Talk:Centralia, Pennsylvania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ghost towns (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ghost towns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ghost towns 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Pennsylvania (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Mining  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Demographics[edit]

I found this in the article. It's obviously erroneous, based on both the other demographic data and simple sanity checking: "Males have a median income of $0 versus $0 for females." Vicki Rosenzweig 01:29 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How egalitarian! When I get some more information, I'm thinking of mentioning some of demographics prior to the fire. --cprompt
Well, at least they believe in equal pay for equal work up there hehe...anyway, given the fact that the population is now one big goose egg, thats probably accurate by now.RebelKnightCSA (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Silent Hill[edit]

Wasn't this the inspiration for the video game Silent Hill and the subsequent movie? I could swear it is... derfsquared

  • You are correct. It's noted in a special/extra section on the DVD. Mrmcdonnell (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a cite about the town and movie from a third-party. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Geraldshields11

Geography problem[edit]

In the Geography section, there is a repition of the area of the town as 0.6 km², but also the are covered by water as 0.6 km². It seems the town would be somewhat larger, so perhaps that is strictly the underwater area.

Controversy and/or Citations[edit]

Attributing the trash fire is bad form for an encyclopedia article. The Centralia coal fire, probably the most famous in the United States, is partly famous because no one knows how the fire began. The trash theory is certainly a strong possibility, but there are a half-dozen others, apparent to anyone who does the slightest amount of research. The cause is, ultimately, a mystery, and should not be represented otherwise. 06:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Light a lamp instead of cursing the darkness. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 00:49, 2005 Jun 27 (UTC)

Attributing the fire to a trash fire is not a theory, it is a fact. I was there. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.16.113.109 (talk • contribs) .

You make no indication of who you are, so that doesn't help. Simply asserting something is not good enough for an encyclopedia. Loganberry (Talk) 04:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Unseen Danger (cited in the references) does set forth the trash fire theory with supporting evidence, so it deserves mention, even if only as a viable theory. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.100.44.148 (talk • contribs) .

I live 20 minutes from centrailia, I grew up in the area, the factual evidence is they burned a pile of trash in a new corner of the landfill pit, and caught the exposed vein alight... Sponge!
Then feel free to provide additional sources to support the aforementioned reference. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 01:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Smithsonian article, May 2005, Fire In The Hole "The Centralia fire probably got going in May 1962, when local sanitation workers began burning trash at a site over an old mine entrance just outside town, igniting the underlying coal." Mredden 02:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The evidence that the mine fire was caused by the trash fire is very strong. The only reason that there is any "mystery" is the feeble, half-hearted attempts of the Centralia Council to cover up the origin of the fire when they first brought in state and federal authorities, very early on in the situation. In Unseen Danger, David Dekok goes through, in great detail, all of the evidence that proves irrefutably that the mine fire was caused by the trash fire and also demonstrates clearly exactly how and why it was covered up afterwards. I think it's misleading to say that the origin of the fire is unknown. At this point, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. --DJ Craig (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

New photos, March 21 2007[edit]

Glad to have been passing through Centralia today with my camera. The snow made it easy to tell where the ground is hottest. Also encountered a fellow from the PA DEP that was doing biannual measurements on bore holes for measuring temperature under the streets. The photo of the hole with the steam escaping is after he removed the rag stuffed inside to plug it up. The rag was tattered from the effects of sulfuric acid. A good whiff of it is nothing but brimstone. The worker noted that there are very few residents who call Centralia home anymore, perhaps only 4-6 individuals. My guess is the rest who were counted on the most recent census have skipped town.

Mredden 04:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to split the gallery I posted into two. It was brought to my attention that the gallery interrupted the flow of the article. Was thinking of taking four of these pictures, relating them to "Centralia Today", and leaving the DEP measurements and the church picture at the bottom. Your input is appreciated. I pass through Centralia a few times a week and will usually stop to take pictures of anything that's changed, or unusual. Mredden 18:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Very great website. I understand why half the town left and possibly eleven are still around. I don't understand why those people that are still there live there. I wouldn't want to live there cos of the dangerous toxins and smoke. I guess they called it home. Just a question-how do the remaining people survive by means of income, food and such? I was curious to know since I live in the Midwest.

