Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:36, 4 November 2013

	Congestion pricing has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 16, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Urban studies and planning High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Transport High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment: Climate change High‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Andy Graham (2008). "Congestion charging - go to pp. 43". ETC etc e-Magazine from Thinking Highways, 2008 Issue 2 (Vol 3, Issue 4). Leonardo Anceschi (2008). "Congestion charging: Against Demons - go to pp. 14 (Part of this Wiki article was reproduced without proper credit.". ETC etc e-Magazine from Thinking Highways, 2008 Issue 2 (Vol 3, Issue 4). Celso Masson (March 17, 2008). "Dá para escapar de este caos? 2. Pedágio urbano (print edition pp. 105-106) and box "Dói no bolso, mas a cidade melhora" (Part of this Wiki article and at least other three related and one pic, were translated to Portuguese without proper credit).". Época (Brazilian Magazine in Portuguese).

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Reverting the reversion

I originally created a section here on this talk page on the 21 April 2012 noting that my edits to this article were reverted with the comment Rv Good faith edit: your ideas of what road pricing and congestion pricing are is wrong, road pricing is more general. and to the Road pricing article with the comment Sorry to revert the whole thing but road pricing is different from congestion pricing, what you are doing is original research.. The section was then moved to Talk:Road pricing using the same title (without discussion). Given the continued reversions of my contributions to this article I would like to retain a link to that discussion from this article in the correct time sequence. PeterEastern (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I just move it to have the discussion in the same page. Now that the road pricing discussion is finished we can continue here. Please let's try to keep a linear discussion, one issue at a time. Also I ask you for a rain check, this week I do not have much time for more complex edits (that is why the HOV lane has been slow), but next week I will be on a business trip and I will have more time, for the HOV article and to address the issues you raised here. unsigned comment by Mariordo (talk)

I will correct the lead as per the conversation below and will then leave further changes until your return when I hope we can have a focused discussion on this article and help it 'fit' better into the family of article relating to congestion management of roads. At that point I will encourage you to be less quick with use of the 'revert' button and to look to build on the changes being promoted rather than removing them entirely (and my inclusion of this talk section was in exasperation at your continued use of revert on this article and others). Regarding the Good Article review, that was back in 2008 and many things have changed since then and I suggest that we don't consider that to hold back further improvements of changes to the article. Road pricing is better btw, but I wouldn't call is 'finished' :) PeterEastern (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I totally disagree with what you did. There was no consensus and you are ignoring completely that is article is rated a Good Article. Furthermore, you have been making edits all over the related articles changing congestion pricing for road pricing. Let me point out the issues: Because you based some of your edits on your OR, you continue to confuse road pricing with congestion pricing, and adding the qualifiers "variable" to congestion pricing, when in reality congestion charges and other road pricing fees can be fix or variable. You are doing this regardless of the content being properly supported by reliable sources. I am aware that some people confuse both terms, even some journalists in your country, but there is a difference well established in the field of transport economics, and I will revert immediately any such errors you introduced. In case you have not notice, every time you do an edit there is a label saying that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." You are not following this fundamental principle, but ironically, you are requesting other editor to provide RS. From now on, I will request citations from reliable sources for your edits, and be sure I will remove any blatant OR immediately.--Mariordo (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the reference to 'variable pricing' exists in the text that you keep reverting to. I did not introduce it during my edit and it was not removed by your reversion. If you object to the reference to variable pricing then please remove it yourself. Regarding you insistence on RS, please see later comment about your observation that my proposed lead text is actually already in the Description section. PeterEastern (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• The fact that the article gained GA status in 2008 does not make it dated. Being GA means there was a reviewer who checked that there was no original research, that all content was supported by reliable sources, that there were no copyright violations, among other things. Many FA and GA lose their quality due to vandalism and also because editors like you introduce content without proper citations, pushing their own agenda (in your case road pricing = congestion pricing or trying to split the article without a proper discussion), and you name it. So I have and I will continue to implement rigourosly WP policies to keep the GA quality of this article. You are the one who is quick in introducing your OR or doing big changes without having reached consensus here.--Mariordo (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You had already agreed that the first sentence of the introduction was misleading, that 'public goods' was better and that the link to 'traffic congestion' was inappropriate, so why revert back to wording that we had agreed was wrong. See next comment re your claim that the lead is not supported by reliable sources. PeterEastern (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• The restoration of the old content you did significantly degrades the article and puts at risk the GA status of the article. As you left it not only is duplicating word by word content in the first paragraph of the Description section but also is ignoring the recommendations and changes made during the GA review process (it is too technical for the typical Misplaced Pages reader to grasp). For this reason I will reverse it. I have already agreed that needs improvement and I proposed to work a draft lead here, in the talk. As explained yesterday, I am available to work together on it next week. So again, please go ahead a propose an alternative here, with proper RS or wait to evaluate my take.--Mariordo (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Duplication of the first para of the description was unintentional - I was actually using the content from the earlier version of the article you linked to above as the basis for the wording. However... as it is in fact text from the current article then what is the justification for reverting it as 'not being based on reliable sources'? I would be quite happy with you adjusting the lead further from where I left it, but I see no justification for your reverting to a lead sentence which we all agree is misleading. PeterEastern (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible Pre-Vickrey mention of congestion pricing

