Talk:List of road-related terminology

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)

Do you have any sources for decommissioning as applied to highways from 80 years ago? --NE2 19:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's no different than the defintion as it applies to ships. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

See below and every other page we've discussed this on. --NE2 20:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

There are decommissioned US Navy ships that are still part of the US Navy. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are "removed from service" how? Ship decommissioning disagrees. --NE2 20:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The USS Raven has been decommissioned and is still very much in service. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

By the Egyptian navy... --NE2 20:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

And I wouldn't use the word "brolly", but a British person would. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Just as they can with decommission. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

and many of us disagree that it is a neologism —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of you ignore the truth. --NE2 20:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's an opinion. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

No, it's not a fact. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)`

Is concurrency a neologism? --Holderca1 ^talk 20:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, he won't stop until he gets his way, even if he is wrong. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Since when is using a dictionary original research? --Holderca1 ^talk 20:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

When you have to think about and discuss how to apply the definition. --NE2 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Then explain how you can interpret it to not include renumberings but other people include them. --NE2 21:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

When did I ever say it had to do with removing signs? --Holderca1 ^talk 21:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And I'm not the only one to think so [4]. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

NE2, if you're so insistent that it is a neologism, prove it.  — master son^{T - C} 22:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And why that one, whats so special about it?  — master son^{T - C} 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Because this is the one that people are trying to use in articles... --NE2 23:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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 son^{T - C} 23:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If people want to use them and refer the reader to this page, sure. --NE2 23:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Then why make a big deal about it?  — master son^{T - C} 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? --NE2 23:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Well, FT2 suggested that would be an acceptable way to use it in articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

We need reliable sources for each entry in the list. --NE2 01:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Because we have definitions for those, for instance [5]. --NE2 01:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

What's the "service" that it's being removed from? --NE2 01:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

It no longer serves the public as a national route. --Holderca1 ^talk 02:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing the US 66 signs made no difference in how the road served the public. --NE2 02:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then give me directions from chicago to LA without changing highways. --Holderca1 ^talk 02:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with how the physical road serves the public. --NE2 03:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure it does, but it is really irrelevant to the discussion. --Holderca1 ^talk 03:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Who else does a road serve? --NE2 02:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Decommissioning is removal from service, not removal of a designation. --NE2 02:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

How? --NE2 03:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Officers can serve the military as civilians and ships can as part of the reserve fleet. --Holderca1 ^talk 03:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And they'd be recommissioned before they re-entered military service. --NE2 03:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No, civilans don't receive commissions, only officers do. --Holderca1 ^talk 03:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

I can't at the moment, I am accessing the web from my phone. But, no civilian has a commission, only officers, that's why they are called commissioned officers. --Holderca1 ^talk 03:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, talks about officers and their commissions: Officer (armed forces). Oh, and the most obvious example of a civilian would be the Secretary of Defense. This article [7] shows the total number of civilians currently working for the armed forces with a more specific breakdown for the Air Force, just in case you were questioning whether there were civilians working in the armed forces, couldn't quite tell from your comments. --Holderca1 ^talk 12:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

What a neologism is

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)

No, it's not. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Not acceptable on Wikipedia. Please stop ignoring our no original research policy. --NE2 03:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We can ignore it if we have to, to get this out of the way. It's policy. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

They're not ignoring it  — master son^{T - C} 03:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

and that is exactly what Scott5114 and Holderca1 are trying to do, but you pay no attention to that.  — master son^{T - C} 03:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

They're trying... and it's not working because there are no reliable sources. --NE2 03:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For values of "no" equaling eleven, I surmise. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

None of which define it. --NE2 03:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

