Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:13, 31 October 2007

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

From Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Highways, "Structure":

Disambiguation pages

I am active in the WikiProject Disambiguation. There are many abbreviation-titled disambiguation pages that contain several highway references. I've recently done an edit series on one such disambiguation page, A1, which stimulated discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) (see "Revision of "A1" based on "Manual of Style (disambiguation)"" section). I do think that consistency in the treatment of highway disambiguation is useful and think that this WikiProject might be the appropriate place to address this in order to establish and maintain such consistency. My proposal as to the method of treatment is embodied in the A1 article and the referenced talk-page topic. Thank you for your input and further discussion. Courtland 14:00, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Other articles: A2, A20, A24 road, A3, A350 (disambiguation). To make more clear my suggestions, the anatomy of a disambiguation line for a highway should be (in my opinion):

{road name} {parenthetical country} ", an/a" {road type} "connecting" {start} "to" {end}
{road name} {parenthetical country} ", connecting" {start} "to" {end}

Courtland 14:09, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Pages listed on VFD

See the project page.

The above article has been nominated for deletion. Uncle G 19:48:30, 2005-08-21 (UTC)

Stubs related to roads

At Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals there is a discussion about {{Canada-road-stub}}, as well as highway stubs for MD, MA, MI, NV, NH, and MO. --Rschen7754

US Roads WP

There are several US highway WPs out there... I am thinking of starting a WP to coordinate the efforts of all these highway WPs. Any thoughts? This would just set standards for these WPs and set some standards for state highway articles that have no WP yet. --Rschen7754 03:40, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

question

What types of highways are considered acceptable? National? State? County?

Portal:U.S. Roads or North American Roads?

Please see the discussion at Portal talk:U.S. Roads. --NE2 23:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the exit list guide

Please read and comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#Proposals for clarifications. --NE2 05:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Decommissioned

Template:RFCstyle "Decommissioned" is a neologism when applied to roads. The examples at Talk:Decommissioned highway, , and show that people will not interpret the term, which is an existing word in other contexts, correctly. (Essentially it's being used to say that a designation no longer exists; it may have been closed, given to the local government, or simply renumbered.)

I started changing to various other terms, mainly "deleted". Apparently that's not clear either, and I guess I understand that.

So what should we use? Should we make a full list of all articles that use "decommissioned" and handle each separately? What should be used in the infobox (for example, on U.S. Route 66)? Where should decommissioned highway be moved?

Please discuss. --NE2 23:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's reeally hard to discuss when you assume the truth of what people are disputing in the first place. -Amarkov moo! 23:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the links I gave to examples of people not understanding what was meant by the term? --NE2 23:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Most people don't know what "phosphorylated" means. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In which case they can look it up. However, in this case, that won't help, since they'll still think it was torn up and closed. --NE2 23:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

But unless we replace "decommissioned" with its definition in every article, there is no other term that accurately describes the thing. Saying "work" may confuse those unfamiliar with its scientific definition, since they will think it means something else. But no other word accurately describes the concept, unless we say "applied force multiplied by net displacement over a given interval" every time. -Amarkov moo! 23:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And yet that's an accepted term. "Decommissioned" is not an accepted term among highway professionals. "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." --NE2 23:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In my Sandbox, which you cite to "prove the unusability" of decommissioned, it also proves the unusability of deleted.

I have proposed a change to the Road Infobox, I will repost it here as well.

vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's not make this about decommissioned vs. deleted. There are many options, and deleted is probably not the best. --NE2 23:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel that all the terms proposed have been more confusing or wordier than the original, and any confusion about decommission can be cleared up by simply including a link to the page that explains it: e.g. Route four was decommissioned in 1924.. —Scott5114↗ 23:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't have that article, however, since there are no reliable sources for the definition. --NE2 23:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

But there are no reliable sources for any other definition, either. I haven't been able to find anything on Ministry of Transportation of Ontario's website about decommissioning, closing, demolishing, deleting, renaming, renumbering, selling, anything about highways. The definition for a highway or highway designation that no longer exists does not exist. Decommissioned seems to make the most sense. The first link you connect to, someone states that the definition of decommission is "switch off", "close", "make unusable"; Well, when Highway 2 no longer exists, the term Highway 2 is unusable. It references nothing.