I just stumbled across the following in Robert Heinlein's 1951 novel The Puppet Masters: "We headed for Des Moines. Instead of parking at the toll gates we paid to take the car into the city proper, and ended up at the main studios of Des Moines stereo." (From page 15 of 340 in my 1990 Del Rey mass market paperback edition; this is the "uncut" version described in the above-linked WP article.) The action in the novel takes place in 2007. Note that this novel was published in 1951, one year before Vickrey's 1952 proposal for higher subway pricing, and eight years before his 1959 proposal for urban congestion pricing (see refs for Vickrey). It makes me think that this idea was floating around, unpublished in academia, or maybe the previous authors of this article (and the scholarly textbooks in the references) haven't found the earliest sources. It's also possible that I could be completely wrong, and that my 2012 worldview assumes that Heinlein was describing congestion pricing instead of mere road tolling. One sentence isn't much to go on. Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you final comment, and that there is not enough evidence that this is not just a conventional USA toll road? PeterEastern (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Later in the novel, on page 49: "At the toll gates into Des Moines the gatekeeper hesitated when I offered the fee." So two sentences. It does give me the impression that no matter how you enter the city center, you have to pay a toll. I supposed New York City's bridges and tunnels are like that, though, and that's not considered congestion pricing. Jonesey95 (talk)

Excess Images

There are too many images here that serve no apparent purpose. This is an article about congestion pricing, not about congestion in general, and certainly not about uncongested roadways. Castncoot (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• As you noticed, the article is rated GA, and it was reviewed with the images as they were before you changed them. I think it was a good idea to have pics of actual systems in the lead, but if the reviewer approved it as such based on the MOS, I do not see the point of of your proposal because there are not pictures available of every system in operation. It is considered to have too many images when you have a picture wall, but this is not the case here. If it is not broken, do not fix it. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• NYC: You changed the wording in the caption for "nixed." Check the NYC congestion pricing article. As per the reliable sources provided, the proposal was not voted, my understanding is that nixed means vetoed (implying there was a vote). Since English is my second language I am not sure, but the terms seems to reflect different actions. Would you be so kind to clarify the meanings to me. Thanks. (unsigned commment by Mariordo (talk) 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Mariordo, two points-

1. "Nixed" simply means to refused to accept - it doesn't imply a vote. The point is that the proposal was rejected, and the discussion is in the correct section in the article.
2. More importantly, your reasoning given above regarding the images is fallacious. This issue simply represented an oversight by the reviewer. That's no reason to rest on one's laurels and not fix what actually is broken.