I speculate that they have jobs in other places. For example, my dad lives in one town and works in another. If I were insane / brave enough to live in Centralia, Id do my job hunting in Ashland or other nearby areas.RebelKnightCSA (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How do people survive here?[edit]

Centralia is in a rural area, but there are nearby towns. So the people who live there presumably have jobs, and visit the same stores as the people in the nearby areas. There is also another similar town with ghostly hauntings called Woodstock, Oxfrodshire, Oxford, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrmski (talkcontribs) 20:24, 21 April 2007

Firstly, there are very very few people living there; and secondly, in general, it is not toxic nor particularly dangerous. Of course, there is a possibility that a cave-in and/or explosion may occur; but in general it's a habitable area and actually a significant tourist destination. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ZIP Code[edit]

The article lists Centralia's (revoked) ZIP as 17927, but the USPS' ZIP lookup page gives it as 17921. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.25.204 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

17921 is a working zip code which covers nearby towns, whereas 17927 is the revoked zip code which is no longer active. Check out this link and try 17921: you will find that it is specifically for Ashland, Pennsylvania. Here are some links confirming 17927:
Thanks for spotting this, though! It's good to have people keeping an eye out for things which don't quite seem right. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 17:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh.[edit]

So if there's an underground coal fire raging with enough fuel to keep it going practically forever, keeping the underground temperature at remarkable levels, why hasn't this been recognized as a geothermal power source by some enterprising soul? I'm almost sure you could generate nontrivial amounts of electricity from that kind of temperature differential. -Toptomcat 04:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is largely due to the unknown risks that would come with building a structure on top of an uncontrollable fire. Nobody wants their fancy new plant to go BOOM ;) Otherwise a good idea, though! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 12:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the residents who did live there and tried to remain had to leave due to poissonous gasses which are released and cannot be controlled. It is quite a dangerous place to live, I would believe, with gasses and cracking ground? It was just mentioned in a Discovery Channel show last night (10/8/09). I thought it was quite intersesting. Maybe that show could provide more info for this article? That's how I heard about this. mbunny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.207.68 (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Population?[edit]

The main article lists the current population of Centralia as 9. However, when I visited the town on June 2, 2007 and spoke to one of the very few residents, he claimed it was actually 15.

Though somewhat elderly, the man seemed lucid enough and he IS a permanent resident, so I'm wondering if the population count on the main page is incorrect.

Anyone know for sure?

I just visited the town this weekend, and there were - I believe - 5 houses that are clearly lived in. I counted a total of 12 cars at these 5 houses, so it stands to reason the population is more than 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.42.31 (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


The man you may have spoken to may have been the then Mayor Lamar Mervine. Threads on the Centralia Discussion board on Yuku indicate that he has since moved to a nursing home and when I visited in July 2009, the car that was outside of the house in 2008 was not there and there seemed to be no activity at his home. Also, lately the state is in the process of forcing the remaining residents out. The links below confirm the departure of one such resident in June 2009 and the Yuku Centralia PA discussion board indicates that the star of the Centralia documentary "The Town That Was", John Lokitis, is also being made to move out by Labor Day. Therefore the population is dwindling rapidly. This is something that needs to be touched upon with both the issue of population and in the "Centralia Today" section.

Also, as far as the accurate number of residents, obviously the departure of Mervine, Cormarnisky and Lokitis will obviously change the population as the first two have already left the town. However, going back to the 15 in 2007 that you mentioned, some of the population of the town actually live outside borough limits and can not be considered in the actual population of the town itself, even if they are considered Centralians by immediate proximity. If you look at the attached picture "Centralia New After Mine Fire", there are 2 row houses connected to each other on East Centre St. and one house on East Park St. both were still there and inhabited as of my visit in July 2009 and both are located just outside the borough limits, yet these houses may still be considered part of Centralia to residents even if they aren't part of Centralia proper. Also, the state which owns all the houses in Centralia due to eminent domain are usually quick to demolish uninhabited houses of former residents that have either moved out or are deceased, but there is one additional house outisde of borough limits on E. Centre St. on the corner of Manahoy St. that has been uninhabited since at least May 2008 when I visited that was not torn down which leads me to believe the houses that are occupied outside of the borough limits still belong to the home owners and will not face eviction as the residents inside the borough are currently facing.

http://tr.truveo.com/centralia-man-forced-out/id/1993306014 http://www.wgal.com/news/19657439/detail.html Galeforce winds13 (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What the heck is a "non-family"? Callumny (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Silent hill[edit]

Is the Silent Hill horror movie based on this town? Peacekeeper II 04:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

the movie is, no word about whether the game is.DurinsBane87 05:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


I added a cite about the town and movie from a third-party source. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)Geraldshields11

Plans for firebreaks or coal harvesting ?[edit]

The article states there are no current plans to do anything about the fire.

