Talk:Lane sharing

Merge?
A follow up from the recently closed AFD… Is Lane sharing distinct enough from Lane splitting to merit two separate articles? Or should the two articles be merged? I note that most of the sources seem to conflate the two terms. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Lane sharing has been unsourced for 12 years.  Although it passed AfD by acclimation, I see that nobody who !voted to keep actually found any sources.  So I guess they were all just WP:ILIKEIT?  This was initially a redirect to Lane splitting and that's where we should go back to.  If there was anything that was worth merging, it should be merged, but given that there are zero sources here, I don't see how anything is mergeable.  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you out of your mind, ? I posted eight sources at the AfD in question. And more have been identified at the second AfD started today for no good reason. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What I meant to write was "actually added any sources to the article". -- RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll admit that's a fair criticism. But I've now added eight sources to the article.
 * I'm still not fully convinced these concepts are distinct enough to need two articles, but the current version at least is well sourced, so I'm willing to be patient and see how it develops. I've struck my comment above.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect. These topics are similar enough to be covered in a single article, especially since this one still lacks sourced content. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Do not merge Lane sharing may refer to a number of things, such as cyclists and motor vehicles sharing a lane, cars and buses sharing a lane, or even trams/streetcars sharing a lane with motorists. It's a notable topic. If anything is to be merged, it should be merged into this article. I'm not going to repeat the numerous sources that have been identified at the two AfDs of this article showing the topic is notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you stop tag bombing the article while I try to improve it?
It's easy to drop lazy tags, much harder to actually improve the article. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The world is bigger than just the USA. Could you please be civil? Making it toxic does not help the article. The Banner  talk 16:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you read the citations, you'd see I intentionally included examples from Poland, Australia, and Switzerland. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Still, your inter-person behaviour is not helping the article. Or do you really think this is positive behaviour? The Banner  talk 19:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It was a blatantly false accusation as written. Upon RoySmith's response, when he clarified what he meant to say (that nobody added sources to the article), I admitted he was right, and that it was a fair criticism. Can I be blunt and sometimes rude? Yes, it's a fault of mine that I struggle with. I saw an accusation that I see that nobody who !voted to keep actually found any sources. I found this upsetting considering I had given a thorough keep rationale and identified sources. Quite frankly, with your own record on civility and AfD participation (including a TBAN), you're no better than I as far as "inter-person behavior" goes, and readding a maintenance tag that didn't apply anymore without explanation was uncalled for. I specifically addressed the issue before removing it. I found it frustrating that half an hour after I had started rewriting the article, which you had almost completely deleted, you dropped a tag on it, when it was only five sentences long and clearly still just a stub. Of course it's not gonna be perfect, I had to start from literally nothing. But I promptly addressed the issue, and then removed the tag.
 * Believe it or not, I normally lean deletionist. I think there's a lot of poorly written articles on Wikipedia that need fixing. This one was garbage as it was written previously. And I won't lie, seeing the second AfD nomination less than two weeks after the first one closed as keep, also bypassing the discussion here, pissed me off. I know that wasn't your fault. But I find it frustrating when the people who deleted nearly all the text of the past article then show up to add citation needed and cleanup tags, but have no interest in helping fixing the article. It was one sentence when I looked at it today and decided that it could not be left in that state. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And you only did that today. You did not feel the need to improve it after the last nomination.... The Banner  talk 20:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Users are not obligated to improve every article they vote keep on. Would you rather I didn't improve it ever? I really don't see what the point of your comment is. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is indeed no obligation to improve articles that are too bad to keep. But the way you acted was negative and toxic. Only after that you started improving. The Banner  talk 20:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll be more blunt this time: I'm really not interested in a lecture on civility from someone who was topic banned from AfD and had their own negative and toxic behaviors condemned at ANI. A cursory look at your talk page archives shows plenty of "negative and toxic" behavior from you along with a constant battleground mentality. The difference between us is I'm willing to admit I have shortcomings and need to improve. I will not be replying here further, there's nothing further useful to be said. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, and more personal attacks to hide your own toxic behaviour. The Banner  talk 20:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)