support keeping the project scope simple (which doesn't quite make sense given that the whole thing is over the project tags on the talk pages) applies very well to my ignoring of local consensus on the neologisms. --NE2 20:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


The issue is, if there is a dispute, you don't just run with the guideline and ignoree everybody until they give in or give up. Firstly, since guidelines are just that - they are not set in stone and whilst they don't need rehasing from basics every time, they do sometimes need a willingness to explain or be flexible, not just revert. Second because once you start saying "this is the guideline/policy so I am not going to listen", you're not working with people - you're edit warring in the mistaken belief that policy justifies it.

A 9 month old matter (which I checked age of) would not matter except that the pattern since then has continued it. The link is to that section of evidence as a whole, not just one case, so others can evaluate.

A similar matter arose on the next diff you asked about. The issue that there is a guideline that you don't usually review your own project's work for GA, is also not in stone. You chose to ignore it (in the one above you chose to follow it) - but the same pattern again, no discussion, not consideration of others concerns, just "yep, I've decided the guidelines says I could X, so I'm going to X" over their concerns. Consensus means you discuss, share, speak... and then see what you can do to meet on it.

this edit ("4") shows that not one, but two users gave up trying to work with you. The term "tendentious" means someone who does the same thing a lot, rather than letting a subject be done with. In a few debates your editing was unnecessarily unhelpful; what would have helped more is to discuss, share views, and bend a bit as you expect others to do too.

The principle is that if everyone except you has a view on something, you really need to do more than just say "they're all wrong, I'm right". Even if what you do is seek dispute resolution and say "These people all say X but the guideline says Y, can you help identify whats up".