Best,

-- Castncoot (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation, I really appreciated. Regarding the pictures, did you check the GA review? The link is there for you to confirm the alleged oversight.--Mariordo (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• PS: I forgot, I do not see the point of the two of us arguing about the pictures. Since the article was officially reviewed, just look for consensus from other editors to define the criteria for the pictures if you want to change it. You already showed biased by putting a pic of NYC in the lead, which is not representative and was showing congestion in general, which for other images you are criticizing. From my point of view, programs in operation are truly representative. --Mariordo (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me the links to both the consensus discussion and the GA review? Thanks. In fact, I also find it offensive you talk about bias - there's none. If anything, it's an excellent and pertinent image to this article. Programs in operation are representative, but proposals are highly relevant as well. Not to mention that the picture it replaced in the lead had no place being there! Castncoot (talk) 04:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The link of any GA is kept at the top of the corresponding talk page (just go here). Pictures are part of the review as you will see. Second, a GA review is not made by consensus. What I meant is that if you want to change the pictures as they were OKed in the GA review, seek consensus. Clearly you and I have different opinions and we are not going to agree, so let's avoid an edit war.--Mariordo (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a tiny paragraph about images in that review. I believe this issue needs re-visiting with a critical eye. Let's see what others here think. At my first glance, the Milan, San Francisco, and Santiago images don't belong in this article. Castncoot (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

As a good example of a discussion about changing pics in the lead see the electric car article here. The pics of Milan and Santiago are showing images of actual system in operation, so I am strongly opposed to their removal. The Golden Gate pic is illustrating the case mentioned in the corresponding section, just like the bridge in Sidney. But anyway, open a formal discussion with your specific proposals, and I will give my opinions and let's wait for others to jump in. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• The London Heathrow Airport picture in the lead is also just a proposal. At least the NYC proposal went as far as the state legislature, so your rationale appears to be debunked, and I feel that the New York image belongs as I had originally inserted it in the lead, with an appropriate caption - given that it is emblematic of a congestion pricing proposal and pictorializes congestion itself. But let's see what others think. Thanks. Castncoot (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• As far as any specific proposals, I believe that the NYC, London, Singapore, and Sao Paulo images should suffice. You feel strongly about the Milan and Santiago images, although I disagree. I think this article should be more text attentive rather than image heavy, and certainly without irrelevant or distracting images. Castncoot (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal discussion

Strongly disagree for the following reasons:

• As per the MOS (see Pertinence and encyclopedic nature): Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals. (the underline is mine). Misplaced Pages "is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation." Furthermore, the MOS recommends (see here) that "images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in." The proposed cut will trim cut from 13 pics (assuming we keep also the three graph/maps) down to 4. The article has 19 sections, and as today no section is crowded by the images (in a square screen). The only warning in the MOS is to "be careful not to stack too many of them within the lead, or within a single section to avoid bunching up several section edit links in some browsers."
• Out of the 13 pictures in the article, 6 are showing current systems in operation (Electronic Road Pricing in Singapore, London congestion charge, Stockholm congestion tax, Milan Area C, Costanera Norte in Santiago, and 91 Express Lanes in San Diego, California) whether showing road signals and markings or the surveillance/detection gantries controlling access, and therefore, totally relevant for the article content. Nevertheless, the proposal is to keep only two of these and another two that illustrate congestion in cities where the scheme has been proposed, one of them already a failed proposal (NYC). This does not makes any sense and it is against the MOS, as images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic.
• For the last reason, the best image for the lead is any of the ones from a system in operation, not NYC which failed in 2008. Also, the MOS recommends not to stack too many of them within the lead, so I think we should keep just one image in the lead (as in most articles) to remove the existing excess due to two pics and the Economics tag. I propose the Heathrow image to be moved to the "airports" section. However, because this is a short section, we have to chose between Kennedy airport and Heathrow, one should be enough. Both are mentioned in the section to avoid crowding the section. For the lead, the two most notable systems are Singapore (the first) and London (the largest city with such program). Just check with Google to confirm these are the two most notable system. Any of those two (and there is plenty to select among in the Commons) is fine with me.
• As for the remaining 7 images, 3 are illustrating other transport modes (waterway or airports) where congestion pricing has been implemented, so in the corresponding section we should have one for each, leaving just 4 pictures that are not directly showing any feature of the program they are illustrating, but showing the bridge or city where a system is operating (Sidney), proposed (San Fancisco and Sao Paulo) or failed (New York City), so I believe these are OK within MOS recommendations. In terms of the image content and quality itself, the only picture that I think is not the best photograph to show the subject is the one for NYC. Not only it is blurred but more area of the picture is showing buildings rather than congestion in NYC (I bet there are better options in the Commons). And by the way, I think it is wrong to pretend that all the pictures should show congestion. If you do not see a traffic jam in Singapore or London as compared to São Paulo, it is precisely because they have congestion pricing and it is working. So, congestion alone should not be a criteria to select an image for this article.
• Finally, the new caption in the Heathrow pic should be fixed. The MOS clearly states that "textual information should almost always be entered as text rather than as an image."(See here). The article already has content about Heathrow airport in the corresponding section, but a caption was added not related to this content, and that is why it required a source of its own in the caption to avoid OR. This was unnecessary considering the existing content.

