Talk:Unused highway

This article was nominated for deletion on January 15, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Neologism?

Are there any official sources defining "unused highway" that can be cited here? This is a new one on me - and after all the squabbling over "ghost ramp" and "stub ramp" (both of which has been in use in decades), it seems odd that they all get lumped into some catch-all that has never made it to the newspapers or the web sites. 147.70.236.93 22:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unused highway" is a phrase with an obvious meaning, like "list of roads". --NE2 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it is something that has been previously discussed many times. Please see archives. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny - one person calls a term that has been used for decades a neologism and through a dubious closing of an AfD (he is not an admin, and in fact he advocated the deletion prior to close) resulted in the moving of the information to a term that, frankly, has not been used in any form of official correspondence (at least the term "stub ramp" was used in court rulings - one was cited in the early Ghost ramp discussions. So we are back to a situation that needs to be undone... again. Either the use and definition of "unused highway" must be cited or the move should be reverted. 147.70.236.93 22:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not required for an administrator to close an informal poll or an AFD. The AFD veered from its original topic and was no longer deemed necessary. If you had actively participated in the discussion, you would have seen this. The discussion is over and is old news; please move on. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Please address the issues (vis-a-vis the "unused highway" neologism) before removing the tags again - this new issue was not discussed in prior AfDs - in fact the second "Ghost ramp" AfD was improperly closed before the discussion past the "plea agreement" between you and NE2, and it needs to be addressed by a wider community." From the User talk:Seicer page.

It was discussed within the AFD; please feel free to catch up and read the discussions. Furthermore, "unused highway" is a phrase with an obvious meaning, per stated earlier. I don't see how you can possibly confuse or mismatch that. The last AFD was properly closed; please move on. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD discussion was closed per Wikipedia:Speedy keep. If you wish to contest it, take it to deletion review or start a new one. --NE2 22:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My colleague doesn't have the time, but I'll take up the cause for him. Currently it is pointless to have a deletion review of the now-defunct ghost ramp article as the scope of the list article has gone well beyond stub ramps. The issue is now the term to which it was moved, which is a neologism, for all online uses of the phrase that I was able to check were either from Wikipedia, sources that NE2 has rejected in prior discussions as unreliable, or having reliable sources using the phrase with a completely different meaning than that posited in the introduction to the article. Second, on more than one occasion, AfDs that have been closed by non-admins who espoused a position in the discussion were discussed in WP:ANI and WP:RfC, and consistently it was pointed out that such actions are discouraged. B.Wind 04:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a tag hat read : The neutrality of this article is questioned because of its systemic bias. In particular, there may be a strong bias in favor of US. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the issue is resolved. (October 2012) However, the abbreviation "US" is not defined in the tag. There is no discussion on the talk page of systematic bias. Reading the article, I cannot find a bias. So unless the tag is made more clear, it should not be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredroach (talk • contribs) 13:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some links are more relevant than others. In particular, if link C is only relevant through link B, then link C should not be in the "See also" section. You've made it clear that Guns versus butter model and Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act should not be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please copy and paste the exact policy rule that you are referring to. --Xerographica (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you don't have the same interpretation of WP:SEEALSO as any other unbanned editor.

The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.

Even if your links are relevant (which I interpret as requiring that they be relevant to this article, not only through another concept or article), they should not be present even in a comprehensive article on the topic, and that is not a reasonable number of links. Hence, even if you read "relevant" different than I do, those links should still not be in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually read the entire policy you would have read this:

The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

I agree with the statement, but not your interpretation that "tangentially related topics" relevant topics include topics which are related only because they are related to another topic already named. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So even if they weren't relevant enough to be in the article (they actually are)...they are still relevant enough to be listed in the see also section. --Xerographica (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the links are relevant, then WP:SEEALSO states "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent." The links are clearly not immediately apparent to some users of the encyclopedia because they have been reverted, so please note why they are relevant next to the link. 72Dino (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's one explanation of why the links were removed. Another explanation is that they were removed because the reader obviously understood their relevance and simply wanted to remove the links. What could possibly motivate the reader to remove the links? Well...how about because the links are critiques of the government? Is that far fetched that a liberal would want to delete the links to relevant critiques? So which explanation do you believe to be the most likely? How about this...what motivated me to add the links? Well...clearly I'm biased against the government. The reader was motivated to remove the links for exactly the opposite reason that I was motivated to add them. The difference is...I added relevant content while the reader removed relevant content. I contributed while the reader simply vandalized. Do YOU not understand the relevance of the links? If you do not, then let me know which ones you struggle to understand and I will be happy to include a note next to those links. --Xerographica (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment on good-faith editors, which I believe all of you are and that you simply disagree on content. I am having trouble understanding any connection between the 'See also' links you added and unused highways. A phrase that would help make the connection to the actual subject of this article would be helpful in the 'See also section'. Phrases such as government waste, opportunity cost, aren't helping me to connect the link and the subject of unused highways. 72Dino (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's try it this way. What's the difference between the subject of this entry and the subject of bridge to nowhere? Is the subject of these two entries fundamentally different than the subject of the entry on unnecessary war? --Xerographica (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article and the bridge to nowhere article both appear somewhat related because they involve transportation (assuming the bridge is not used.) I don't see the connection to unnecessary war. If I don't see the connection, it is very likely that other WP readers do not see the connection, either. I'm not saying there isn't a connection, but it is not immediately obvious to me. 72Dino (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind if I spent your money on something that you didn't need, want or value? --Xerographica (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that happens all the time, but I don't see the relation to "unused highways". 72Dino (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It happens all the time? When was the last time that I spent your money? --Xerographica (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other people spend my money all the time. I clearly wasn't speaking about you personally. I still don't see the relevance to this article. 72Dino (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you clearly weren't speaking about me personally. Therefore, you clearly did not answer my question. Again, would you mind if I spent your money on something that you didn't need, want or value? --Xerographica (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinions do not matter here. Please explain in the "See also" section what relevance any of the links has to "unused highways". That's all I'm asking for. 72Dino (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying my hardest to help you understand the relevance of the links...but you're not interested in answering a ridiculously simple and straightforward question. --Xerographica (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is for discussion on improving the article, not for discussing the subject and certainly not for questions to an individual. I have commented that the relevance for including those links needs further explanation in the article. I have no further comment nor desire to continue this thread. 72Dino (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly understand the subject of this article and the subject of the links that I included in the See Also section. That's why I understand the relevance. The question is...why don't you understand the relevance? Unless you tell me what you DO understand...I can't possibly discern where the gap in your knowledge is. Do you think the government spending taxpayers' money on unnecessary highways is an example of government waste? Do you think the government spending taxpayers' money on bridges to nowhere is an example of government waste? Do you think the government spending taxpayers' money on unnecessary wars is an example of government waste? Do you understand the opportunity cost concept? WE can't possibly improve the article if you do not understand all the relevant and important concepts involved. --Xerographica (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Centralia mine fire and Pennsylvania Route 61

I think something should be added about Pennsylvania Route 61 and how parts of it were abandoned following the Centralia mine fire making it unsafe to use. I've added a picture of the road to the article, but am unsure how to add it in prose, as writing about this kinda thing isn't my niche on Wikipedia. Waxworker (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call PA 61 "unused" though. It was used, and now it's been abandoned. There is a distinction there. Imzadi 1979 → 02:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Unused highway

Neologism?

See also

See also - opportunity cost

See also - boondoggle

See also - government success

See also - Guns versus butter model

See also - Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act

See also - tilting at windmills

Centralia mine fire and Pennsylvania Route 61