The number of uses doesn't matter; it's the quality. We don't have any reliable definition for the term. --NE2 03:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't need one. It's not a neologism. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I want you to define Without referring to any wikipedia pages a reliable source.  — master son^{T - C} 03:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason that confusion arises is because decommissioning is the first step in all the definitions you listed. It would be kind of hard to remove the roadway but still have a commissioned route through where the roadway used to be. That is why I mentioned in previous discussions that just using decommissioned alone doesn't tell the whole story. You have to say "SH 999 was decommissioned and turned over to the county for maintenance" or something similar. --Holderca1 ^talk 04:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• On the one hand the RFC statement says "For our purposes, a neologism is a term that has not been clearly defined by a reliable source". On the other the same user then argues that we must abide by WP:NEO which states that "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". I don't think you can pick a definition of your choice, argue that makes a word a neologism for Wikipedia purposes, then apply a policy to it that's clearly designed for a quite different kind of neologism. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? This is a use that does not appear in any dictionary. If it did we'd know which of the definitions to use. --NE2 17:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The removal of a conferred status is a dictionary definition of "decommission". It's use as "removal from a particular highway network" is perfectly normal use of the word. As long as we stick to that usage, then we're fine. --Polaron | Talk 20:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal from service is the definition, unless you have a different one? --NE2 20:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We're going in circles now. It is no longer in service as a link in a particular network. --Polaron | Talk 20:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And what's the "network"? It could be the state highway system, it could be one of several systems of numbered highways, it could be the system of public roads, it could be the scenic highway system, or it could be any number of other systems. Choosing one particular system is original research. --NE2 20:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you need to choose one particular network? It can be removal from any network. It doesn't even have to be a road network. One can decommission a county road so that it is no longer part of the county highway system. One can decommission a router so it is no longer part of a wide area network. One can decommission a bus so it is no longer part of the fleet. One can decommission an officer so he is no longer part of the force. What happens after something is decommissioned does not have any relation to whether something is decommissioned or not. --Polaron | Talk 20:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So what's the use of the term if it doesn't mean anything? If we say "SR 2 was decommissioned", that could mean any number of things. --NE2 20:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It means that SR 2 is no longer part of that particular highway network. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What particular network? It could have been given to the city but still be signed as SR 2, or it could have become part of US 66 while remaining a state highway. Either one of those is removal from a network. --NE2 21:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You aren't making sense. The Interstate Highway network, the US Highway network, the primary state highway network, the secondary state highway network, whatever it belongs to, you can't very well remove it from a network it doesn't belong to. Your first example doesn't make sense and US 66 isn't a state highway, its a US Highway. Are you talking about a concurrency? --Holderca1 ^talk 21:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The first case is removal from the network of state-maintained highways. The second is removal from the network of state sign routes. --NE2 21:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If the highway is no longer an active part of that network, it has been decommissioned from it. It doesn't matter which network. A state highway that becomes a city street is no longer a active part of the state highway network, a state highway that becomes a US Highway is no longer part of the the state highway network. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing two networks. The state highway network is the network of roads maintainod by the state highway agency. If SR 2 is given to the city but continues to be marked, it is no longer part of that network, but is still a state sign route (that's the term used in California; other states use different terms). If SR 2 becomes US 66, it is still part of the state highway network, but has become a U.S. sign route. --NE2 21:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you're confusing who maintains the road with this and that has nothing to do with it. US Highways are part of a nation-wide network, state highways aren't, they are part of a state-wide network. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You're choosing to ignore a network that is just as valid for these purposes. That's original research. --NE2 21:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Ignore what network? --Holderca1 ^talk 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The network of state-maintained highways. That's what's meant when you say that, for instance, "North Carolina has the largest state maintained highway network in the United States". --NE2 21:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me know when you get to the point you were trying to make. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) So when I say that SR 2 was decommissioned, which network does it refer to? --NE2 21:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the context here is a bit limited, I am going to expand your example to New York State Route 2 was decommissioned. That would mean it is no longer a state route. It could now be a county route, Intestate, US Highway, can't know without more information. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not getting it - there are two networks it could have been removed from. Say NY 2 is a state-maintained road that exists in a single county. It belongs to at least two networks: the network of marked state routes and the network of state-maintained roads. It could be removed from the former while staying in the latter, and thus become either part of a U.S. Route or Interstate or a reference route. On the other hand, it could be removed from the latter while staying in the former, and become a county-maintained road that is still signed as a state route. --NE2 22:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but a change in who maintains the road doesn't have to occur for a decommissioning to occur. I'm not sure why you are stuck on this, no one has said this. Like I said in the section above, the US Navy still maintains some ships after they have been decommissioned. --Holderca1 ^talk 22:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to occur, but it is one way that a road can be removed from a network. It is original research to ignore that network. --NE2 22:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I think you mean state highway system. --Holderca1 ^talk 22:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"State highway system" can mean two different things - the system of state-maintained highways or the system of roads signed as state highways. Either one is a valid network, and either one is a possible interpretation of "decommissioned". --NE2 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you still haven't really said what your point is here. There are networks within the network. There is a network of state highways, a network of US Highways, etc... all of which are maintained by the state they are in. No one is ignoring anything. --Holderca1 ^talk 22:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, just because a certain situation is ambiguous, doesn't make the word a neologism or make it necessary to ban a word Wikipedia wide. --Holderca1 ^talk 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