Hope this helps. It probably won't answer all, but should give you some idea. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So what does "Editors working to implement guidelines that have wide consensus support within the community need not rehash the discussion of a general guideline each time they apply it." actually mean, if you say I am supposed to rehash the discussion? --NE2 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the problem basically that I'm doing the right thing, but in the wrong way? What is the right way if I do discuss, the editors won't pay attention to the guideline, and I can't get any outside help? --NE2 21:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The principles try to explain it. Basically there are a few main aspects. I'll try to give some tips, but almost - yes.
  1. Firstly, if it's going to be 90-95% right anyway, don't take up on the small stuff to the point it all focusses round the 5% thats not going to ever be noticed by most people in a relatively complete article. Don't worry if this article's included and that one isn't, if they are both edge cases or others have concerns, and opinions differ anyway. If you think they need doing, do them even if they arent adopted into the roads projects, if for you, they matter.
  2. If they think its a road and you think its a street, remember that end users don't see the WikiProject. They see the article, where you can follow NPOV to cite all versions, if there is a genuine issue ("X road is in Seattle. It is technically classed as a street locally, and would be equivalent to a highway in state Y...") So you can relax a bit as long as it gets good editing, it'll all work out okay for the most part. Again, focus on the 95% that will count in the end, and remember the WikiProject is internal only, it's users who edit article content where acurracy is worth more time, and in article space, NPOV allows multiple views to be explained if theres a problem.
  3. For guideline matters, explain your view, reason by the guideline with an eye to unusual cases or places it's worth some "slippage"... but if others really do have a problem your recourses are simple. Basically you have three "good" answers/recouses to choose between: 1/ This isn't worth it, have it your way, but note I technically disagree and think it could be done better. 2/ This isn't worth it, voting 'disagree' for these reasons, and leaving it to whatever may happen. 3/ Disagree and its important enough I think we should resolve it, it's central some way. Try to understand why they feel that way, compare to commonsense as well as policy because you're in a grey-ish area usually. If you still differ, seek dispute resolution - WP:3O for example, "I am arguing over a guideline, I think it should apply because X, they say it shouldn't because Y, can I have opinions please". What you don't have is version 4 that goes "argue endlessly till everyone's sick of it on the basis "I know I'm right". If that's not working, switch to 1,2, or 3, rather than repeating yourself excessively.
  4. If there is a real and genuine ongoing problem, for example you genuinely try to make a strong case, but not argue it to death... and you do this several times, and notice a user(s) is consistently ignoring or misunderstanding an important agreed guideline (or the whole project is), and you've truied to explain patiently and discuss, but it's gone nowhere so you let it go... and this hasn't resolved a few times later... then you can address that directly through dispute resolution, perhaps by opening a section in the Project talk page "User X is consistently ignoring guideline Y" - "I have not fought hard on this to avoid disputes, but it concerns me. Can I have opinions please? A few exceptions are one thing, this seems like a pattern of ignoring basic agreed approaches." Or "We have agreed guideline X as a project/website but I notice really, a large number of people are ignoring it in practice. Can we review what's going on and if theres a problem".
  5. You need newcomers, and you need to work with others as well as making a mark yourself. It can be hard for skilled, capable people to accept that newcomers are useful or others (who may seem in some ways to know less) are equally essential, but they really are. They have to feel you work alongside, not striding off in the distance, in a way. That's about recognizing a GA submitter may have put work in, and feel hurt if the reply is curt. Its the reason although I know far more than you about "handling conflict on Wikipedia successfully", I'm still writing at length to try and work together and not "lecture" or be curt or say "user should know this, read the policy", but to show I genuinely care that your editing efforts go well and editors (including you) don't have hassle or problems. Its how the whole of Wikipedia works -- we're all in it together, and as others make your editing more pleasant by treating you well for the most part, so you are in a position to do the same back, and thus help it keep going on :)