Also, I should note, MapArt maps refer to decommissioned highways as "Formerly X". Many maps of cities in Southern Ontario feature this. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 00:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"Former" is a fine term. --NE2 00:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to find any reliable sources for decommissioned highway, following WP:NEO. Unless that happens, we cannot use the term. --NE2 00:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A source for "Formerly X" - vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 00:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. It's clear what's meant when you say that something was "formerly Highway 2". --NE2 00:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that nobody really talks about decommissionings except for roadgeeks and DOTs, and the DOTs have no consensus among each other for what to call it. The roadgeeks call it decommission usually, and yes, roadgeek sites aren't reliable sources, but this is one situation where WP:NEO should go out the window, at least in my opinion, because there's no other term that unambiguously satisfies the use of decommission and is reliable itself. I don't think we can't link to decommissioned highway just because it has no sources.—Scott5114↗ 00:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason we can't use the terms that the DOTs use. We don't need to use only one. By the way, I'm compiling what various DOTs use on Talk:Decommissioned highway. --NE2 00:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"We don't need to use only one." What, and increase the ambiguity? I had no idea what deleting a highway meant. I don't think we're going to rectify the 'decommission' dilemma by throwing even more terms into the ring. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 00:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If we can use terms that make the articles clearer, we should. --NE2 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: personally, I don't have a problem with the word "decommissioned," at all ... and I think it's much clearer than "delete." But if there's a concern about the term, I'd say that it's because of sentence structure, rather than the term itself. For example, instead of saying "Highway 10 was decommissioned in 1980," you could say "the Highway 10 route number was decommissioned in 1980." That would be eminently clear to all. Pitamakan 00:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Or "the Highway 10 designation was deleted in 1980" - even clearer, since we're specifying that the route number or designation - not the road - was deleted. Decommissioned might be acceptable with that clarification, but it's still a term that's not used in the real world for this concept. --NE2 00:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

With those sentence structures, either term works fine for me. (If the Highway 10 designation was actually being moved to a different alignment from the one being discussed, though, still different phraseology would need to be used.) Pitamakan 01:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Chicago Tribune
• Boston Globe
• Kansas City Star

All use decommission in reference to US 66. Thanks to User:W.marsh for providing the Google News search link. —Scott5114↗ 01:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw that; it appears that the term may have originated in the Route 66 "fan community", or that it's "leaked through" due to Route 66 being one of the most notable things the "roadgeek community" deals with. --NE2 01:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So? Those three newspapers are reliable sources. —Scott5114↗ 01:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." --NE2 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that nobody but roadgeeks and Route 66 enthusiasts cares about them. If there were newspaper articles about the subject of decommissioned highways I'd be extremely surprised. It's not likely because the average person finds the subject boring. That said, we DO have references for the usage of the term so I'm adding them to the article.—Scott5114↗ 02:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A note from the peanut gallery: I am a U.S. English speaker, not a "road geek", and I think "decommissioned" is a perfectly fine word to be using here. (I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.)

To me, "decommission" means "lose a formal status" (e.g. a commission) and, depending on circumstances, may mean that the decommissioned entity remains in full use (albeit without the former designation), remains in partial use, is removed from use but still exists (perhaps "mothballed"), or is dismantled/demolished.

If someone told me that a numbered highway had been "decommissioned", I'd understand that it had lost its designation. I might wonder whether it was still in use or had been demolished, but I'd probably guess that it was still in use, because I would imagine that the speaker would have said "demolished" or "removed" otherwise. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

While I have not seen any official usage by DOTs of "decommissioned", it does appear that the word is in somewhat common use in certains books about U.S. highways, as can be seen in many of the hits in Google Books. This seems to be an acceptable, succint, and not entirely uncommon usage of the word without having to worry about variations across state DOTs. This is somewhat like using "freeway" as an all-encompasisng word for "highways with full control of access and no cross traffic". --Polaron | Talk 02:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Some of that is spillover from the Route 66/roadgeek community. (If you read misc.transport.road, you'll recognize Carl Rogers.) Others do in fact use it to mean closed: "This road is currently decommissioned, and may not be driveable", "The highway was decommissioned in 1953, and the TWIN TUNNELS were plugged with gravel to keep the curious out", "Sooner or later reason will prevail, the road will be decommissioned, and the original trail from Rapid River to the lookout will be reopened", "around to Wohlers Monument (on a decommissioned road) and back via Wohlers Road". It seems that the term is slightly spreading, but is not yet to the point where we can define it reliably. --NE2 03:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Highway decommissioning is rare enough that no single word is likely to perfectly transmit to an arbitrary reader all the relevant nuances of any given decommissioning. So it seems to me that the right thing to do is to continue to use "decommissioned", but to provide the relevant information immediately afterwards:

• "Route 123 was decommissioned in ____ but is still in use as Baseline Road."
• "Route 456 was decommissioned in ____ and demolished."
• "U.S. 99 north of Seattle was decommissioned in ____ and the parts not overlain by the new I-5 were demolished."
• "U.S. 66 was decommissioned in ____ but the roads along which it ran are still in use, and many portions have received a "Historic Route 66" designation."

—Steve Summit (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Any of those would also work with other words, such as eliminated. We even have a cite regarding the definition of "eliminated from the state highway system", and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials uses the term when a highway - like U.S. Route 66 - stops being a U.S. Highway. See Talk:Decommissioned highway. --NE2 03:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

—Scott5114↗ 03:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, mainly spillover from the Route 66 community. If something gets used enough in one area, it spreads to coverage of that area in other media. That's the evolution of a neologism. Once it's used enough to be defined in reliable sources, then we can use it. --NE2 04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's already in dictionaries. It just doesn't mention "highway" specifically. —Scott5114↗ 04:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The definition in dictionaries means that the road was closed - see the quotes I gave above. --NE2 04:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So then why would you change them to deleted? Most definitions I have seen for decommission is to withdraw from active service. While delete would be to remove from existence. I don't think any of the possible alternatives can state clearly what we mean out of context, all can be interpreted as the road being closed or no longer in existence. On the flip side, the formed date is equally confusing, as it could mean when the road was built(which I would assume most unfamiliar with the subject would assume) or it could mean when the road was designated. --Holderca1 12:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've put together a (hopefully) full list of pages that contain or contained the term at User:NE2/decommissioned; this includes the ones I changed to deleted or something else. Note that this also includes ones which simply have a blank "decommissioned=" in the infobox code. Hopefully we can clarify the language in each of these, not with decommissioned or deleted, but with a better wording. --NE2 16:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion is ridiculous, and is a complete waste of time. We should be working on articles, not discussing a very minute point of what Misplaced Pages is truly about. If you really have a problem with using the word decommissioned, why don't you just go ask Jimbo Wales himself and see what he says about it. Sheesh! This is part of the reason why I don't participate heavily on Misplaced Pages anymore. --Son 17:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a legitimate question, but we're at the point that "decommissioned" is used often enough to be notable (this is, after all, a large group of people that has an accepted definition of the word), so I think it's keepable. Alaska has no decommissioned highways. Illinois does, but the website doesn't reference them, because they're gone. —Rob (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we actually have a completely accepted definition, and we definitely don't have one that can be sourced reliably. I will start rephrasing the articles in the list to be clearer to the reader, whether or not he is a roadgeek. --NE2 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"I'm not sure that we actually have a completely accepted definition" – You're one of the few whom do not accept it. However, earlier I did clarify one article, changing:

• Highway 803 - deleted

to

• Highway 803 - Not currently assigned. Became Highway 101 to Nighthawk Lake in 1997.

the latter being more clear. Should a highway designation cease to be, I would use "Not currently assigned"; "No longer assigned". However, using these phrases is technically a neologism. So is, for that matter, deleted, at least in Canadian English. As for Texas' "cancelling" of highways, I find that a rather silly term.

Additionally, one should not perform massive changes to a large volume of articles (or to an infobox) unless a consensus has been reached. You should have done that before you altered the Road infobox template. It would have saved time, and this lengthy discussion. Personally, I would advise you to not use delete or cancel when discussing an existing highway either ceasing to be or losing it's designation, as my example, which you cite, shows that those are even more ambiguous than using the term "decommissioned". Indeed, in the example I show above with highway 803, one could assume that the note " - deleted" is talking about the article itself, as it is a red link. That may also discourage someone from creating the article.