But that's a problem with the term "state highway" being ambiguous not with the word "decommissioned". If saying "the state highway was decommissioned" is problematic because you don't know which meaning of "state highway" is meant, that is a problem with the term "state highway" not with the term "decommissioned". --Polaron | Talk 22:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So how would you use "decommissioned" to be unambiguous? --NE2 23:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You're mixing the road and the route. When Route 2 of a particular route system is decommissioned, it means there no longer is a Route 2 in that system. The designation is what is commissioned and decommissioned. Isn't that what happened with US 66? --Polaron | Talk 22:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So maybe we can say "the SR 2 designation was decommissioned". But I don't think I've ever seen that; it's always "SR 2 was decommissioned". --NE2 22:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, "California 2 was decommissioned by the state, but it is still signed as a locally maintained state route." This is a clear use of the network of state-maintained roads. --NE2 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not a reliable source. --Holderca1 ^talk 22:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither is our interpretation of the definition. --NE2 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps you need a break? --Holderca1 ^talk 22:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

---

It means it's no longer holding the status of SR 2. It could be I-2, US 4 or CR 522 now. Its commission as SR 2 was revoked. When a ship is decommissioned, it could be scrapped, sold to another navy, returned to the cruise line to be refitted back to a passenger ship. There have even been US Navy Ships decommissioned and then recommissioned by the Coast Guard. The second part of the equation is irrelavent to the first, the loss of status. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that every numbered route holds a "commission" from the state? Can you point me to one of these commissions? --NE2 21:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You know where to find them, you look at them all the time, but to play along with your game, here you go [8]. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How is that a commission? --NE2 21:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Try definition 4: [9]. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Decommission definition

Does this seem at all reasonable?

decommission

To remove a road from a system it is part of. This system can be the network of public roads,[Caltrans/USFS references] the U.S. Highway system,[Route 66 references] or any other relevant system.

--NE2 23:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right to me. --Holderca1 ^talk 23:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So you agree then that we can't just say "SR 2 was decommissioned"? --NE2 02:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said you could. Decommissioning is just the first step of a process, you still need to say what the fate of the highway was after decommissioning. --Holderca1 ^talk 03:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but what is the decommissioning? It could be from any number of systems including all public roads. --NE2 04:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so make it clear to the reader what is happening. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing this as a controversial topic, I have tagged the page. Dabbydabby (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition of what is a state highway

I read above,

The network of marked state routes and the network of state-maintained roads

which was written by NE2. This seems, to me, to be the center of the argument. So, this means that the issue is no longer with the word decommission, but with the phrase "state highway" or "state route".

So, what makes a state highway a state highway? Is it that it's part of the network of marked state routes, or that it's a part of the state-maintained roads system? And, if a road is removed from the network of marked state routes, but remains part of the state-maintained roads system - is it still a state route?

That's what's at debate here, not a word. I would argue that as long as it is a part of the state-maintained roads system, then it is a state highway. If it's only part of the network of marked state routes, I would also say that it is a state highway.

NE2 makes a fair point. However, this argument never got any legs. I think this is the crux of the issue.

Pennsylvania has quadrant routes. When the system was created in the late 80s, they decommissioned sections of state-maintained routes, and decommissioned all Legislative Routes in the state. Many of the quadrant routes in the Harrisburg area were state-maintained routes at one point.

Now, quadrant routes are still part of the network of marked state routes, but maintenance is done by the local municipality. Example. PA 874 (random number), Progress Avenue, went from Derry Street to Linglestown Road (PA 39). Today, it is quadrant route SR 3018 (again, random number). If I were to write it in a sentence, I would say this:

PA 874 was decommissioned in 1948; in 1988, Progress Avenue was established as quadrant route SR 3018.

Keep in mind that PA 874 was never given a commission on another road. However, if it was PA 363, I would say this.