Could someone add coverage as to why NOT? Have there been studies into cutting a firebreak around the mine area by harvesting unburning coal, if the seam is shallow? Or is it so deep that the majority of coal would have to remain in a vertical area under or above the existing fire? Or is the fire so wide that it already invovles a majority of the potentially accessible coal? Or is it just too uncertain whether anything could be done without unacceptable danger? Or is it an effective tourist draw for the region? Or is the ongoing environmental impact seen as insignificant?

Also, have there been any attempts to seal surface air entrances, flood the mine with water, etc.? The article vaguely says something ilke "several attempts to extinguish the fire failed". What were those attempts and why were they abandoned? --Parsiferon (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

While I can't provide any sources, I suspect your latter suspicion is correct: there is just too much uncertainty and risk involved with an attempt to harvest around the fire. If a company were to make an attempt, MSHA and OSHA would be staring over its shoulder and whilst the company may find a coal mine; lawyers would see a gold mine. One flare-up and one injury later: the whole operation could end. Keep in mind that mining can kick up a fair amount of coal dust -- which may rapidly cumbust around a work site (though the area could be dampened with continuous sprinklers to reduce the level of dust in the air). The price of coal just isn't high enough yet to justify the risk.
For tourism, it's really more of a local tourist attraction in the sense that most people who visit aren't going to stay in the area. As interesting as it is, it only takes about 30 minutes to see everything; for a traveler from far away, it's at best a day trip from New York or Philly. The nearest tourist infrastructure would probably be in Bloomsburg, and even then it's geared more toward parents of the university students than tourism. Even nearby Knoebels is rather sparse when it comes to hotels and restaurants, though there are a couple near there.
Not too sure about that. I drove up there once from my home in Northern Virginia, and sometimes still make trips there. Its a nice, quiet place, and I plan to go again. Maybe Im just atypical in my willingness to drive seven hours round trip just to see a mine fire, but I honestly dont think that Im the only one.RebelKnightCSA (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that flooding the mine is not preferable. The water itself could destabilise the ground and cause sinkholes to develop throughout the town. Additionally, when the water hits the fire, the steam generated could cause further erosion and could potentially build up pressure and cause an explosion. Granted, the risk of sinkholes and explosions is already present with the fire: but it's unlikely that a government could risk an option which may cause further destruction due to tort liability -- even if that same level of destruction may eventually occur in the long-term. Another thought is that the water used would become highly acidic and toxic -- after fighting the fire, you'd next have to fight the water.
After doing a quick Google search, it appears that there has been some research into using fire suppression agents either directly or as a method to at least enter the mine and then physically suppress the fire (potentially permitting mining in coordination with fire suppression).[1] Sealing the mines looks to have been another option, but there may just be too many openings for air flow -- requiring an extremely accurate & precise survey which must be completed before new openings develop. Another thought was to dig deep trenches around the site and fill them with a non-combustible material (this was attempted) or completely excavate the site, but both run into safety and technical issues (and the funding issues which result). This website from a Penn Stater offers some excellent insight of potential options and the economic impacts, though if it is a student's website: it may eventually disappear after the student graduates.
It is likely that until the price of coal increases, the cost-benefit of any action just doesn't justify either a public or private investment in stopping the fire. The private point of view is looking at profits versus risk of lawsuits due to injury and damage. The public point of view will consider revenue from taxing the industrial development of the mine versus the risk of lawsuits due to injury and damage; but the public sector must also consider the need for action. As the area is now very sparsely populated, the need has largely disappeared since the 1960's and 70's. Since initial efforts to contain the fire failed (apparently due to political wrangling of the funds, ultimately causing the attempts to come up short), the "no action" (akin to an engineer's "no build") option appears to have become the more preferable, leading to the order in 1997 to abandon the town.[2][3] Sad for the locals whose lives and family grew up on and around the mine, but ultimately the dollars that would have had to be spent there were found to be better used elsewhere.
There is also the potential to eventually develop and market the area as a tourist attraction, though I suspect the public sector will not directly encourage such due to liability (not to say that they may not be tourism incentives in neighboring jurisdictions). For now, the mine isn't particularly well-known outside of eastern PA, but who knows: with time it could be marketed as a sort of Prypiat for America -- "disaster tourism". --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 18:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe there was a lengthy study done by the U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement Pittsburgh office and the State of Pennsylvania in the early 1980s which determined (1) extinguishing the fires was probably not technically feasible, and (2) it would cost more to try and extinguish the fires than it would to purchase all properties in the town. Hence, Congressional relocation funding. So, the bottom line was money, and questionnable technical feasibility. The study is probably cited in the hearings for the funding legislation.
Keep in mind there are hundreds of miles of old underground mines under Centralia, too deep to strip mine from the surface, too many surface openings to plug, and the smoke and steam are lethal to humans and other living things. That's why people needed to be relocated: living in Centralia is hazardous to one's health. And when coal is burned, it loses 90% of its mass, so the ground above often subsides, opening new pathways for air to enter and fuel the fires. There have long been reports of more people living there than should be, possibly including some who were paid to leave. Most of them are probably related to folks in the old cemetaries who don't know and can't imagine any other "home." Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I was just there and took a mine tour of a nearby closed coal mine. The tour guides also discussed the Centralia fire and claimed that A) extinguishing it with water had been tried, and the mines / coal seams are too well drained, it didn't accomplish anything. B) There are many unmapped bootleg mines providing air to the fire, as well as old closed legit mines, subsidence fissures, etc, and finding them all is effectively impossible. C) The only truly effective way to extinguish it (now that it is so large) is to essentially strip-mine it all out (excavate all the burning material to the surface where it can be extinguished) and the last estimate to do that was 600+ million dollars (compared with 42 million spent to relocate people). This was all verbal info, unsourced, so it can't be used in the article I suppose, but it may answer some of the above questions. Jeffadams78 (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Panoramic view of Route 61[edit]

