Talk:Cut (earthworks)

Why was this page created?
This subject is already covered by Cut and fill. That page has references and has existed for almost four years. The subject is taught to civil engineers as "cut and fill". I am thinking this should page be deleted and redirected to cut and fill. That page is stub-length and needs to be expanded if possible. We don't need multiple stub-length articles covering the same subject. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC) If it went up for discussion at proposed mergers, I am sure that the concensus would be to take material from here and merge it into cut and fill. It will take a lot of work to justify three articles (cut, fill, and cut and fill). You can give it a shot though. My suggestion would be to expand the cut and fill article until it reaches more than 30 KB and then consider splitting it. I say this mostly because I have had work "undone" because somebody comes along months later and sees something that doesn't fit the "guidelines" of Wikipedia. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This page was intended to inspire contributions of notable cuts, engineering challenges of constructing cuts, etc., but that of course takes time. I strongly disagree that cuts and fills are an inseparable pair; only in a perfect world would the total volume of cutting be precisely balanced by the total volume of filling along a particular transportation route. In reality, unsuitable or surplus cut material must be disposed of on unrelated sites, just as large fills depend on suitable volume from multiple borrow sites (see, for example, the Pequest River fill on the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad's Lackawanna Cut-Off). Notable cuts and notable fills stand on their own; there's no corresponding Gaillard Fill or Pequest River Cut. To look at this a different and more irreverent way, there are pages for Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy as well as the pair Laurel and Hardy; then there'sSausage and Mashed potatoes in addition to the pair Bangers and mash. Cut and fill should be a similar amalgam of two different components.Martindelaware (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to review the manual of style for article size. The cut and fill article is not long enough to justify having this article as a split from it. Cut and fill is only 3 KB. This article is still less than 1 KB.

Too many stub articles on the same topic
There are too many articles on the subjects "cut" and "fill" that all seem to cover the same topic. They are all small articles. I think they should be merged into one article with appropriate redirects. Can't these be merged into one article with the appropriate sections and redirects? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cut and fill is 3 KB (508 words)
 * Cut (earthmoving) is 2 KB (358 words)
 * Cutting (transportation) is 1 KB (212 words)
 * Embankment (transportation) is 1 KB (154 words)
 * Fill dirt is 2 KB (384 words)
 * I did merge in Cutting (transportation) since I ran into that merge tag so this article is now about 4K. I'm not sure how many other articles should be combined or into what articles.  Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable cuts
What makes the cuts listed in the current version of the article notable? Who determined this? Is there a published list of "notable" cuts? Otherwise, this seems like original research to me. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Talerddig cutting
Talerddig cutting is not in the Cumbrian mountains. Does it mean Cwmbran mountains? Biscuittin (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's Cambrian Mountains. I've fixed it. Biscuittin (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)