PA 363 was decommissioned in 1948. It was during 1966 that PA 363 was commissioned again, on Valley Forge Road from Trooper, Pennsylvania to Lansdale, Pennsylvania. (For more information on modern PA 363, see Pennsylvania Route 363.) The decommissioned 363 on Progress Avenue was commissioned in 1988 as quadrant route SR 3018.

--Son (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it started out being about a single word and whether we should use it not. The ambiguity of state highway isn't a unique situation. If you write something, doesn't matter about what, and it can be interpreted in multiple ways, then it needs to be rewritten. I think if clearly say what happened, there shouldn't be any confusion. For example if I said "Texas decommissioned State Highway 45 in 1967 and it became part of Farm to Market Road 2345," there shouldn't be any confusion since both networks are part of the state-maintained system of highways. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Which can be said as "SH 45 was redesignated as part of FM 2345 in 1967" - shorter and clearer. --NE2 22:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the wording using "decommissioned" clearer there, TBH. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand that. --NE2 23:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That is only because you turned it into a passive sentence and abbreviated the designations. I prefer active sentences whenever possible. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"TxDOT redesignated SH 45 as part of FM 2345 in 1967" --NE2 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure of what the point here is. --Holderca1 ^talk 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That there's no need to use an ambiguous term. --NE2 19:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when is it ambiguous? How many new arguments are we going to create? State highway is what is ambiguous, so I suppose we should stop using it as well. Also, there was nothing ambiguous about the sentence I used. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition, how is any other term more clear? Using your expression from above "SR 2 was decommissioned," lets substitute some alternatives and see how clear they are:

• SR 2 was deleted
• SR 2 was canceled
• SR 2 was removed
• SR 2 was redesignated

None of these are any clearer. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• SR 2 became part of US 66
• SR 2 was turned over to the city to maintain, but signs remained
• SR 2 signs were removed, but the road continued to be state-maintained

These are all clearer. --NE2 20:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So is decommission when you provide the same amount of context. Personally, I believe this discussion is over. Your current argument has no weight, there is no ambiguity when the word is used in proper context (which can be said about any word) and whether one is clearer over another is a matter of opinion. Sure, there are always multiple ways of saying the same thing, but who are we to say you can't use one of them. Why not use American English on every article, since it is clearer to me than British English. Just because it is clearer to you doesn't mean it is clearer to everyone. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you use decommission you have to name the system it's being decommissioned from. --NE2 20:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would hope so. Doesn't mean we can't use the word. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So "Texas decommissioned State Highway 45 from the system of marked state highways in 1967 and it became part of Farm to Market Road 2345" is the full sentence; otherwise it's not clear if it's become a locally-maintained segment of FM 2345. (I know that Texas doesn't do that, but the reader may not.) --NE2 21:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Then your examples aren't clear either if you want to get that specific about it. "SR 2 became part of US 66" What does that mean? Was it state or locally maintained as SR 2, is it state or locally maintained as US 66? Even your example for this specific example using redesignated doesn't address this. Your current example you just gave doesn't make it clear. None of your above examples are clear, "SR 2 was turned over to the city to maintain, but signs remained," I honestly have no idea what exactly that means, does that mean the city is lazy and hasn't gotten around to removing the signs or does it mean it is still a state highway just maintained by the city, is it still part of the bigger system of state highways? "SR 2 signs were removed, but the road continued to be state-maintained," does that mean it is no longer a state highway? Is it still SR 2 just as an unsigned route? --Holderca1 ^talk 21:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The assumption is that only what's stated to have changed is changed. A renumbering from SR 2 to US 66 means that a renumbering happened. On the other hand, if you say "SR 2 was decommissioned and became part of US 66", it may have become a locally maintained road and then become part of US 66. --NE2 21:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