I've just uploaded a photo (made from 8 photos) of Route 61, not sure exactly where to add it, if at all...

Centralia Route61.jpg

-- MacAddct  1984 (talkcontribs) 13:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Down at the bottom of the article page would be a good spot. Nice pic. Dincher (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Koontz's Strange Highways[edit]

I believe this is the inspiration for the all-but-abandoned town with the long-burning coal fire below it in the Koontz collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.116.17 (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Category Ghost town[edit]

Does this meet the definition of ghost town and what is that definition? I removed this category but it was added back. I am no expert so...--Tom 13:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It could be considered a gray area... if you take the etymology of the name literally, then it would appear to refer to a town that is popularly considered to be haunted. While some popular culture has been inspired by Centralia & gives it a gloomier tint, as a PA native I am certainly not aware of any popular ghost stories explicitly about Centralia. It's just an event that occurred -- much of the population was alive when it happened... perhaps in a couple more generations it will start having some ghost stories.
Next is the definition offered by Merriam-Webster, which I personally find to be rather lacking -- it states that ghost towns are defined as having been abandoned due to a depleted resource. Dictionary.com uses a similarly limiting reference. Alternatively, Cambridge uses an extremely flexible definition.
In the end, however, I personally think our own definition is on par. As far as this article is concerned, I would recommend we defer to our own definition for consistency, in which case Centralia certainly fits the bill. If there is issue with our own definition of what a ghost town is, then it might be more appropriate to raise the issue on its respective discussion page. I'm not going to say whether it is or isn't a ghost town; I'm just saying that we should remain consistent across Wikipedia; and if someone thinks we aren't accurate, then we should target the source (the definition) rather than the results (articles using the definition). Cheers! --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 20:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds pretty reasonable and well thought out. You do know this is Wikipedia, right? Just kidding :) Nothing more to do here, thank you.....--Tom 21:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
i'v never heard a ghost town being defined as anything over than a town whose population abandoned it. While I'd heard of some of them involving ghost stories, I've always seen it as the exception as opposed to the rule. DurinsBane87 (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It will be a ghost town soon enough as the state is currently in the process of forcing the remaining residents out, just like they promised they would never do some 25 years ago. Galeforce winds13 (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Day the Earth Caved In[edit]

I'm currently reading through Joan Quigley's work, found this interesting morsel, and have been meaning to upload this just for curiosity's sake.

