Active:
Recused:
Away/inactive:
(any?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FT2 ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I assume that the Committee is not done making proposals in regards to this case? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
The parties are still playing leaderboard games. More shell projects appears to be the only reasonable solution. -- NE2 03:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(←)(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)
It probably won't solve everything, but... wikt:decommission definition 3.
Possible ways this can be used:
FT2 ( Talk | email) 20:02, 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)
Uh...no. Wiktionary has looser standards for inclusion than we do. -- NE2 22:59, 13 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)
(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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's
Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though
occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect
consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the
talk page. |
See edit/note at end of previous section. FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Active:
Recused:
Away/inactive:
(any?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FT2 ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I assume that the Committee is not done making proposals in regards to this case? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 22:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
The parties are still playing leaderboard games. More shell projects appears to be the only reasonable solution. -- NE2 03:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(←)(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)
It probably won't solve everything, but... wikt:decommission definition 3.
Possible ways this can be used:
FT2 ( Talk | email) 20:02, 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)
Uh...no. Wiktionary has looser standards for inclusion than we do. -- NE2 22:59, 13 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)
(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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's
Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though
occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect
consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the
talk page. |
See edit/note at end of previous section. FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
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)