Talk:List of road-related terminology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NE2 (talk | contribs) at 03:42, 19 March 2008 (→‎What a neologism is: Is this required?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconHighways Redirect‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
MidThis redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Decommission

WP:NEO only applies to recently coined words and I guess everything is relative, but I don't consider 80 years old to be recently. --Holderca1 talk 19:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources for decommissioning as applied to highways from 80 years ago? --NE2 19:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's no different than the defintion as it applies to ships. --Holderca1 talk 20:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See below and every other page we've discussed this on. --NE2 20:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also fail to see how this is confusing, what do you think happens to a ship when it is decommissioned? --Holderca1 talk 19:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is removed from service. US 66 was not removed from service; its final alignment remained in the state highway system, and most of its former alignments remain public roads. --NE2 20:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are decommissioned US Navy ships that are still part of the US Navy. --Holderca1 talk 20:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are "removed from service" how? Ship decommissioning disagrees. --NE2 20:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The USS Raven has been decommissioned and is still very much in service. --Holderca1 talk 20:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the Egyptian navy... --NE2 20:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we are making progress, how is that different than a US Highway that is now an Oklahoma state highway? --Holderca1 talk 20:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accepting this original research temporarily, it would be equivalent to a state-maintained highway (such as a U.S. Highway) that's now locally maintained. I don't believe a ship is decommissioned when it's renamed. --NE2 20:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What original research? Nowhere does the word decommission imply a change in ownership. Not sure what the renaming of a ship has to do with anything, but I am pretty sure the Egyptian Navy doesn't call the ship they bought the USS Raven. --Holderca1 talk 20:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Applying a definition to a field it's not intended to be applied to? What happens when the U.S. Navy renames a ship, like TxDOT renaming SH 69 to SH 112? --NE2 20:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a source that states what fields its not intended for? Not sure what that has to do with the question at hand, SH 69 wouldn't be decommissioned, it would still be a state highway. --Holderca1 talk 20:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent reset) Bam. Many of the lists of "decommissioned" routes I have seen ([1] for instance) include highways that were simply renumbered. This, my friends, is the problem with a neologism: we don't know the exact definition, so we can't apply it consistently. --NE2 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, nobody else has any problems with using it but you. Holderca, I would advise not arguing with him, it's unlikely to get you anywhere. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Proposed decision#Any use?, where the rest of the discussion is. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've just exposed one problem: Holderca1 wouldn't use it for routes that were simply renumbered, but other people would. --NE2 20:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I wouldn't use the word "brolly", but a British person would. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if anyone is confused or disputes your use, they can look it up in any good British dictionary and find out exactly what it means. --NE2 20:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as they can with decommission. --Holderca1 talk 20:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By strictly using the definition of decommission, renumbering wouldn't be considered a decommissioning. But that hasn't been your argument, your argument has been that decommission means that the road no longer exists, which isn't what the word means. --Holderca1 talk 20:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My argument has always been that this is a neologism, and we can't use it where it doesn't apply. Now, we may have reliably sourced definitions for completely abandoning a road (Caltrans, U.S. Forest Service), but not for removing a route designation. --NE2 20:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and many of us disagree that it is a neologism —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of you ignore the truth. --NE2 20:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an opinion. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If something hasn't been defined by reliable sources, it's a neologism. That's a fact. Show me a reliably-sourced definition that can be easily applied to roads. --NE2 20:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a fact. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)`[reply]
Is concurrency a neologism? --Holderca1 talk 20:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, he won't stop until he gets his way, even if he is wrong. --Holderca1 talk 20:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any of those listed that I should be looking at in particular or do you expect me to click on them all? --Holderca1 talk 20:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked on the first few and they redirected to US Highway articles. Which ones show just a renumbering, I am not going to click them all. --Holderca1 talk 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Also, have you actually read WP:NEO thoroughly, the first line reads "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." It doesn't say anything about a word recently used in a certain context. So breaking it down, "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined" - the word decommission was coined in the 1920s, "generally do not appear in any dictionary" - just about every dictionary I have seen has it listed. --Holderca1 talk 20:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly applies to new uses too. "The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is not only impossible, it is original research as well—we don't do that here at Wikipedia." Sound familiar? --NE2 20:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is using a dictionary original research? --Holderca1 talk 20:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you have to think about and discuss how to apply the definition. --NE2 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have to think about it and only have to discuss it because you don't understand it. --Holderca1 talk 21:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then explain how you can interpret it to not include renumberings but other people include them. --NE2 21:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to ask others why they would interpret it that way. The dictionary definition doesn't say anything about renaming/renumbering, that is why I say it doesn't apply in that situation. --Holderca1 talk 21:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also doesn't say anything about removing signs, but US 66 was "decommissioned" despite being kept as a state-maintained highway... --NE2 21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When did I ever say it had to do with removing signs? --Holderca1 talk 21:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what happened with US 66 - the US 66 signs were removed, but signs for the various Interstates remained. --NE2 21:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, US 66 was decommissioned since it was no longer a US Highway, it then became an Interstate or a state highway. --Holderca1 talk 21:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A U.S. Highway is just a special shield that the states can post if other states (through AASHTO) agree. But let's look at other routes. [2] lists two U.S. Highways - US 94 and US 331 - as decommissioned, when they were simply renumbered as parts of a longer one. [3] specifically mentions signage. This is the meaning as used in the roadgeek community, and by most road editors that use it. --NE2 21:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have never really considered myself as part of that community, heck I have never heard of the term multiplex being applied to roads until I started editing articles here. I kept thinking to myself, what does a movie theatre have to do with anything. I don't know all the special meanings that the roadgeek community applies to the word, but applying the dictionary definition of decommission cannot be called a neologism. --Holderca1 talk 21:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not the only one to think so [4]. --Holderca1 talk 21:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NE2, if you're so insistent that it is a neologism, prove it.  — master sonT - C 22:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why that one, whats so special about it?  — master sonT - C 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is the one that people are trying to use in articles... --NE2 23:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So? You're acting as if the world is going to end. The rest of them are just as horrible by your definition and something needs to be done about them too. Based upon you're definition.  — master sonT - C 23:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If people want to use them and refer the reader to this page, sure. --NE2 23:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why make a big deal about it?  — master sonT - C 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? --NE2 23:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one is going to use decommission and refer anyone here. Why don't you have an issue with concurrent, overlap, or jughandles? --Holderca1 talk 00:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, FT2 suggested that would be an acceptable way to use it in articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I also don't understand is why he is insisting on a dictionary definition. This list by its very definition is going to contain neologisms, are we just going to have them each tagged forever? --Holderca1 talk 01:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need reliable sources for each entry in the list. --NE2 01:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have definitions for those, for instance [5]. --NE2 01:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word as applied to the act of removal of a route designation from a given highway network, presumably with the designation being retired, is a perfectly reasonable application of the dictionary definition, is it not? Why not simply restrict the use of "decommission" to those cases? In any case, there is relatively wide usage in news articles[6]. While it pertains almost entirely to US 66 (there are a few exceptions to roads other than US 66), the use of the word to mean the retiring of a route designation from a particular highway network is definitely not a neologism as it is now in widespread use. As long as we are careful to not use the term when a it is not applicable (e.g. in cases where the route is renumbered, relocated, etc.) then I don't see what the problem is. I do realize that roadgeeks have expanded the usage to include these other cases so we will need to clean up some articles nevertheless. --Polaron | Talk 01:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary definition is to "remove from service"; how do you get AASHTO's dropping of a route from the logs from that? It's not in widespread use except in the Route 66 and roadgeek communities. --NE2 01:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is the Route 66 community usage is now so wide spread that newspaper writers use it. How do they use the term? And technically it has been removed from service as a route of a particular network. --Polaron | Talk 01:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the "service" that it's being removed from? --NE2 01:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's service as a route of a given network. It no longer serves that particular network. The same can be said of ships. When a war ship is decommissioned, it no longer serves the particular military organization it originally belonged to but in many cases still functions as a ship. --Polaron | Talk 02:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah - the road serves the public, and continues to serve the public. The navy operates the ships, but AASHTO is just an association that keeps a list of roads. --NE2 02:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It no longer serves the public as a national route. --Holderca1 talk 02:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the US 66 signs made no difference in how the road served the public. --NE2 02:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then give me directions from chicago to LA without changing highways. --Holderca1 talk 02:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with how the physical road serves the public. --NE2 03:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does, but it is really irrelevant to the discussion. --Holderca1 talk 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Since when did no longer serving the public become a requirement? Is it always the case that a ship no longer serve the public when its name is retired and removed from its primary military use? Aren't there decommissioned ships that still serve the public in some way? Decommissioning does not mean destroyed. A police officer for example can be decommissioned for committing a crime. That doesn't mean the person is gone - only his status as an officer. Maybe he'll become a waiter or something and still continue to serve the public. --Polaron | Talk 02:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who else does a road serve? --NE2 02:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you're beginning to sound ridiculous. It's not who is served that will be changed by a decommissioning. Decommissioning simply refers to the removal of a conferred status or designation, e.g. a ship being removed from active military service or a uniformed officer losing his status. That may or may not affect who is served but that is irrelevant to whether something was decommissioned or not. Please focus on the issue here. Why can't decommissioning in the sense of removal of a designation apply to highway routes? --Polaron | Talk 02:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decommissioning is removal from service, not removal of a designation. --NE2 02:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. You're focusing on only one sense of the word. I've already mentioned officers being decommissioned (removal of a designation) as well as decommissioned military ships that still serve in civilian capacities (demotion from one type of service to another). --Polaron | Talk 03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Officer and ship decommissioning is removal from military service. The officers and ships had one primary purpose - to serve the military. --NE2 03:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) Both can still serve the military after decommissioning as well. --Holderca1 talk 03:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? --NE2 03:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Officers can serve the military as civilians and ships can as part of the reserve fleet. --Holderca1 talk 03:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And they'd be recommissioned before they re-entered military service. --NE2 03:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, civilans don't receive commissions, only officers do. --Holderca1 talk 03:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are civilians without commissions in military service? Can you link me to more information or an example? --NE2 03:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it is removal from one type of service to another. In the case of roads, it is, for example , removal from service as a link in a nationwide network to one in a statewide network. So, the word applies equally well here as long as we restrict it to cases where it is indeed a removal of a designation. --Polaron | Talk 03:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below. How are you going to sucessfully stop people from using it for a renumbering? --NE2 03:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a neologism is