Mrmcdonnell (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

People and Orgs Section[edit]

POV or not? I've attempted to contact the editor here to discuss the issue of the deleted material Mrmcdonnell (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I have not heard back from the deleting editor to explain his/her justification for deleting this section twice. I reverted back because there is plenty of neutral point of view evidenced and it's heavily referenced. Mrmcdonnell (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:United Airlines Flight 624 1.jpg[edit]

The image File:United Airlines Flight 624 1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Website[edit]

The infobox lists http://centraliapa.com/ as the website for the town, but that site is merely a collection of links to some other sites, none of which have anything to do with Centralia. Any reason to keep it? —Wrathchild (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Today[edit]

First off the Today section says

"Only one home remains standing in Centralia although most of the abandoned buildings have been demolished by humans or nature."

This is wrong not only to anyone that has ever visited Centralia, who can tell you that there are at least 5 buildngs standing, but also according to the Centralia After The Fire image copyrighted 2008 that is posted on this page which accurately shows there are 7 homes standing within the borough limits as well as the municipal building which remains on N. Locust St with a Fire Truck and Ambulance still visible though the windows. Even the sentence contradicts itself by saying both "only one home remains standing" and "most of the abandoned buildings", with the term "most" implying there is more then one building standing, abandoned or not. Actually the map of Centralia After The Fire is accurate per my recent visit to the town in July 2009. The only abandoned house that is decrepit and certifiably abandoned is the one on the corner of E. Centre and Manahoy St., which is actually outside borough limits and is therefore disqualified. Only very recently in June 2009 was another home vacated, but it does not meet the definition of "abandoned" as the resident was forced out of his home by the State of Pennsylvania and the house is still in good condition and likely locked and seemingly not abandoned to anyone that doesn't follow news on the town. See my links in the paragraph below for verification of this. In addition, there are two homes, one comprised of two row houses on E. Centre St. and one that is a separate house on E. Park St. that are still occupied located just outside the borough limits to the east. Additional buildings also remain north of the borough towards Aristes, including the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church that overlooks the town.

The maps were made by me as a research project for GIS class at Kings College. Locations of existing homes and smaller structures, such as shacks, were visually verified during a trip in December 2008 (Should probably edit the image description to reflect that) Vasiliymeshko (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Second, there is breaking news developing this very summer as the State of Pennsylvania is apparently ramping up their efforts to evict the remaining residents. One such resident was forced out in June 2009. You can read about it here and watch a news video about it here. Also the news on David DeKok's website that indicates John Lokitis, former Mayor of Centralia, and star of the Centralia documentary "The Town that Was" is also being evicted and has bought a home in nearby Ashland and has until Labor Day Weekend of this year (2009) to leave.

This developing story is an important part of the town's story and should be included in the Today section as soon as possible. However, almost every time I try to edit anything or add anything to any article that is remotely noteworthy on Wikipedia, it is reverted, so I am leaving this information here for someone else to do it.

Lastly, one minor thing that is less significant then the above issues. The section about "some areas appear to be mowed" is true. John Lokitis mows several areas around the town, though I do not have any links to verify this, numerous people I have spoken to on Centralia message boards that have spoken with Lokitis have told me that he informed them that he does most of the groundskeeping for the town. I have not seen the documentary "The Town That Was" but he can be seen doing work around town such as painting the green Centralia 1866 benches around town and lighting the Christmas tree on Locust St. in the trailer for the documentary. It's just the wording makes it sound more mysterious then it really is. People (or person) that live there mow certain areas to keep the town looking somewhat nice and kept. It's that simple. It has to do with the pride the remaining residents have for their town. --Galeforce winds13 (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I also have recently (August 20th, 2009) visited the town, and there are indeed at least 3 or 4 homes (buildings that appear to be occupied houses) still standing. I rephrased the first sentence of the 'Today' section. (although I wasn't logged in so I guess my edit doesn't show my name). Jeffadams78 (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been to Centralia on 12/12/09. Lokotis' House is now demolished. See http://centraliapa54196.yuku.com/topic/733/t/It-is-all-over-Lokitis-House.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasiliymeshko (talkcontribs) 06:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, if you all want...I can drive up to Centralia, PA and take some pix of the demolished areas this weekend or the next. However, I wont do it until and unless enough folks express interest in such pictures. I am willing to help the article, but Ill be damned if Ill drive a seven hour round trip only to be greeted with lack of interest. So...anyone interested?RebelKnightCSA (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Other section[edit]