--Mariordo (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• OK, it's good to see a working conversation here. First of all, it's disingenuous to pretend that congestion is not an important criteria in the images. By this logic, I could display an article full of images of empty roads and say, "See, congestion pricing is working here." This isn't to say that every single image needs to display congestion, but most indeed should. After all, if congestion pricing works, then congestion would be expected to be relieved, but certainly not resulting in the elimination of substantial traffic. Also, simply showing an iconic image of a city where a congestion pricing scheme has been proposed or operating (San Francisco or Sydney) represents excess - the thoroughfare displayed should itself be subject to the pricing scheme. We could eliminate the Heathrow image altogether for the reason(s) you mentioned above, but I believe the inserted NYC image reveals a long line of red taillights very clearly through a canyon of city office buildings, which if anything magnifies the significance of the congestion and the accompanying need for a potential congestion pricing scheme as mentioned in the caption to the reader. Castncoot (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• By the way, I googled "congestion pricing," and most of the articles on the first screen concerned NYC. Castncoot (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Please note that google "congestion charge" returns 5.49 million hits, most of them about London, "road pricing Singapore" returns 8.39 million hits, and while "congestion pricing" returns 5.13 million hits, with most hits not about NYC. And because a google search can be tricky, a closed search to "congestion pricing in New York City" returns only 376 results while a close search of "London congestion charge" returns 43,800 hits. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but this article is entitled, "congestion pricing." "New York congestion pricing" yields 317,000 hits, while "London congestion pricing" yields 224,000. Castncoot (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, check the first line of the article: congestion pricing = congestion charges. Congestion charges redirects here. The former is American English, the latter is British. Let's allow other editors to jump into the discussion. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• My mistake about the Sydney image - the Harbour Bridge was involved in the scheme. But the actual Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco was not, only areas near it within the city of San Francisco. I wonder what PeterEastern, who has formatted this Talk page, thinks about the topic on hand. Castncoot (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that beside San Francisco city itself, the section where the Golden Gate pic is located explains that "In August 2007, the United States Department of Transportation selected five metropolitan areas to initiate congestion pricing demonstration projects under the Urban Partnerships Congestion Initiative, for US$ 1 billion of federal funding. The five projects under this initiative are; Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, ...." (unsigned comment by Mariordo).

But did that initiative on the bridge actually follow through? Was it not nixed, like the NYC proposal? Castncoot (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have indeed been following the conversation, formatting it more carefully to allow people to follow the conversation. I will respond below in a new section below with my observations. PeterEastern (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Good article?

I haven't followed the above discussion in detail, however I have been asked to comment by one of the contributors to the above section, so here goes...

Between April and May 2012 I made a sustained effort to improve both this article and the Road pricing article before concluding that it was almost impossible to make any changes to them. Mariordo appeared to view these articles as 'finished', reverted virtually all my work on the articles and didn't respond to many of the issues I raised on the relevant talk pages (and still hasn't). I signing off from these articles on on a section of the road pricing talk page last year with the comment: "I am signing off from editing this and related articles for the time being after experiencing more reverts and less engagement than with any other subject on Misplaced Pages over a 4 year period. After one month I have still not had a response from Mariodo to my request for him to justify using certain references to support the claim in the first sentence of the lead.'