Hope this helps? FT2 (Talk | email) 01:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll probably reply more fully later on, but if I'm interpreting #2 correctly, you seem to think the road/street/highway thing has spilled over into article space? As far as I know it's only been on talk pages. --NE2 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to draw a distinction. Your audience is people who visit article space. How its categorized in the back-office of the editors working pages is not so crucial, provided the actual mainspace pages are worded well whatever their WikiProject nature and editing back-story may be. The rest's reassurance how to help achieve that, and that if a matter or definition won't leave the editors' working pages (WikiProject pages, talk pages) you can relax a bit... and if it will be on the article then you are covered by NPOV policy to ensure a significant "view" will not be wrongly excluded anyway. Classic win-win. In a way, it could be called almost anything on the project pages, so long as the actual stuff needed to ensure its content and editing is good, is done by an editor... and it ends up with the article being written well in the end  :) FT2 (Talk | email) 01:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, so in the case of using the term decommissioned highway in articles: I took it to WT:USRD to get some comments: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 9#The new "multiplex": decommissioned?. I asked in several places and got some responses agreeing with me, but nobody from outside the project was willing to come to WT:USRD and support me. What should have been my next step, assuming I was wrong to begin replacing the term at that point? --NE2 14:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not being an expert, I have read that section only, and some thoughts. Yes, it is a problem. The discussion is a good one. To some people "decommissioned" will mean it is no longer a state highway; to others it may be understood to mean the actual road is no longer in use. Several ways to address that, some of which were suggested: -
  1. clarify it at a linked article Decommissioning (road) or Decommissioning#Road usage... and/or (very worth considering) in Wiktionary under wikt:Decommissioning. (Example usage in an article: "The road was decommissioned in 1996")
  2. clarify it in a <ref> footnote,
  3. use a different expression such as "the status as a highway was withdrawn" or "was removed from designation as a highway in (YEAR)",
  4. clarify in-line "it became a decommissioned highway, that is, one whose status is removed".
The wiktionary link idea is a good one because it's clearly a dictionary definition, and linkable to those seeking to know what the word means, if an encyclopedic article or section is a problem -- and few people will object. (Don't forget you can edit wiktionary, or create an account there, just like Wikipedia, and you can freely add words, neologisms, definitions, derived uses, and the like. So if you need to link to a definition, you can add the definition, then link to it for users. Just when you do so, they have their own page layout, so try to respect it and follow it, is all. )
Assuming you want to seek more opinions, or such, though, you might post to WP:3O or WP:RFC, saying simply, "We need advice on a term to use for a road that has been removed from highways status. 'Decommissioned' is a term thats sometimes in use, but is ambiguous, and also doesn't seem to be official. Any advice?" You could also look up, if DOT's did not use the term, what term have they used? if you find 3 or 4 examples of decommissionings, and they use specific terms or expressions, then you have good evidence those might be terms you can use.
If it's still a problem then you have the 3 options suggested - "I think it's the wrong word but I'm not going to fight it" ... "I think its the wrong word, I object, but I won't get in the way if others disagree, I'll live with it though under protest" ... and those are probably the best bets since theres a limit how far you can argue a word use. if everyone else is happy, then sometimes just letting it go to focus on content works.
Myself, I'd apply an edit that clarifies it somehow, and hope nobody objected. if they did I'd discuss and hope to gain agreement that if I'm not arguing the use of a difficult term, at least let there be some way to clarify it for those who dont know it. Enough ideas to start? FT2 (Talk | email) 06:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Option 3 is what I did, and started a huge argument. (The term "decommissioned", as it applies to roads, has not been defined by any reliable sources, so while Wiktionary may accept it as a neologism, it can't be used in Wikipedia.) --NE2 15:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "decomissioned" is actually a neologism in this context. I just checked Merriam-Webster, and it's listed there [5] dated 1922; in the American Heritage Dictionary [6]; and so on.
The purpose of WP:NEO is to prevent the sprawl of newly adopted terms and uses that are not in general use. But "decommissioned" certainly is in general use, for exactly this kind of purpose. It has been for many years, in many fields. It may not be a term officially used in the roads world (if not it would be useful to know what the terms are) but it is surely a common general word, covering the same concept, and is being used in its everyday sense, rather than some new, fashionable, or recently coined sense. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a common misconception. "Decommissioned" means "removed from service", which is not how roadgeeks use it. The roadgeek definition is on [7], and refers to all of the following: the removal of US 66 signs from I-40 in New Mexico, the replacement of US 66 signs with State Highway 66 signs in Oklahoma, the renumbering of SR 69 to SR 38 in Utah, the transfer of maintenance of part of SR 2 to the city of Los Angeles (even though the city is required by law to maintain SR 2 signs), the deletion of SR 274 from the Streets and Highways Code and transfer to the city of San Diego (including removal of signs), and the closure of US 25E in Virginia and restoration to its natural state. The definition as it appears in reliable sources only covers the US 25E case; the others are new uses of an existing term. That is just as confusing to the reader as a totally made-up term; it's like if we were calling Rochester's Inner Loop a roundabout or an Interstate Highway shield without the state name "neutered". --NE2 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
FT2, we do have an article on the concept at Decommissioned highway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
