Talk:Unused highway: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:49, 27 January 2013

Highways Unassessed Mid‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 :There should be at most one "See also" relating to "Opportunity cost", and that one shouldn't be there if the "government waste" one isn't more specific.
 :  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 08:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
+::The links are all relevant...which means that they are all within Wikipedia policy...[[WP:SEEALSO]] --[[User:Xerographica|Xerographica]] ([[User talk:Xerographica|talk]]) 08:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)