DurinsBane87: If you find an assertion that you think needs to be cited, do the editor the courtesy of flagging it as unsourced instead of just reverting the edit right off the bat. If you want a source for my edit that the Jucifer song "Centralia" is about the fire and its effects, here are the lyrics (I've got the lyric sheet from the CD right in front of me): http://www.lyricsmania.com/centralia_lyrics_jucifer.html Methychroma (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

One issue is sourcing, a more important issue is notability. This page gets too easily filled up with every song, TV episode, movie or whatever that happens to mention Centralia. I'm certainly not going to flag every piece that gets added, if I did, nothing would get done. DurinsBane87 (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
You have a point; maybe we can confine ourselves to songs, TV episodes, movies or whatever by notable authors that are specifically about the town and/or the fire that ended up destroying it, and don't just mention Centralia in passing and/or come from some unsigned garage band or whatever? TV or print reports that don't break any new ground could be left out. If we were to adopt this, I'm not sure the Woody Guthrie song would qualify; it looks like your basic mine-disaster ballad. And I'd never heard of the HBO show that was in the edit you reverted; unless somebody can show it was all about Centralia and/or the mine fire, I don't mind leaving it out. But while Jucifer is not exactly as well-known as Madonna, it's not toiling in local-band obscurity, either, and this tune does seem to be about the mine fire and its impact on the town and nothing else. Methychroma (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you would still need to find a citation for it, and I'm not sure if a CD insert would be usable. I could be wrong, I haven't worked much with any music related articles. I just get frustrated that every time I come on this article, there's 20 new bands with songs mentioning Centralia, most of which seem to just be random high school bands trying to get a mention on Wikipedia. DurinsBane87 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, okay. What I was trying to say was, the link I posted above seemed to be an accurate representation of the lyrics to the Jucifer song when I checked it against the lyric sheet from the CD insert. Methychroma (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

John Coddington's gas station[edit]

The section about John Coddington's gas station is completely oversimplified and inaccurate. As far as I can find from my research, the highest temperature his gas tank ever reached was 64 degrees, not 172. Also, the problem started with a strange odor in the cellar of the gas station building. The Office of Surface Mining had already been brought in and found very high ground temperatures around his building before anyone discovered the temperature of the gas tank. The high temperature in the gas tank was discovered by DER inspector Leon Brass, not Coddington himself. Read pages 107-111 of David Dekok's book Unseen Danger for a more accurate story of what happened at Coddington's gas station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Craig (talkcontribs) 03:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Source #2[edit]

Source #2 has a broken link. Just thought you should know. 98.199.16.19 (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Inane?[edit]

Does anybody care that the former interstate highway is not accessible by the disabled or the buttress configuration of the remaining houses? Why are these inane points in the article? -Juan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.55.157.95 (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of Mineral rights section[edit]

It seems pretty clear to me that the section on mineral rights is heavily biased in favor of residents who oppose the state's use of eminent domain. It repeatedly questions state officials' true motivations (using weasel words like "residents theorize") and provides little to no supporting evidence of these claims. Thoughts? Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 20:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems fair to me. It presents the claims as claims, and offers no evidence for them. Colin McLarty (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Centralia, 2011.[edit]

How is it this year? How many people are there now? are there still 10? Are there still 5 houses remaining? Anyone got any pictures taken recently? - in 2011?

Sorry, I just want to know, I live in Iceland and I'll probably never see this Really Awesome place. :(

Thanks for any answers. :( I just want to know, I love this place, and I really care for it. :'( — Preceding unsigned comment added by A416 (talkcontribs) 23:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

- Been there just last weekend. Only one house left. All else gone. I suggest you just forget about it - I will.RebelKnightCSA (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Really?! Just one??... It can't be :( What street is it on? :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.235.158 (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Centralia, a place[edit]