And we shouldn't, per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. --NE2 19:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That's your opinion, as we've heard time and again, and isn't really relevant here. I am merely pointing out the article for FT2's benefit so as to aid the Committee in their understanding of the subject.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this is the crux of the argument right here. I think there are rare cases where you can go against consensus in order to enforce a community-accepted guideline. This wasn't one of those cases. For the most part, everyone agreed that WP:NEO should be enforced if it applied in this situation. What wasn't agreed upon was whether it applied -- that is, whether or not "decommissioned" was a neologism. That needed consensus, and eventually the project arrived at consensus that it was. But mass page editing should have waited until after that consensus was agreed upon. -- Kéiryn talk 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
And I think the crux is that there are clear rules to be applied to determine if something's a neologism - is the meaning covered in reliable dictionaries - and this failed it. At least one person (Son) accepted that fact and argued to ignore it, as if that would improve the encyclopedia. --NE2 22:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm not even sure that there was "consensus" that it's a neologism; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Evidence#NE2's flawed evidence, and (though this may have been a different dispute) I remember at least one editor saying that they "gave up" because of my persistence rather than because they were persuaded. --NE2 22:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Please don't make us do this again. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It's probably going to happen again with something (I've pretty much avoided "bannered highway" for now, but that needs resolving), so we might as well determine the best way to deal with it. --NE2 00:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The best way to deal with it is to talk things out, come to a consensus, and then mass edit (if necessary) after consensus has been reached. -- Kéiryn talk 00:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And sometimes nobody agrees with you. When that happens, just accept it and move on to something else instead of arguing for it endlessly. There are some things I'd like to change that nobody else wants to, so I just say "oh well" and stop pushing for it.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Had I not "argued endlessly", decommissioned and possibly multiplex would still be accepted. --NE2 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And a lot of people don't agree that would be a bad thing. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that that doesn't always produce the right result. I know that in many cases neither side is "right", but when it comes to clarity for the readers, one side definitely is. --NE2 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no "right result" on Wikipedia.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That's demonstrably false, since there is a "right result" in cases like blatant copyright violations. This isn't so clear cut but there's still one result that benefits the readers more. --NE2 01:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) No, Scott, I'd disagree with that. NE2's correct when he says that the "right way" to do things is the way that makes things more clear. But you still need consensus, because just because you think that you are the right side doesn't automatically make it so. What's clear to one person might not be clear to another, and vice versa. Which is more clear, a term that sees pretty consistent usage in the road community, or some other term? In the case of "decommissioned", other terms were more clear (1) because they were more specific and (2) because decommissioned has other meanings outside the road community. In the case of "bannered highway", it may be different because (1) the originally proposed alternative "auxiliary highway" has a different meaning, so there might not be a more clear term, and (2) "bannered highway" doesn't have another meaning outside the road community. -- Kéiryn talk 02:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That's basically what I was saying. Everyone has a different view of what the right thing to do is. I personally don't see anything wrong with "decommissioned", so to me, leaving it alone is the right thing to do.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but that means that you're wrong about what the right thing to do is. The right thing is never to use a term that can be misinterpreted. --NE2 02:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with that as well. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I know I had given up with you before and went on wikibreak after that as well unsure if I would come back. I don't come on here to argue endlessly. I come here to edit articles. I really don't see the point of endlessly wearing others down to get your way in a dispute. It really doesn't do much other than make other editors disgruntled. I am a bit disturbed by your unwillingness to compromise and your "my way or the highway" (pardon the pun) approach to doing things. This will be my lone input to this case, since as I said, I come here to edit, not argue. --Holderca1 talk 18:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop#There is usually no "right" as a principle in this case as a result of some ideas I've picked up from this discussion. I think this may be one of the fundamental reasons (if not the fundamental reason) why many editors have problems with NE2.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Being a general purpose encyclopedia..."