So why would you assume it in my example then? If I say nothing about maintenance changing, why would you assume it had? --Holderca1 ^talk 21:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Because you said it was decommissioned when you could have just said it became part of US 66. --NE2 22:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Decommissioned doesn't mean that maintenance has changed. So the reader shouldn't logically assume that it did. --Holderca1 ^talk 22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It means that it was removed from a system. That system isn't necessarily the system of signed state highways, and we shouldn't assume that it is. --NE2 23:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if the sentence already specifies which system, why do you need to mention that it isn't removed from every other system? --Holderca1 ^talk 23:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Your sentence didn't specify what system; Texas decommissioned State Highway 45 in 1967 and it became part of Farm to Market Road 2345" could mean that it was removed from the signed state highway system or that it was removed from the maintained state highway system. --NE2 00:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? That sentence makes no mention of change in who maintains it, so you shouldn't assume it does. If I said "the U.S. Navy decommissioned the USS Alabama and it became part of the reserve fleet," would you honestly have no clue as to what reserve fleet? You would assume it would be the US Navy reserve fleet and not the Canadian Navy reserve fleet. The sentence would of told you had that happened and would of said something like "the U.S. Navy decommissioned the USS Alabama and it was sold to Canada to become part of their reserve fleet." For some reason, you are making assumptions about my sentence but those assumptions don't apply to yours. --Holderca1 ^talk 01:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ship decommissioning has a specific meaning. --NE2 01:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I had thought you had figured it out but apparently not. Decommissioning a ship is the removal of that ship from the group of active ships. Decommissioning a US Highway is the removal of that US Highway from the group of active US Highways. If you can't get it, don't use it. I wouldn't recommend anyone using a word they don't understand. --Holderca1 ^talk 03:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Decommissioning a U.S. Highway is the removal of that U.S. Highway from a group to which it belongs. That group is not necessarily the U.S. Highway system. --NE2 04:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, you don't get it, so don't worry about using it. I don't get the word overlap as it pertains to roads, so I don't use it. I don't drag on a big conversation about, I just use other words to get the point across. Also by saying US 66 was decommissioned, it implied that it from US Highways. If it said the state-maintained highway was decommissioned, it implies it was removed from the state-maintained group. --Holderca1 ^talk 12:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what if it the two routes became concurrent?  — master son^{T - C} 22:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you say "US 66 was extended to overlap SR 2". If there's possible confusion in the other case, "US 66 was extended to replace SR 2". --NE2 23:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

To recap...?

Since I missed virtually all of this discussion (and looking at the signatures, so did everyone except for approx. four people), let me get this straight. The direction this discussion seems to be going is that we don't necessarily have to avoid the word "decommissioned" like the plague, but that it's still crucial to explain exactly how a highway was decommissioned? Do I essentially have that right? -- Kéiryn ^talk 16:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is where we are at. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think so too. I suggest that the crux of the matter is between the state-maintained system and the network of marked state routes. From there, it turns into what is a state highway, and if a road is decommissioned from the marked highways network, but still state-maintained (or vice versa), has it really been decommissioned? (I suppose this is a Sparknotes/Cliffnotes version of what I wrote above.) --Son (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know from those who support using the term exactly what they think it means in U.S. Route 195 and whether they think it's correctly used (ignoring any minor grammatical issues). --NE2 07:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that's wrong as it is. This section was decommissioned would be better, but using truncated probably works best. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So it would be correct to say that that section of US 195 was decommissioned, even though it was also US 2? --NE2 08:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course. You're not talking about US 2, the article is about US 195. Additionally, that should be in a history section, not the route description. --Son (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, so what system was it removed from? --NE2 17:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That section of U.S. 195 was removed from the U.S. Highway system. However, that section of U.S. 2 remains in the system.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

But that section of US 2 and that section of US 195 are the same road...was the road decommissioned or not? --NE2 18:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Decommissioning has to with the designation, not the actual road. So a section of U.S. 195 was decomd, U.S. 2 wasn't. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Decommissioning applies just as much to roads as to designations. You can say that SR 2 in Santa Monica was decommissioned from the system of state-maintained highways, but it's still marked as SR 2. --NE2 18:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you can't. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not? To say that that system is invalid is original research. --NE2 19:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said the California highway system was invalid. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