Additionally, I would suggest that it is in your (NE2) best interest that you stop altering articles to remove the term "decommissioned" until a consensus is reached. Looking at your talk page, there is no doubt that this has proved a controversial decision on your part. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 00:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• An academic paper referring to U.S. 99 as decommissioned.—Scott5114↗ 02:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Following the construction of the eight-lane Interstate 5 in the 1960s, the federal government eventually decommissioned Highway 99 as a federal roadway, leaving maintenance for the highway in the charge of state and local governments." Wow. Are you aware how wrong that one sentence is? I see three independent glaring errors. --NE2 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • What does that have to do with anything? The word was used in what appears to be a English master's thesis. Wouldn't the university's English department know if the word was misused? —Scott5114↗ 03:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
      • See below; it was misused. --NE2 04:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
        • No it wasn't. Unless you're saying were I to take a trip out to California I'd find US 99 alive and well?—Scott5114↗ 04:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Please read the sentence. They say that it was decommissioned as a "federal roadway" and that with this came a change in maintenance. If you don't understand the U.S. Highway system, we have a good article on it that you can read. --NE2 05:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
            • I know there's no such thing as a federal route. That has nothing to do with this. —Scott5114↗ 06:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
              • Then you should know that the sentence does not use decommissioning "correctly", saying that it's a transfer from the federal government (like with other uses of the word). --NE2 06:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, the word 'decommissioned' was used. They understood what it meant, and one would assume readers would as well. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 02:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Did they? They said the federal government "decommissioned" the highway, giving it to the states. That's in line with other uses of decommissioning, like with army bases, but doesn't describe the situation here: the highway lost one designation and got another. --NE2 03:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, NE2, you're giving the appearance here of being just a bit of a zealot. You've asked for reliable sources of "decommissioned" being used with respect to highways, but whenever someone comes up with one, you find some excuse to dismiss it ("spillover from the Route 66 community", "are you aware how wrong that one sentence is", etc.). I'm starting to wonder, if someone produced a definition out of the Oxford English Dictionary saying "decommissioned adj. Of a numbered highway, removed from formal designation as part of the relevant numbered highway system, with the actual roadway either retained for use, or demolished", if you'd then say, "Yeah, but that's just the OED, what do they know about highways?" or something. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a "zealot" for clear wording that everyone can understand. --NE2 04:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The answer, by the way, is that if the OED or another reliable dictionary defined the term that way, we'd be able to reference it on decommissioned highway and use it, so I would not have a problem with its usage. But we don't have any such source. --NE2 04:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone, or you? Your replacements words are more ambiguous than the words they replace, and you are the first person to bring this up as far as I know. The everyones I have talked to say decommissioned makes more sense than deleted, cancelled or eliminated. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 04:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at my most recent replacements? I replaced "The southern segment from San Carlos to Fort Apache was decommissioned and is maintained as Indian Route 9" with "The southern segment from San Carlos to Fort Apache was turned over to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to maintain as Indian Route 9". In another edit, I removed the earlier "deleted" wording. I no longer support "deleted", or any single other word, as a catch-all term. --NE2 04:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not having a catch-all term creates a situation where a consistent feel across articles is lost. I also find the "alternative" wording slightly poorer in quality than the text it replaced. Some of the phrases brought up here, such as "turned back", "canceled", and "deleted" are just as much neologisms in this context as you believe decommissioned is. At least with decommissioned, someone knows what it means. With the others...everyone is left guessing. --TMF 06:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And if someone doesn't know, a simple link to decommissioned highway is enough to inform them. —Scott5114↗ 06:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not if we can't have an article there. Remember that we need reliable sources that define the term. --NE2 06:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We have four reliable sources. One of them is from a reviewed master's thesis. Nobody else supports the removal of the term. You're being overly picky here to get around that. —Scott5114↗ 09:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting about this: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." --NE2 11:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody writes specifically about decommissioned highways because most people don't find the topic interesting. Got that? Good. And I notice you fail to address the point that nobody supports your position. —Scott5114↗ 11:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

—Scott5114↗ 11:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody writes about it? --NE2 11:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mainly spillover from the Route 66 community. —Scott5114↗ 11:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a circumstance where we can use common sense and Ignore WP:NEO in this case.

2. Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. --From WP:WIARM

--Son 16:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, I am saying that using an unclear term damages the encyclopedia... --NE2 19:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And we're saying we don't find it unclear. —Scott5114↗ 22:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course you don't; I don't either. But other people do. --NE2 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What people? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The person at Talk:Decommissioned highway. The people on the reference desk. The person who wrote the cited paper, saying that maintenance of US 99 was transferred from the federal government to the states. --NE2 00:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting find: uses "Renamed or decommissioned", as if a route is only decommissioned when it ceases to be state-maintained. --NE2 09:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

New suggestion

In articles about specific state routes, we should as much as possible use the term that state's DOT uses, if it is not too wordy. For generic cases, as well as in the infobox, a suitable word to use might be "abolished", which is the opposite of "established". For people who might deem that this too is a neologism, another suggestion is to use "eliminated", which is the term that is used by AASHTO in their U.S. Route Numbering Electronic Application Form. --Polaron | Talk 19:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that'll be fun! Next we can rewrite the Germany article in German, and the Mexico article in Spanish, and... —Steve Summit (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Your sarcasm isn't helping. --NE2 22:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. So what term should I use? If the state DOT uses "transferred to the town", I shouldn't use it? --Polaron | Talk 22:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If the state uses "transferred to the town" then you should use it, because that was what happened. It was transferred to the town. There isn't any clearer way to say that, other than downloaded, but I don't think Americans use that term to define "responsibilities transferred from one level of government to the level below". vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 23:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My point was that an encyclopedia does not merely parrot language from its primary sources: it reworks and rewords the material for the benefit of its perhaps less-specialist readers. So while there's a legitimate debate over whether "decommissioned" is the best term for a perhaps non-specialist reader, the right fix is not to replace it in three different places with three different presumably-synonymous terms used by three different local highway departments, because even if one of those is the best and least confusing term, the other two won't be. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason we can't combine the two rows in the infobox, saying "existed: 1926-1985"? It avoids the problem, removes a row, and looks cleaner. --NE2 20:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented this; see U.S. Route 66 and User:NE2/testing. Does this look good? --NE2 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a US Route 0? It looks good, and the "Decomd." wasn't very pleasing, either. I prefer to avoid acronyms. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There is now, thanks to the national debt. --NE2 22:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Polaron's suggestion might only apply to American routes. Canada does not have federal level highways and eliminated is never used to describe highways (or anything related to physical infrastructure that I know of) in Canada. Additionally, our transportation ministries don't have a term for this at all. NE2's idea would make more sense, and I don't think being wordy is a problem as long as it is kept down to 10 words or less. A more wordy term would actually be better as it would explain what actually happened, as opposed to a blanket term which could mane one of many things. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Being specific is actually needed if we want to get articles to FA. I can't find the exact FAC that it was mentioned in, but I know it was mentioned before O₂ (息 • 吹) 02:51, 24 October 2007 (GMT)

Request

Can we come to an agreement that we can clarify language - not replace "decommissioned" with "deleted", which I was wrong to do, but actually make it clearer exactly what happened - was the number replaced with another? Was it removed from a road that already had another number? Was it turned back to the county? --NE2 00:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds okay so far, but could you provide some examples? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

M-35, Pennsylvania Route 45 → Pennsylvania Route 248, Pennsylvania Route 9 → Interstate 476, Indiana State Road 6 → U.S. Route 6, and a whole lot more. O₂ (息 • 吹) 00:56, 24 October 2007 (GMT)

... no, examples of the actual prose changes. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Route 245: In 1946, the highway was deleted. → The route was eliminated from the state highway system in 1946. O₂ (息 • 吹) 01:14, 24 October 2007 (GMT)