Hey folks, muy user name is Coal town guy and from that you may have guessed, I love coal towns. Which I do. As to Centralia, of the 150+ coal towns I have been to, in KY, PA, and WV, I would have to say, in a polite yet concerned manner, that you are stone cold *&^% nuts to go to this place at all. It is beyond dangerous. You could literally, walk, down the road (AND ASSUMING) and just drop dead from gas. OR you could fall in the sudden sink hole, regardless of being in a car or not, and BONUS, you would be missing for days before anyone actually noticed, assuming you had a gas detector, a respirator and of course a cell phone that works in a sink hole. The deal is, I have dome some rather strange things, in my odyssey of coal towns, but dropping dead because I chose to nut it out and be cool aint on my to do list. I would with all charity, compassion and good will state, NOT to go there. BUT as to this article, do you really want to "document" the misery of others in this fashion? At least when I get chased by a meth freak, narcotics are doing the job, in this case, you are choosing to put yourself in harms way as an option. NOT a cool idea, IMHO......I suggest we do not document Centralia today in a manner that makes peopkle think, WOW, I gotta go there.....its not encyclopedic, and its rather demeaning to othersCoal town guy (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that it's a dangerous place. However, I don't see anything in the article that suggests anyone should go there or anything demeaning to the victims. Of course I could be missing something but a quick review of the article shows notes on all buildings being condemned, the warning sign, the fact that it is a ghost town, etc. If anything is in the article that suggests anyone go there other than those professionally trained it should be removed. UselessToRemain (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I know this may sound odd, but perhaps a listing of the potential hazrds, ie, IS IT SAFE? might be a good thingCoal town guy (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Bast Theory[edit]

I would like to add some additional information by David DeKok in his book about the Bast Theory. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoesb1032 (talkcontribs) 02:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to this source? - SudoGhost 08:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Bast Theory[edit]

Yes, here is the link, may I put it on the page? http://books.google.com/books?id=jzqS72q-v88C&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=bast+colliery+theory&source=bl&ots=RE1gwEfOBr&sig=OrsefRfHYYxIiSqwBcaV2wLSjF4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t4JyUejAI6LE0gHa-YHwBw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoesb1032 (talkcontribs) 11:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this edit; it's not accurate. The section addresses a mine fire that resulted in the evacuation of the town. That fire started in 1962. One theory is that it was started by a different fire which began prior to that, but that's addressed further down in the section where potential causes are discussed. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: Even the ref you provide above makes a distinction between the two fires; according to it, the Bast theory suggests that it ignited garbage, which then resulted in the Centralia mine fire - it does not suggest they are a single fire. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


The Bast Fire was a coal seam fire in 1932, if you believe that it should not be on the Wiki page, I can write, "Although the Bast Theory is a popular theory, there is not much truth to it and a barrage of information lacks to reinforce it. Sound good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoesb1032 (talkcontribs) 23:29, 22 April 2013‎

There are now adequate sources to state that the Bast fire was one theory as to what caused it; that's not the edit I am calling into question.
The problem is the first sentence in the Centralia Mine Fire section. You are changing:
In 1962, a fire started in a mine beneath the town and ultimately led to the town being abandoned.
To instead say:
In 1962 (some believe earlier), a fire started in a mine beneath the town and ultimately led to the town being abandoned.
This is wrong, and not supported by the sources. The Centralia fire, by all theories listed, started in 1962. One potential (and disputed) cause is a different fire from 1932; but it was a different fire. According to that theory, as stated in the ref you provided, the Bast fire ignited garbage, that then resulted in the Centralia Mine fire. They are different fires - the Bast fire started in 1932, the Centralia fire started in 1962. The disputed theory that one started the other does not change when each one started. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


Alright I will go with that, but what I wrote about the Bast Theory is true and those who believe that Bast Theory also believe that the dump fire is unrelated to the Centralia Mine Fire. You are right though that they are two separate fires.

I'm not removing your edits that mention Bast as a disputed cause; the ref you provided makes it clear that it is one of the suggested causes. The only part I was removing was the wording from the first sentence. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
As you appear to now be agreeing with the removal from that first sentence, I'll remove it one last time. Again, I'm leaving your material about Bast being a disputed potential cause, as the refs do show that - I'm only removing the parenthesis comment from the first sentence. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it's no big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoesb1032 (talkcontribs) 23:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Redundant information - two places to maintain the article now[edit]

The article Centralia mine fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was recently created, and linked from this article. However, that article (which is linked from this one using the {{Main}} tag), contains much less detail than this article. As a result, it's a pretty pointless link.