I've been following this arbitration request in order to represent the point of view of the Good articles WikiProject, which has been tangentially involved, and I appreciate the sensible recommendations made by arbitrators so far in that respect.

I'm concerned instead by the Target audience principle. While I agree with the idea behind this principle — the guideline to make technical material as accessible as possible expresses similar ideas — I think care is needed in the phrasing, in view of Pillar One. This states that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs" (my emphasis). This does indeed make it a general purpose encyclopedia, but that phrase is easily confused with "general encyclopedia", and Wikipedia is so much more than that.

There is scope, I believe, for Wikipedia to have specialist articles on roads (or any other specialist topic), and there is scope for articles on roads to contain specialist information: the key, I believe, is to make all information as accessible as possible, and to ensure that the inclusion of specialist material does not cause the less specialist material to become less accessible.

The phrase "the general and perhaps knowledgable public who are interested in an item" does essentially cover my concern, but I wanted to highlight it anyway, in case the arbitrators can find ways to clarify the principle in the light of Pillar One. Geometry guy 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That phrase was deliberate, for that reason. I'll take a look at that wording and see if its amenable to any improvement I can spot. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The only wording I could find was clumsy, and obfusticated it for that reason. I think people'll get the message as is. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not happy, and I see I am not alone. In addition to FloNight's "Being a general purpose encyclopedia" (which is misleading), you have now commented "Point of fact, we are a general encyclopedia" which flatly contradicts Pillar One. I would also note that WP:AXS and WP:MOSBETTER are guidelines, and hence should be "treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Among two million plus articles, the occasional exception potentially covers tens of thousands of articles: this is not the place to look for "pure principles". Geometry guy 22:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No contradiction if you check carefully. The style guides say in every which way, everywhere they can, make writings accessible, assume you may have readers who know little, and so on. WP:5P doesn't contradict that. Nor is 5P a guideline or policy, which MOS is. WP:5P says that Wikipedia "incorporat[es] elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias [...]" It does not say that Wikipedia incorporates actual specialized encyclopedias per se. We do contain technical articles, indeed. But even a technical article is not a full reference text. A full law text of defamation might be a thousand pages of small print long. A reference chemistry text on the carbon atom will contain huge realms of data that our article will not. The debate whether Pluto is a planet or not, is a vast technical debate, and little of the immense subtleties of that debate belong in the planet/palentoid/Pluto articles. It is in that sense that it's commonsense that
  1. we write for a general though at times knowledgable audience, with accessibility a consideration, and,
  2. we at times simplify from some kinds of the more technical types of detail and distinction, that an expert text might analyze and go into.
FT2 (Talk | email) 05:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I broadly agree with your two conclusions, but not with the reasoning, nor with your previous assertion "Point of fact, we are a general encyclopedia", which is simply wrong. I agree that WP:5P does not say Wikipedia incorporates specialized encyclopedias, but it doesn't say it doesn't either. The limitations on what Wikipedia includes are given by WP:NOT, not by opinion on the extent to which specialist encyclopedia material is part of Wikipedia. If you want opinion, I give you the following notable one:
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."
He does not say "sum of all human knowledge which is understandable by a general and at times knowledgable reader".
Further, the examples you give are not examples of material that would necessarily be present in a specialist encyclopedia: a law text is very different from an encyclopedia of law. Nevertheless, I've no idea why you wish to limit Wikipedia so much, because this isn't a paper encyclopedia. Concerning Carbon, we have Allotropes_of_carbon, Fullerines, Carbon nanotube, Isotopes of carbon, CNO cycle, Carbon cycle, Compounds of carbon, Hydrocarbon, and that's just a taster, which barely touches on carbon's role in organic chemistry. Concerning Pluto, Wikipedia can certainly cover some of the subtleties: it does a fine job reporting on the debate at Definition of a planet and 2006 definition of planet, and provides useful technical information in articles such as hydrostatic equilibrium. Geometry guy 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Look to communal norms, not to once-off quotations. The norm of the community is, we try and make things accessible (without inaccuracy or "babying") on the understanding that when a user looks up a general article on a topic such as Route 66, they are not looking for a 1000 page analysis of every minutiae that two experts might argue over. To avoid that, there is a process of simplifying some of the detail to an appropriate level. That exists in almost every article in Wikipedia, and in every guideline touching on "level of detail".
I think in that sense, maybe you're missing my point. Not every subject is understandable by the general public. We have articles on abstruse theories in math and science that often are not. We have a hundred sub-articles on carbon, and ditto we have many subjects on many other areas. But regardless, in each of them, there has been some process of consideration by editors that certain details are "too much", "too lengthy", or not necessary -- the article is written to be accessible to the general, and perhaps knowledgable, audience. Whether it is MacDonalds, or Proton or Route 66, each and every article has some detail that an expert might refine and consider, but is not suitable detail for the article. Your own comment "Wikipedia can certainly cover some of the subtleties" ["some"] is saying tacitly the same. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Those "minutiae" would belong in a separate article like Chain of Rocks Bridge, U.S. Highway 66 Association, or Cyrus Avery. I do see though what you're saying - we wouldn't normally cover a sign error or every "public art installation" along the road. --NE2 18:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(←)(To FT2) That's much more like it! Now you are saying things I believe in using reasoning which I agree with. I think we were partly talking cross purposes because you are thinking in terms of articles, whereas I am thinking in terms of the subject material. The material on a particular topic, such as carbon, is distributed among many articles of varying levels of detail and specialism (not always the same thing). I completely agree that each article should be made as accessible as possible, and that editorial decisions to omit detail are made for length, complexity or redundancy reasons. But all that omitted material has the potential (not a right, hence my "some") to be covered in more specific articles, each subject to policy and the same editorial decisions.

With this in mind, I find it much more helpful to view Wikipedia as a nested family of overlapping encyclopedias than a single monolithic encyclopedia. Each article ends up being tailored to the likely readership, be they general, fairly knowledgeable, or quite expert readers. In this respect, Wikipedia is working very well towards the goal stated in what I believe is just a little bit more than a one-off quotation.

Anyway, this has been a stimulating discussion so far, and I sincerely hope that sharpening your pencil to address my points will help with the drafting of further recommendations! It looks like WikiProject Roads will get the message from this one, but I still hope it can be reworked. Geometry guy 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't get it, unless it's that we shouldn't use confusing language like "decommissioned". --NE2 20:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Any use?

It probably won't solve everything, but... wikt:decommission definition 3.