No, specific uses of the word "decommissioned" being explained, as the original post that I replied to suggested. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with Route 4 was decommissioned on 1991-08-09 and became Route C or Route 10 was decommissioned on 1919-04-04 and is currently maintained by Jasper County. —Scott5114↗ 01:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of "Route 66 was decommissioned in 1985", "in 1985, the remaining part of the Route 66 designation became State Highway 66". Instead of "Interstate 80N was decommissioned in 1980", "Interstate 80N became Interstate 84 in 1980". Instead of "Highway 789 was decommissioned in 1985", "the Highway 789 designation was removed in 1985, since it had no independent portions". Instead of "Route 4 was decommissioned in 1974", "the state turned back Route 4 to the county in 1974, which now maintains it as County Road 46". --NE2 02:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. Do you think we're stupid? --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No - They're just suggesting more appropriate ways to state it. Its becoming clear decommissioned isn't acceptable. master son 03:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, considering that the consensus still supports it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you're intelligent enough to realize when you're wrong. --NE2 03:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Correctness is in the eye of the beholder. --TMF 03:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as you promote "it's my way or the highway," you won't get anywhere. This "compromise" is simply a rephrasing of what you did to begin this mess. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"It's decommissioned or the highway"? --NE2 04:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We agreed to a compromise using the word decommissioned and making teh meaning obvious... --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Then what's the point of using the word if you don't need it? --NE2 04:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

When did we agree? master son 16:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Varying word choice. —Scott5114↗ 10:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What would we use for the infobox? --Holderca1 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Existed: 1927–1953 (example) O₂ (息 • 吹) 01:33, 24 October 2007 (GMT)

Wouldn't that be just as confusing? For example someone might assume that the roadway no longer exists? --Holderca1 01:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

An infobox only gives readers background information. It does not fill in details. O₂ (息 • 吹) 02:01, 24 October 2007 (GMT)

I think we all know what an infobox is, but it's not supposed to be misleading or confusing. Existed is no more clear than what we have now. --Holderca1 02:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So put, perhaps on a new row beneath, a "current status" designation: "in service as Podunk Street", "abandoned but weed-grown pavement exists in spots", "overlain by new I-5 alignment", "utterly demolished", whatever. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is about the route number; the road itself usually existed before the "formed" date. --NE2 03:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so then why is decommissioned unclear if it is talking about the route number? --Holderca1 03:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, on a somewhat related note, I've compiled User:NE2/former, a list of highway articles that use the "decommissioned" or "deleted" parameter, and where they could be merged. Some merges are obvious (Texas State Highway Loop 420/U.S. Route 83 Business (Laredo, Texas)/Interstate 35 Business (Laredo, Texas)), some less so. --NE2 03:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I do it now? Nobody's said anything for a while, and the RFC is much more balanced. --NE2 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. O₂ (息 • 吹) 21:00, 26 October 2007 (GMT)

Do what? Don't remove decommissioned. But if it's merging permastubs, that's not an issue. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Replace decommissioned and deleted with clearer language. That includes dealing with articles like Deleted state highways in California. --NE2 21:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If it takes 7-8 words to say what "decommissioned" says, it's pointless. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We can't say what decommissioned means, because we don't have a reliably-sourced definition. --NE2 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

But we do. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not unless we find one that accurately describes the word. And it better not be a dictionary. O₂ (息 • 吹) 21:22, 26 October 2007 (GMT)

If a dictionary were to give a definition as we use it for highways, it would be fine. --NE2 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How about "State Route X was decomissioned in 2001 and became Z County Route Y" with the X,Y, and Z being replaced with whatever fits? I don't have a problem with that, and nobody except for NE2 does it seems. Smartyllama 19:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus isn't here

There is no consensus here for the removal of decommissioned. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no consensus to use it. --NE2 18:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to not use it, and we're going to keep going around in this circle until one side gives up—which doesn't look very likely. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 19:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't need consensus to clarify articles. --NE2 19:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You do when one's interpretation of "clarify" differs from others. --TMF 19:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Back at ya. --NE2 19:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And your point is what? Anyone with two eyes can see I don't agree with your interpretation and that you don't agree with anyone's other than your own. --TMF 19:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone with two eyes can see that is a horrible edit. --NE2 20:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not horrible, but the entirety of the article, not just those phrases, does need to be rewritten. And this isn't how it should be rewritten. --TMF 20:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like an eyepatch? We're having a special: two for $2... --NE2 20:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yungas Road

Would this article be a candidate to be a part of this project? Solarapex 05:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Go ahead and tag it. --TMF 08:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

UK Roads/UK Transport WikiProject

Id like to suggest that a UK Roads WikiProject be set up as an expansion of the current motorways wikproject and similar to US roads WikiProject. This would help have a uniform articles through out the UK road systems and also a point for people to combine there efforts and consensus to more easily achieved. For the time being i would like to see what support there is for this before making an official proposal? Seddon69 22:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)