Template:RFClang For our purposes, a neologism is a term that has not been clearly defined by a reliable source. The most common problem with using a neologism is that different people have different definitions, and no one can be said to be correct.

In this case, we have at least four different definitions:

  1. Complete removal of a road from the earth
  2. Transfer of road maintenance, such as from a state to a city
  3. Removal of a specific route designation, but only if it is replaced by a designation of a different type
  4. Removal of a specific route designation, period

So how do we know which of these is correct? All four of these (with the possible exception of #1) have been called decommissioning in Wikipedia articles. Say I were to believe #3 was correct, and removed the term from a use of #4. The editor that used it disputes the removal, since he believes #4 is correct. We have a problem, because we don't have a definition that we can use to say whether a simple renumbering, such as US 94 to US 41, is a decommissioning.

The only solution is to avoid the problem and not use the term. --NE2 03:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your insightful comment, but I am afraid it flew right over my head. Do you mind explaining it so all of us can understand? --NE2 03:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are other solutions. We could as a project agree on a common working definition and apply that. We could use an unreliable source, like AARoads' glossary, as our working definition and apply that. We could see how the Wiktionary thing happens and do that. Never, never, never, NEVER on Wikipedia is there an "only solution". —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are acceptable. Wikipedia does not make up definitions; it is an encyclopedia that distills information from other reliable sources. --NE2 03:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not acceptable to you, but perhaps to others. Please stop stating your opinions as those of everyone's. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not acceptable on Wikipedia. Please stop ignoring our no original research policy. --NE2 03:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can ignore it. It's policy. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're not ignoring it  — master sonT - C 03:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and that is exactly what Scott5114 and Holderca1 are trying to do, but you pay no attention to that.  — master sonT - C 03:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're trying... and it's not working because there are no reliable sources. --NE2 03:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For values of "no" equaling eleven, I surmise. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of which define it. --NE2 03:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear to me that, with that many uses, it's NOT a neologism, so WP:NEO does NOT apply. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I want you to define Without referring to any wikipedia pages a reliable source.  — master sonT - C 03:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_road-related_terminology&oldid=199263831"