Possible ways this can be used:

1. Direct link
"The highway was decommissioned in 1995....."
2. Footnote def
"The highway was decommissioned1 in 1995....."
1 The term has a specialist meaning in the context of roads; see wiktionary entry.
3. Footnote def without wiktionary
"The highway was decommissioned1 in 1995....."
1 The term has a specialist meaning in the context of roads; where it signifies the process of revokation of a state designation, removal of formal signage, and reattribution to local (town or country) control and maintenance [8]. [Optional link to general definition at Wiktionary if desired].
4. Roads terminology
Create an article List of roads-related terminology and include it there.
(Note this is very much allowed, even for neologisms, if the list itself would be encyclopedic, and the entry would be salient and sourced in the field within that list - which it clearly is. See other terminology in... articles.)

FT2 (Talk | email) 20:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


Heck freaking yes. This would at least implement a system into what articles should be, especially for me, someone who likes writing on decommissioned road articles. The unallowed usage of decommissioned shouldn't have happened, personally, and I'd like to see it be used again freely. Mitch32contribs 20:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
An excellent solution, FT2! Should remove any confusion. And it could easily be standardized through a template... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


There is discussion at Wiktionary. See my comment/request here. Specialist views might be usefully stated on the term following reading Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion, discussion linked from wikt:decommission. Even without a specialist definition in Wiktionary (it has the general definition of "revoking a designation" already), there are viable options (see above). FT2 (Talk | email) 20:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I like. There are solutions to the problem, just need to find and use.  — master sonT - C 21:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh...no. Wiktionary has looser standards for inclusion than we do. --NE2 22:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And despite that they still didn't accept multiplex, a very similar case. --NE2 23:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with that?  — master sonT - C 23:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Nothing; if they want to include it they can. But that doesn't mean we can cite it. --NE2 23:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps look above and you'll see otherwise - that's based on whether Wikt does accept it though - if they don't, there's no reason we can't use the list option.  — master sonT - C 23:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There is - our policies and guidelines on neologisms, sources, and verifiability. --NE2 23:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
good point.  — master sonT - C 23:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
FT2 said just above that including neologisms in lists of terminology "is very much allowed". While individual Arbitrators of course don't set policy, I'd be willing to trust their judgment, considering their experience in interpreting it... —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
He seems to be saying that neologisms used by professionals are fine; this isn't one of those. --NE2 00:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we wait until Wiktionary decides on it - then talk.  — master sonT - C 00:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See what wiktionary reckon, for sure. But to clarify, the assumption's mistaken. Lists are not just "words used by professionals and officialdom". A page can readily define and discuss terms if they have reliable sources, not just "official" usage. Examples for you:

More.

:-) FT2 (Talk | email) 04:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the U.S. railfan jargon; it seems to be a mixture of derisive names ("Douche-9", "Vomit Bonnet"), other terms used by railfans ("Darth Vader", "Chicken Bone"), and terms used by professionals ("baobab", "Green Goat", "cow-calf"). I certainly wouldn't use either of the first two types in articles other than this list and maybe the one about the subject of the nickname as a mention of a nickname it has. An analogy in roads is calling Interstate shields that lack the state name "neutered" - it may be convenient slang, and might belong in a list of roadgeek terminology, but definitely doesn't belong in articles. --NE2 17:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Then create your own WikiProject article to Wikipedia roadfan standards, if that example isn't to your standard for a "terminology" article, and deal with it. Seriously, not everything is a choice between "what professionals say" and "meaningless juvenilia". Create an article, add the useful terminology that roadfans might find in common (not necessarily professional/state) use, and be done with it. Far more productive than suggesting reasons why your Wikiproject can't, when almost every other can and freely does :) FT2 (Talk | email) 19:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying that we can't use decommissioned in other articles even if we can put it in such a list. --NE2 19:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that FT2 is saying that we can. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If so, he's wrong. --NE2 22:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
How so? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Uh...because including the term on a list (assuming we can somehow get a reliable source for inclusion in the list) doesn't change its status as a neologism one bit. --NE2 23:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
We're trying to work out a compromise that puts this behind us instead of pledging allegiance to a guideline. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that one of the stakeholders is the reader, and serving the reader is an ideal that we cannot compromise. --NE2 23:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. The reader's in safe hands....FT2's an Arbitrator; we should trust his judgment here. I'm sure he wouldn't be advocating anything that would make readers' heads explode.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Appeal to authority? --NE2 23:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep! Sort of like getting legal advice from a Supreme Court justice. Or something. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Since ArbCom doesn't make content decisions, that's a pretty horrible analogy. --NE2 00:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. :) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Why not?  — master sonT - C 21:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:NEO. --NE2 22:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Its a guideline, not a policy.  — master sonT - C 23:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I know that. It's still a good idea to follow it. --NE2 23:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Except when it's not. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Which is when ignoring it improves the encyclopedia... --NE2 04:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You might notice you're the only one who thinks using the word somehow harms the encyclopedia. Using it actually improves the encyclopedia by broadening word choice, permitting more varied usage, and allowing less cumbersome sentence structures. It's also more concise. Not to mention the fact that anyone doing serious research knows that Wikipedia is only the first stop for information, so they're going to run into the word in further research anyway. No point to censor it here. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
If they're using reliable sources, they likely won't run into the word... --NE2 06:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:RS is a Wikipedia policy. If you're not editing Wikipedia, it doesn't matter to you. If someone were doing research for say, a school essay, Kurumi would be a perfectly acceptable source. Not to mention some sources that do meet our RS policy use decommission, including the Kansas City Star and The Roads That Built America by Dan McNichol. Even if you were just looking at academic sources, that thesis about U.S. 99 uses it. So thinking that you're helping someone out by excluding the word from Wikipedia is misguided, especially considering that we can include a footnote to dispel any confusion that the reader may have. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) As well as an arbitrator, I'm also a fairly experienced content writer, and administrator, and I also spent much of 2007 specializing in more heated AFD (content dispute) closes with considerable results. Putting aside the arbcom hat a moment, I probably have good fairly experience what is applicable useful content and what is not, much of the time. Although anyone can be mistaken, I think this one's fairly unlikely to have any significant problem.

