Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2005-12-29 Interstate 76 (east)

RESOLVED

Request for cabal mediation

Request Information

Request made by: Beirne 11:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Status: resolved SteveMc 05:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

On the Interstate 76 (east) article.

Who's involved?

User:Beirne and User:SPUI

What's going on?

There is an edit war over whether the page should contain the Routeboxint infobox. User:Beirne is for it and User:SPUI is against it.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like the routeboxint template to be on the page. It was agreed upon by the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways, it is used on 44 other Interstate pages, and when the template was put up for deletion it was overwhelmingly supported, although it has been shrunk based on input from that process.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?: ...

Comments by others

not all participants in the WikiProject like routeboxint in its current state

I for one, think it should be shorter, and I've been there for a while, and have nearly always been lobbying to shorten it. Just look at the relevant talk pages. My only point in this is that no, there isn't total agreement in favor of routeboxint in the WikiProject. (Even if there was, I'd still question the total authority of WikiProjects.) With that being said, I think routeboxint ought to stay on that page (and every interstate), but I'd also like to see SPUI's state highway browsing things stay on I-76 and be placed on every interstate that goes through states that do that sort of thing. Once that's done, I'd remove that section from routeboxint. I also support most of the shrinking ideas proposed by others in addition to the many I've made. --Chris 16:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow

What a great two days to be gone from Wikipedia... could someone please bring me up to speed? My comments regarding {{Routeboxint}}: It was created when we ran into problems at the California State Highways WP when we tried to routebox U.S. Highway 199. Myself and another user were the main contributors to it. This template was TFDed but failed. I've made compromises to reduce the size of the routebox (such as in some routes only using 2dis fore junctions and removing the legend). However, the browse state highways needs to stay. I've explained these reasons before: consistency with the CA, WA, KY, NH, TX routeboxes ({{routeboxca2}}, {{routeboxwa}}), and it is more compact than SPUI's boxes. When done correctly (as in Interstate 5) it is more compact and looks nice (with images as well). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)

By keeping it in the routebox, you are forcing the unborn state wikiprojects (which still constitute the majority of the 50) to use similar routeboxes in order to be compatible with the interstate system (which is really just a California-based thing being used on the rest of the country). SPUI's method, which splits that element away from the routebox, does not impose such restrictions. Perhaps some SPUI-type method should be considered on normal state routes as well. I think some people in jersey might already be doing this. In addition, with these big interstates like I-95 that I keep hearing about, it's better to have a very big thing in the bottom than a big thing in the top. Not to mention the fact that SPUI's design can be worked on to be compacted, but the idea of having them seperate is a great one. As Bernie (I think) pointed out, infoboxes should be summaries of the articles. In the vast majority of cases, the highways linked to in the "browse state highways" section have nothing to do with it. In short, I vote to move that section someplace else. Probably the bottom, but doesn't have to be SPUI's formatting. --Chris 05:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well for the sake of keeping the WP together I'm going to offer a compromise here. Maybe move the browse state highways out of the routebox as SPUI's is, but make it more compact. Maybe keep the table format but make the formatting similar to the formatting of the section in the infobox. Uggh if we only had one discussion page for this WP... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)

I for one completely agree with the above post by Rschen7754; believe it or not I wrote my most recent post on the other page before reading this one and suggested something similar. I also think we should move to the other page. --Chris 05:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator response

Greetings, Here is my humble opinion.

It is plain that the two editors are in an edit war. I am posting warnings on both pages.
In accordance with settled policy of Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Interstate_Highways, place {{Routeboxint}} on the page and leave it. I agree that the size of the {{Routeboxint}} seems cumbersome, but I am not involved with following this project; in any case the continual reverting must be stopped.
Take the issue up on the appropriate project page, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Interstate_Highways and Template_talk:Routeboxint.
I request that each user carefully read the content of Wikiquette, Wikipedia's 3 revert rule, Wikipedia:Edit war, and Resolving disputes. In essence, please discuss before reverting. Thanks.

I hope this helps. Steven McCrary 15:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How the fuck does this work?

I tried discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways#Interstate 76 (east). No one cares, because the consensus of those that work on these articles is to go against common sense. Common sense says I shall revert, so I shall. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go with another ill-fated discussion. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think a problem here is that some think that a WikiProject's standards cannot be questioned. I disagree there, and it seems like SPUI also does. Rather than having an edit war of common sense versus standards, why not fix the standards so that they make sense. (Many of them make sense to me, but in particular the routeboxint needs improvement (shrinking).) --Chris 16:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator: Makes sense to me, go for it. Be bold, but reasonable. Post your concerns on the project page. Wait for a while, deal with the issues, come to a consensus, make the changes. Good luck, Steven McCrary 16:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me, too. I don't mind the standards being questioned, I just don't think that one page where the routeintbox is used is the place to do it. It isn't even productive for those questioning it. If the routeboxint would end up being left off of I-76, what about all the other places where it gets put? All that would be achieved is that the box would not be used on one page covering a shorter Interstate. Think big and try to change it globally. --Beirne 17:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator: The point regarding the place to post was already covered, twice. Steven McCrary 17:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 4

SPUI keeps removing the {{routeboxint}} from Interstate 4. Also, the {{routeboxint}} has not been reinstated on Interstate 76 (east). What is the point of mediation if noone abides by the results? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rschen, the cabal is an informal mediation group. We cannot enforce our decisions. My suggestions is that you read the Wikipedia policies on Wikipedia:Edit war and Resolving disputes? Please take special note about the procedures to appeal or stop the actions of another. If you have the consensus on your side, then the user may be stopped. Sorry that I cannot be of more help. Good luck, SteveMc 01:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A while later...

It appears that the dispute has been resolved... after a drastic makeover of {{routeboxint}}. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]