I am still of the view that this has far too much overlap with the road pricing article and too little detail on all the other types of congestion pricing (internet, utilities etc). Not sure what happens next. Any thought Mariodo? Am I being unreasonable?

-- PeterEastern (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2013‎

Sorry about the delay, but I have been busy this week. I am aware of the good job you have done improving existing articles, particularly in reorganizing content. Nevertheless, you modified road pricing and congestion pricing in a way that showed you had a conceptual confusion between these two concepts, and under Misplaced Pages policies it is considered original research, as you did several changes without providing reliable sources or contradicting the existing sources. As adequately supported in both articles, these are concepts of transport economics, fully developed and supported by the academic literature in the field (and yes, most real life applications of congestion pricing have taking place in the transport sector, where the concept had its origin). Indeed there is an overlap between road pricing and congestion pricing. Road pricing includes conventional road tolls, distance or time based fees, congestion charges or congestion pricing, etc. If you have documented examples of congestion pricing outside the transport section (i.e. internet, utilities), please bring them to this article. Only be aware that higher prices during peak periods of demand are not always are the result of congestion pricing policies but of the law of supply and demand, as it is the case of airline tickets. If you believe this article should be split, merged or modified in any substantial way, please open a formal discussion. I will give my opinion to your proposal and follow whatever consensus is reached. Mariordo (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• It was not my intention to reopen the discussion at this point, only to note that I found it impossible to work of these articles a year ago due to your conviction that they were already 'good articles', your enthusiasm with the revert button your reluctance to use the talk page, these being very much the same issues being raised in relation to the current dispute. Personally it feels a bit like WP:OWN. I would also like to note that at you appear to have 'cleaned' your talk page of all negative or critical comments but have kept all the praise. In normal circumstances I would put personal observations like this on a user talk page, but not when they then get scrubbed out. If you do wish to get things moving again, you might like to consider responding to the questions I left on the road pricing talk page that have been outstanding since early last year. PeterEastern (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• See my note to Mariordo after the following comment (which starts 'I have recovered a couple of sections..'). PeterEastern (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have recovered a couple of sections from the talk page archive, in one of which I ask if more details should be given for congestion pricing applied to non-transport sector. I got no response. If you do have comments on particular topics raised on the talk pages, could I ask you to continue to threads on which the issues were raised. I will respond to them as appropriate. I note however that you often resist changes to this article citing GA and then suggest that I might like to add content relating to non transport related themes, which seems a bit perverse. PeterEastern (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Mariordo, I note that it has now been five days, (during which time you have made 50 edits to WP, some substantial, and all relating to makes of electric car) but have not found time to respond to the two points I have raised on this talk page, and have not picked up on the older outstanding queries as I requested. If you aren't going to do this, then can I suggest that you leave it to others to develop these two articles (on congestion pricing and road pricing)? GA does not mean that articles should be frozen. Can we discuss a way to balance this article? If you don't wish to merge the road transport content with road pricing as I suggested, then how about splitting the substantial urban transport content off into an article titled 'Congestion pricing of road transport' or similar. PeterEastern (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Peter, no one in Misplaced Pages has to right to tell another editor what his editing priorities should be. Are you stalking me? Please check WP:DRC, I am free to remove from my user talk page the comments I want (they are still in the page history, or do you want to force me to keep them there as a sort of "badge of shame"?) You are dangerously moving the discussion to a personal attack, and if this behavior continues you can be sure that I will request the proper measures. Check WP:NPA and WP:HAR. Mariordo (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