An article that lists terms in a field, does not need to limit itself to terms professionals/states use. Far from it. An encyclopedia entry that lists such terms will often include specialisms, including specialisms coined within a notable niche community. WP:NEO is exceedingly clear that neologisms as a class, are not forbidden, but are discouraged in certain circumstances and in the context of certain issues. WP:NEO sums up (see its nutshell) as ensuring you use them wisely, not about ignoring them altogether. Treating them as forbidden when that is not the case, is very unhelpful. WP:NEO for neologisms in an article is all about two issues to watch for - that new terms may not have a clear meaning if just thrown into the text, and that they need backing by reliable sources. To state that "decommissioning means X according to source Y" meets that just fine, and that is how articles on "terminology in field Z" get written. You should probably surely have such an article if you don't, because the list of terms used in the roads field would be encyclopedic and useful to readers. You then wikilink "decommissioning" to the section "#D" in that article, from a footnote that states "this term has a specialist meaning in the roads context", and people will then realize if they want to know what the word means in the article, this is where to look. That is 100% clear and unambiguous, and a very appropriate use of the wiki. I'm unsure how much less tact I have to show, in saying "DO IT THAT WAY, IT'S OKAY!"  :-) FT2 (Talk | email) 09:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I tried making List of road-related terminology with the intent of implementing this, but it's just turned into a citation tag war and infinitely long everyone vs. NE2 discussion on the talk page. Suggestions? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice suggestion, but...

I have a huge problem with this discussion in the first place! By Gods, look at the definition! Forget Wiktionary ...

Look at dictionary.com/Random House [9]:

decommission –verb (used with object)
1.to remove or retire (a ship, airplane, etc.) from active service.
2.to deactivate; shut down: to decommission a nuclear power plant.

American Heritage [10]:

decommission - To withdraw (a ship, for example) from active service.

Merriam-Webster [11]:

decommission - to remove (as a ship or nuclear power plant) from service.

Encarta (emphasis not added by myself) [12]:

decommission - remove something from service: to remove something such as a ship, nuclear power station, machinery, or weapons from service

The point I'm trying to make by showing these definitions is that while the word refers to military ships and nuclear power plants, (the origin of the word comes from navy forces in the 1920s) these definitions are clear. It says "such as" or "as" then says ships, power station, machinery, or weapons. Because of the "such as" or "as" modifiers, it means that examples go beyond simply the ones that they gave.