...to ignore the existence of another system from which routes can be "decommissioned" is original research. --NE2 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you making such a big deal out of this? See Holderca1's request below  — master son^{T - C} 18:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you trying to obstruct this? --NE2 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just another classic example of where he will drag a discussion on until he gets his way. I am done with this conversation since has failed to give a policy or guideline that would prohibit the use of the word. I plan on using the word as I see appropriate. I recommend everyone else do the same. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you. This discussion is making less and less sense as it goes on. It looks as if the consensus is that decommissioned is OK to use anyway, and NE2 is the only one that feels differently, so... yeah, we're done here.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what it is even talking about, what was decommissioned? All it says is this is decommissioned, doesn't even say what part of the highway or what it is now, so that is poorly written. This example has no point to it, can you point me to a policy/guideline that you are using for an argument, if not, this all should be archived. --Holderca1 ^talk 17:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you Holderca1. So far, what I've read into this is that this term violates WP:NEO, which is a guideline. Now, WP:OR is being brought in as if it's violating WP:OR! This debate has been - and for quite some time - a joke! I don't see what's coming of this debate. Seems to me that consensus says to use the word decommissioned.

Additionally, I still don't see how using the word "decommission" in the terms of roads harms the encyclopedia. Until someone clearly paints out how it harms the encyclopedia, and it makes sense, and convinces me that using the term in fact does harm the encyclopedia, then I'm sticking with using the word "decommission". I believe the definition of the word gives a clear right to use it in this context. --Son (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read WP:NEO, the reason for not using neologisms is that it's original research to determine what the proper definition is here. If you read through the discussion above, that's definitely the case here. --NE2 04:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody else feels that way. Sorry. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say that nobody else feels that way. I think I've made it pretty clear whenever I've had the chutzpah to participate in this discussion (which is rarely, since it requires a lot of chutzpah), that I too feel that the use of decommissioned should be avoided (although not necessarily shunned like the plague) because more clear terms exist. -- Kéiryn ^talk 02:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is being overlooked here, which says we do not in fact ever deem a "proper" meaning, if there is significant doubt. The way NPOV works is, we characterize information, on the article. We represent and attribute all significant verifiable viewpoints, giving reliable sources and not engaging in our own synthesis, nor interpolating our own views on the sources we have.

Here's an example showing how one might use a reference on "decommission" in a roads context to highlight the range of meanings, without having to "choose the right one oneself":

'decommission: To remove a highway, in whole or in part, from the state highway system. The physical roadbed typically remains usable. The highway may then receive a "lower" designation, such as a U.S. route becoming a state or county route. A decommissioned highway may not receive a new highway designation, but may become a city street or a county- or township-maintained road.

In the broader roads sense, the term may cover a wide range. Wildlands CPR, a habitat protection body, notes in respect of forest roads that "the term 'decommissioning' can mean a variety of different things. There is tremendous variation in ... the activities being employed to decommission roads across the country. Ultimately, all that can be assured is that a decommissioned road has been removed from the Forest Service database". The Forest Service use the term internally in roads projects. In Canada, Bill 49, 2006 (9)(1) legislates for "decommissioning" forest roads and "where applicable, returning them to forest productivity". A review of highway safety corridors in the US and Canada presented at the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering 2007 conference covered the designation, review, and decommissioning of Department of Transportation safety corridors, with the term "decommissioned" being used for the end of such designation and associated actions. The term is also widely used by road fan websites.

The aim as an encyclopedia is, we inform as to uses. A person reading the above will get a good idea of the kind of range that "decommissioning" may cover. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

FT2 is exactly right. NPOV is being pushed aside in this discussion. It would violate NPOV if we establish a definition here, and giving it a characterization is exactly what we should be doing, and I think others have said that. (I add, once again, that WP:NEO is a guideline. It can be ignored if the case is necessary. But, the more I keep thinking about it, the less and less I think ignoring it is even necessary. I don't think the word decommission is a neologism, because of its definition.) This debate we're having is stuck on a word, when the debate is about something much bigger than that. I believe if you read my post above, I say what I think is the crux of the issue. This debate is a case where, once again, we all get side tracked into a small issue, when in fact, we should be discussing the larger one. --Son (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a perfectly okay way to "define" the word decommission in this glossary. However, that still doesn't really mean we can use it in articles. If we do use it in a route article, and we link them to this article and that definition, then that definition doesn't clarify the meaning at all; it just continues to give three (or so) different definitions with no clue as to which one would apply in a specific case. In my eyes, the only way decommissioned can be used in an article is if it's defined in the article to make it clear exactly what "type" of decommissioning happened. And if the people who disagree with NE2 want to use it that way, that's okay with me, but personally I just find easier to use a more specific term. -- Kéiryn ^talk 02:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)