Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/NE2 3

View from Mitchazenia/Mitch32
I can purely see that, the word used in most historical road articles, decommissioned, has become the target of major edit reverting, several bad attitudes and the greatest thing: this RfC. Now this is NE2's third RfC, not something a user wants to have. However, consensus is a major thing in making such a big edit spree. Decommissioned, under the dictionary at Merriam-Webster defines it as "to remove (as a ship or nuclear power plant) from service". Now that does not sound like its related to roads, but its the main word used here. When I was reverting most of NE2's unworthy edits, I stumbled upon "decertified" in a couple of defunct Arizona articles. (Source: Arizona State Route 63). Now, I am in willingness to use a word like decertified, but "deleted" just will not work. These problems here at WP:USRD, and users who dedicate their Wikipedia time to these articles have to think before starting something worthless. Trust me, I've been through it. When writing in a lede sentence:


 * Instead of using: "State Route XXX is a decommissioned route in the YYY part of ZZZ"
 * Use: "State Route XXX is a defunct route in the YYY part of ZZZ".

Decommissioned, under NE2's opinion, is a Neologism. However, he did ask why there was no rebellion over the use of the term "multiplex". Replacing it with "concurrency", NE2 did a major edit, with the support of a consensus. Multiplex has several different definitions:


 * 1) Adjective - "being or relating to a system of transmitting several messages or signals simultaneously on the same circuit or channel"
 * 2) Verb - "to send (messages or signals) by a multiplex system"
 * 3) Noun - "a complex that houses several movie theaters"

Does any of these really sound like it relates to a road? Not to me. Thus, the removal of multiplex was in good faith. Decommissioned, however, is a word, most commoners use, but it is NOT relating to roads. I am in support of using the terms decertify and decertified in replacement of decommissioned. As useful as decommissioned is, its definition doesn't relate to roads, making it worthless and against the Manual of Style.

Continuing on, User:SPUI, mentioned above that IRC has become an NE2-bashing area. Unfortunately, I have to agree with it, because I participated in it more. I'm sorry about that man. The only reason it occurs is because NE2 continues making unconstructive edits, doing things without permission, or doing something really stupid. He had worked on the template, replacing decommissioned with deleted. It took me a few minutes to fix it, but then I had to go through several hundred defunct route articles to revert many of his additions.

I'm gonna conclude, being part of WP:USRD, that NE2 must start listening to the community more, not complain that we're doing stuff to him like this, and learn to wait. Its not good to start something that becomes controversial. This could have been completely avoided, but now it's too late. Also, WP:USRD's users, including me, have to stop bashing him. He tries his hardest, and I respect that a lot. We just need more constructive edits, not reverting each other. Mit ch 32contribs 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

References for "decommission"
—Scott5114↗ 02:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * McNichol, Dan. The Roads that Built America: The Incredible Story of the U.S. Interstate System. New York: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc., 2006. ISBN 1-4027-3468-9, page 77.
 * Master's thesis referring to U.S. 99 as decommissioned
 * Wilkerson, Lyn R. American Trails Revisited: Following in the Footsteps of the Western Pioneers. iUniverse, 2003. ISBN 0-5952-8262-8, page 382.
 * McNichol, Dan. The Roads that Built America: The Incredible Story of the U.S. Interstate System. New York: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc., 2006. ISBN 1-4027-3468-9, page 77.
 * Master's thesis referring to U.S. 99 as decommissioned
 * Wilkerson, Lyn R. American Trails Revisited: Following in the Footsteps of the Western Pioneers. iUniverse, 2003. ISBN 0-5952-8262-8, page 382.

References that define the term as we use it
--NE2 11:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Those six use the term as we use it. Perhaps they didn't define it because they considered it obvious? —Scott5114↗ 11:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, note that the references go back to 1992. —Scott5114↗ 11:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note
Due to the nearby California wildfires, my editing schedule may be disrupted. --Rschen7754 (T C) 16:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think people understood the point of my outside view
The idea was that the correctness of using "decommisioned" is irrelevant here. There is absolutely no case made that NE2 is being disruptive just by advocating removal of the word. He may be wrong, but there's no rule against being wrong. The only thing that could possibly be grounds for an RfC is the way in which he removed "decommisioned" (namely, going through and removing it from hundreds of articles before others agreed). And nobody seems to really care much about that. -Amarkov moo! 01:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I understood the view the second I read it. Perhaps you could've linked WP:BRD somewhere?  O 2 (息 • 吹) 01:26, 24 October 2007 (GMT)
 * I understand the point. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Close
As this RFC is no longer relevant to what is going on right now, and because the dispute has been primarily resolved by MedCab, I am closing this. 哦，  是吗？  (User:O) 23:05, 29 November 2007 (GMT)
 * I don't know if I would agree with that, the MedCab resolved the issue with decommissioned and its use. The RfC is meant to resolve NE2's behaviour.  The MedCab didn't address it at all.  The problem is that he is confusing what being bold means.  If he had started to make the changes, then someone spoke up disagreeing and then discussing ensued, nothing would be wrong with that.  What actually happened was he started a discussion about what he thought to be a problem, then proceeded to make the changes, and then continued to make those changes when opposition to his viewpoint came up.  If this underlying problem hasn't been resolved, then we will have RfC 4 following soon behind.  The proper way to go about things that will affect a large number of articles is to ask yourself, is this going to be a controversial change?  If not, be bold and make the changes, then follow WP:BRD if necessary.  If so, start a discussion, come to an agreement, then make any changes that may be needed.  If you don't do this, people get frustrated, act in ways they normally wouldn't or even leave the project completely.  --Holderca1talk 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * However, the main focal point was that this RFC became inactive after MedCab kicked in. 哦，   是吗？  (User:O) 20:20, 01 December 2007 (GMT)