This is why I've always had a problem with this discussion. The definition is clear and understandable. To me, this discussion shouldn't be about neologisms, because the definition already says it covers more than the definition states, this discussion should be about whether it is the best word to use. Given that this is a specialized area, given that the definition already covers this usage, I don't see what the problem is here. If this were a completely new definition for the word, that I could see. But it's not. It's completely within the scope of the definition. --Son (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you recall, the issue has always been that the majority of the time, a decommissioned highway is still "in service" as a road, it's just had it's highway designation removed (or even just renumbered). -- Kéiryn talk 03:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a dog in this race, but it seems that this term doesn't quite fit: "to remove from service" when applied to roads seems to suggest that the road is closed, rather than simply renumbered, although the lack of clarity seems to come from how it's usually stated as something like "Route 49 was decommissioned in 1989," where it's implied and not explicitly stated that it's the route number that was removed from service rather than the highway itself. (stupid edit conflicts...) - Algorerhythms (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. --NE2 04:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The designation, on the other hand, has been....removed from service! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If the designation is immediately reused on a different road, it's certainly not "removed from service", whatever that means... --NE2 04:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If a situation were to occur under this "if this happens," there should be two articles of the designated number. For example, if the street I live on were to be given the designation 1 for this year then it would be Route 1 (2008). When it's moved the following year, then there would be a second article Route 1 (2009). Then the article would say that Route 1 in 2008 was decommissioned, and the number was used on a different road. See Route 1 (2009). Or something along those lines that fits proper Wikipedia style. --Son (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To me the definition fits perfectly in this usage. The navy coined the phase and since some navy ships are still in service after being decommissioned, it would make since that some roads would be too. --Holderca1 talk 12:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please explain to me why we're arguing over something we've already decided and agreed upon long ago? If you must argue over something, argue over bannered highway instead. Seriously, I'm tempted to whack you all with a trout. -- Kéiryn talk 14:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, smack me with a trout, but the bannered highway issue is exactly the same as the issue above. I have the same position, the only exception being that I believe that "bannered highway" should be moved to auxiliary route . So, I think it would be better if the conversation took a turn to the discussion about roads terminology, and in particular, how WP:OR and WP:NEO would apply in the discussion. I'm a heavy believer that, in these particular cases, common sense should be understood. After all, it says in the very top of the WP:NEO page this:
✔ This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus.
--Son (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I also think that it would be better if the conversation took a turn back towards roads terminology in general, rather than deciding to rehash a specific case that was decided long ago, and which you supported at the time. The bannered highway issue cannot be exactly the same, since you have the opposite opinion. Therefore it's wholly unnecessary to attempt to "re-decide" the decommissioned issue before we move on to a different one.
I'm fully aware that consensus can change, but at this particular point, reopening controversial discussions that have already reached their conclusion is only going to do more harm than good. -- Kéiryn talk 08:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to get my two cents in since this is the first time I've gotten on in a few days. Firstly, I agreed for the sake of compromise. Do not misconstrue my opinion because I agreed to a compromise. Secondly, and more importantly, it is exactly the same issue, and I have exactly the same opinion. It is about roads terminology that is obscure from the public life. Think about other niche areas that revolve around a very small group of people. How do they deal with such issues?
I say that I have the same opinion because I do, and I do not appreciate being told that I have a differing opinion. I find it insulting, more so because if I had a change of opinion, I wouldn't be arguing the same thing I had originally argued for about the other issue.
Even more than that, if this issue was dead, then why did it come back? Because it never was a dead issue. People compromised about the issue, but weren't happy with it. It's nice to have compromise, but when the consensus is compromise for the sake of compromise, the issue is not really resolved. --Son (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

See edit/note at end of previous section. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm not on Wikipedia 24/7, I can't really tell what you meant by the "end" of the previous section. I could look at timestamps to figure it out, but really that just proves my point. All the previous section became was another fractured discussion that clearly isn't a productive use of anyone's time. -- Kéiryn talk 04:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

From the GA perspective, R4 (refer to previous consensus if needed) is a better-tuned response than FoF5 (spill-over) to the problems I have seen in USRD interaction with the rest of the encyclopedia, so thanks for introducing and supporting that.

This is the first ArbCom case I've watchlisted, and I'm impressed by the work ArbCom does, especially by what I see as an ideal to intervene in as minimal a way as possible to smooth over problems, so that editorial consensus can sort out the rest. I've learned a lot too! Geometry guy 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)