My points were simply that 1) You have not responded to a range of questions I raised on the talk page many months ago - notably that the lead is not supported by references in the body of the article and the article is heavily biased towards road transport 2) That you failed to respond to my question above for nearly a week during a period that you found time to edit numerous other articles 3) That you appear to remove critical comments from your talk page and leave all the praise. Note that WP:TPO suggests that users should only edit or remove other contributors comments with caution and stop if there is an objection (for the avoidance of doubt I did object, as such WP:DRC seems an inappropriate response) 5) You have responded to my suggestion that you should 'allow some air into the article' as a personal attack. It was simply meant to be a polite request for you to stand back and allow myself and possibly others to make changes and develop the article. I don't find it helpful or reasonably to suggest that I am stalking you - I have intentionally not overlapped with you for over 18 months during which time I have made numerous edits to other articles. Can I suggest that we leave that one well alone? PeterEastern (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• As for the non-personal points you are raising:

• 1. I do not own the article, nor it was frozen since the GA review ended as you asserted. Since 17 July 2008, when the GA rating was granted, the article has had 394 edits by several editors expanding and updating the content (chek here). I am the main editor (325 edits out of 715) but being the primary editor of an article does not constitute ownership. I have interest in the topic and I am an expert on the field, and I just have an interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. Nevertheless, as the talk history shows, I have not imposed my expertise on anyone, when necessary I have engaged with other editors in the talk page (particularly DeFacto, who was blatantly pushing his POV) to clarify the concept, which resulted in an endless discussion. In order to avoid the deterioration of the article's quality, yes, I am guilty of removing content not supported by reliable sources, or worst, removing edits contradicting the sources provided. I think being a GA implies that quickly removing original research is in order and according with WP policies. A good example of how an article deteriorates if not properly maintained is London congestion charge, which was recently demoted from FA. Mariordo (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

My issue is that you seem so confident about your view and expertise on the subject that you are not prepared to discuss other views and this can across as WP:OWN (the fact that you made most of the edits does not give you any greater rights over the article). My issue on this an article is this it totally skewed towards motoring and ignores other types of congestion charge, something which you don't appear to agree with and are not prepared to discuss (see 'scope of article' above where I raise the question). PeterEastern (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• 2. I believe my reply of 25 October 2013 is crystal clear. Because of the overlap between road pricing and congestion pricing, you clearly had a confusion of the concepts and tried to move most of this article to the road pricing article. Now you have acknowledged the difference but still want to move most of the content from here. And I disagree with you. Considering no other editors have been willing to participate in the discussion, reaching consensus in any direction is not possible, and I do not think it is a productive use of my time to engage in an endless dialogue with you. I suggested you open a rename, split or merge discussion, but instead you brought back the stalled discussion from a year ago. Mariordo (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I do find your suggestion that I am 'clearly confused' unhelpful. It is my view that road pricing and congestion pricing are overlapping concepts, ie that some road pricing is congestion pricing and some congestion pricing is road pricing but that they are different. The basic question is the scope of the article as I say. PeterEastern (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• 3. The way the article uses the terms congestion pricing and congestion charges reflects the academic view of the concept and the practical implementation of it, and even the wording used by the press and by reliable sources. If you google congestion pricingor congestion charges, it returns millions of hits with the same exact use of the wording as it is used in the article, most of it is about road transport (because of the externalities of congestion), with no need of additional wording as you proposed. But you and any editor is free to propose any big changes, just open a rename/merge/split/etc discussion using the proper formatting of such discussions. I will go with the consensus, as WP policy mandates. Mariordo (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• I do agree that in common language most people equate 'congestion charging' with 'urban road congestion charging', but that is not what the first paragraph of the lead says and is not the more general use the term. If you believe that the scope of the article should be urban road congestion charging only then should that not be reflected in the lead and ideally also in the title? If it is, then I will fork a more general 'congestion charging theory' article or whatever that can have room to discuss the concept as applied more widely. PeterEastern (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I will try to work with you in cleaning/improving the article from a clean slate, but only if you keep a linear discussion of one issue/topic at the time. In the past you had made comments in different articles, in different sections at the same time, which makes the communication very difficult. And please, stop bringing discussions from the past that were not closed or unanswered question. Let's keep just one thread. Also, the arguments have to be supported by reliable sources. You might not be aware you tend to make changes that look like copyedit to you but in fact you are changing established concepts in economics (as an example, look at the two edits I just did regarding variable pricing and congestion pricing, one more time you mixed up the concepts - If I am wrong, please provide reliable sources supporting your claim that congestion pricing is part of variable pricing - you added that content without support of a RS and that is considered in this project OR, by no means that was copyedit - If you produce reliable sources supporting that congestion pricing is an example of variable pricing, I will immediately revert myself). So this is not what I think or what you think, this is an encyclopedia and we will follow WP policies. If you agree, I would like to start with one of the most contentious issues:

• Issue #1: Congestion pricing vs road congestion pricing vs congestion pricing of road transport

This issue is pertinent to the article name and its content. I will use only the term "congestion pricing" because the article is writing in American English (as per MOS), and the article clarifies that congestion charges are the same thing. In transport economics, where the concept of congestion pricing originated, and in common or popular use as reflected by media outlets (see or ), congestion pricing can be applied to any public service, but most real life implementation are within the transport sector, and particularly in urban areas. There is not such a thing as congestion pricing of road transport or road congestion pricing. As per WP:AT, "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." and "Misplaced Pages prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)" A google search of "congestion pricing of road transport" (the title you proposed for a split of this article), see "" here, returns mostly articles related to "congestion pricing" and only one entry about "pricing in road transport" which is the same as "road pricing" and not a single one about "congestion pricing of road transport" (so your proposed title does not fulfills WP criteria for naming an article).

Reliable sources supporting my argument

1. The article Transportation Economics/Pricing (full disclosure, I did not make a single edit in that article) presents a short explanation of the theory of congestion pricing (no need to go into the math) and the relation to road pricing in general. Please note the brief mention to long-distance telephone service. The wording in the wikibooks article is 100% consistent with this article. You talk about congestion pricing, most of the time you are referring to the transport sector, and more specifically to roads or facilities in urban areas, because this is the place where externalities appear under traffic congestion. It is not by chance that most proposals, failed attempts and actual implementations occurred in urban areas. Congestion pricing is just a policy developed for the transport sector that can be applied to other public services.
2. Unfortunately the books used as references in the congestion pricing article are not available to read online. So I will provide the following academic papers to support my argument about the normal use of "congestion pricing" without any other qualifying wording, congestion pricing is just a policy: here, here, here, here, and this one is about airports.
3. The following (some are references in the article), provides examples of layman use (not economics jargon) of congestion pricing: here, here, here, here, here,here.

In summary, congestion pricing is a policy mostly used in transport, and the article reflects that. I will wait for your reaction, and please, keep a linear thread.--Mariordo (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I respond to a few of you observations above:

• To response first to your comment: "please, stop bringing discussions from the past that were not closed or unanswered question. Let's keep just one thread". I asked a perfectly clear question about the scope of this article back in April 2012 in a section on this page titled 'Scope of article'. I see no reason why you couldn't have (and can't now) go and respond to that question, which is at the heart of the matter. If the scope of the article is 'urban road congestion pricing' then change the lead and I will build a separate more general article, if this one is the more general article then the content needs for the balanced accordingly and should certainly make specific reference to 'peak fares' on railways and probably not include a summary of numerous urban road projects. Needless to say, there are other significant unanswered questions on talk:road pricing where it would be very helpful for you to bring the discussions to a resolution. Personally I would find it more far more helpful if you were to spend a bit of time responding to my earlier questions in context, and less time quoting WP policies! PeterEastern (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• Regarding WP policies, I do really want you to respond to my my point that contributors should only remove other people's messages from their talk pages with caution, and not do so where the other editor objects (see WP:TPO). I mentioned this in passing above, and was hoping to get a direct and prompt acknowledgement of the matter. If you do acknowledge that, I will in future use your talk page again for personal comments such as these. While we are on the subject, could you also acknowledge (please) that it was possibly inappropriate to draw my attention to WP:NPA and WP:HAR or the reasons I gave in response. Again, all I was expecting was a brief acknowledgement of my observation. PeterEastern (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• On a technical matter, are you sure that wikibooks and investopedia are a suitable evidence base for the scope of a WP article? Also, are you being careful about WP:CIRCULAR with your evidence. PeterEastern (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• Finally, can I say that your responses still project a very strong message that you are very confident that you are right on all this, and that I am confused. I find this off-putting, and it does convince me that I should not try to work with you on this article at this point. As such, I will leave it to you to address the above matters as you see fit. All I do ask is that ensure that the scope of the article is clarified, and that the discrepancies between the lead and the body are resolved. PeterEastern (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry you did not want to start a clean slate discussion. FYI, the rules that apply to your own user talk page are slightly different from the ones for an article's talk page. Read carefully DRC which states that "If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored. By removing the comment, the user has verified that they have read it." Also check WP:OWNTALK, that states that "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred."--Mariordo (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I do find it incredibly unproductive trying to discuss anything with you really, given that virtually every thread gets abandoned when it gets specific. All I am really asking you to do is choose if this article is about urban road congestion charging or about congestion charging as a more general economic theory and adjust the lead or the article accordingly. Would you object if I took the view that it should be about urban road congestion charging and adjusted it accordingly and created an article titled Congestion pricing (economic theory)? I have just noticed that all the categories for this article relate solely to urban road pricing. As such it seems completely clear that this the more general content should be split out into a separate article, possibly using my suggested title. PeterEastern (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I am glad you want to continue the discussion (I guess I misunderstood when you said "... it does convince me that I should not try to work with you on this article at this point."). First, I do strongly oppose creating a separate article about congestion pricing theory just by splitting the content here as you proposed. Second, can we concentrate on the content issues (no more personal matters into the discussion).

The reasons for opposing the "theory article" has to do with issue#1, and I really would like to hear your rebuttal, because from my POV this is at the core of our differences (you can propose as issue #2 the creation of such new article or any other issue of your choice). In a nutshell, I argued that plain "congestion pricing" is a policy concept in economics developed for and mostly used in the road transport sector, and urban transportation in particular. And by "plain" I mean that you do not need adjective of quality to describe the nature of "congestion pricing." The examples I provided are from scholars and also show the laymen popular use (and that is why I included a couple of examples not clearly are not RS, it was just to illustrate my point). All examples talk about plain "congestion pricing" without any adjective in front, but they all are talking about congestion pricing in the context of roads in urban areas (and that is why after last year discussion I created the redirect Road congestion pricing).
Perhaps an analogy might help. When you talk about a bridge you do not need to say a road bridge, it would be redundant. But when you are referring other uses of bridges (other than to span physical obstacles such as a body of water, valley, or road - the common use of "bridge") you must have an adjective of quality, as in jet bridge or pedestrian bridge, which are other types of bridge use. So, if we were to create articles about congestion pricing on waterways or airports, definitively we need a qualifier, resulting for example in Congestion pricing in waterways or Airport congestion pricing. Unfortunately, there are so few implementation in those sectors, that there is not enough material to create stand alone articles. Finally, because of the actual academic and laymen use of congestion pricing, this is the mother article, from which other articles related to the topic can branch, as London congestion charge, Electronic Road Pricing, etc. currently do. As a mother article, the concept has to be explained here, as well as a summary of the existing implementations (roads, waterways and airports). And as per the WP policies cited at the beginning of this thread, I believe the article name and its content fulfill the requirements of this encyclopedia, and it passed the GA review without the kind of questioning you are doing (and you can check in the history page to confirm that other editors contributed during the GA review). I hope I made myself clear this time. I await for your rebuttal. Cheers.

--Mariordo (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't believe that it will be productive to work with you on this article for the reasons I have give above and won't repeat again. My suggestion was simply that we would agreed to split off a separate more general article on the economics but you seem to be against that on principle for reasons that I don't believe as sound but can't develop with you because of you resistance of following threads inline. PeterEastern (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Urban studies and planning articles
• High-importance Urban studies and planning articles
• GA-Class Transport articles
• High-importance Transport articles
• WikiProject Transport articles
• GA-Class Environment articles
• High-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• GA-Class Economics articles
• Mid-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press