Originally, the 'Centralia mine fire' page was a redirect to this page, but was created yesterday with a copy of a subset of this article's content. So we are left with the result of two articles containing duplicate information, but with this article containing greater detail. This makes a mess for maintenance, as there are now two articles to maintain.

To me, it makes more sense to change the other article back into being a redirect. Otherwise, if that one is to remain, at least purge most of the fire detail out of the 'Centralia, Pennsylvania' article and use that content to expand the 'Centralia mine fire' article, so that the material about the fire only needs to be maintained on a single page. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We need to take some information out of the Mine Fire section and add it to the Centralia mine fire page. As Barek said, this will add length to Centralia mine fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.125.66 (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: should information about the fire be in its own article or remain here?[edit]

Should the Centralia mine fire have its own article, or remain as part of Centralia, Pennsylvania? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 02:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect - As mentioned above, I believe that the fire and the town (which is a ghost town as a direct result of the fire) are so fundamentally intertwined with each other that the article at Centralia mine fire should remain a redirect to Centralia, Pennsylvania#Mine fire (as it was prior to this month). The article at Centralia mine fire is essentially just a reformatted version of the material from this article, so is fully redundant to what is already at this article. If that article does remain (which I feel is the less desirable option), then much of the detail at this article should be pruned down so that it only needs to be maintained in a single article. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 02:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. I agree with Barek. The fire should be described here, with a redirect from Centralia mine fire. I can see a decent argument for separating the articles (my stupid hometown has an article, and more people have probably read about it on Wikipedia than live there), but Centralia is primarily known for the disaster. If people really want to fill out the town's article to such a degree that the mine fire becomes a footnote, then I could see splitting the articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Mild leave. I think of the "Centralia underground fire" as a distinct phenomenon from Centralia itself. Sort of like the Northridge earthquake or whatever. That California thing. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. I'm not finding sufficient information about the town independent of the fire and fire-related aspects, whereas there is lots to say about the town that is intimately related to the fire. What's the use of having a trivially brief article about a town and then each section linking out to the fire page? DMacks (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate The notability of the fire is phenomenon within itself. It has its own notability. JOJ Hutton 23:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not really a question on if the fire is notable, it is. The question is if the town and fire should be in a single article or separate. The two are notable for the exact same thing - so we either end up having redundant articles; or, to avoid redundancy, we end up purging the details of the fire from this one. But much of what would remain here can only be understood in context if one then reads both articles - it would be better to have all the content in one place (for example, as stated above, see the sections for "History/Today", "Mineral rights", and "In the media" - well over 3/4 of this article is either about the fire, or only make sense in the context of understanding the fire event. If split out, that means over 3/4 of this article would only make sense if flipping back to that article then back to here again). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Seperate This is a disaster that requires its own page. There is precedent within Wikipedia for this.......Monongha, West Virginia, a perfect example.Coal town guy (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - A disaster of this magnitude is probably notable and the Centralia article is already long enough. In my opinion we should summarize the mine fire article here and leave the mine fire article as is. King Jakob C2 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge There are just enough things that concern one but not the other that leave me thinking the disaster (where we could discuss environmental impact, legal ramifications, legacy on population movement, etc.) is a separately notable topic from the town (which has pre-disaster history and demographics, etc.) —Ed!(talk) 00:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Centralia is the mine fire. They are now and will be forevermore as one. When Joe Wikivisitor types in "Centralia" in the search page, what is he going to be looking for? Information about the near-ghost-town that is no more because of the fire beneath. He doesn't give a sh*t about the nuances of having two separate pages, and he sure as hell doesn't want to click around getting half the story on one page, and next to nothing on the other. Grollτech (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge - The city Centralia does not exist except in relation to the fire. It's not like other articles where an event happened and all the people moved on within the city, so comparing it to other articles doesn't justify keeping a separate article for the fire; I agree with Grolltech that Centralia is the fire, there is no separation between the two, and this article is not long enough to justify a split, especially given the overlap within the articles. Take that overlap out, and there's not enough content to justify a standalone article. Ed might have a point about theoretical scope that might be written, but none of that exists in either article yet and if it gets to that point a split can be discussed when it gets to that point, but right now that's a moot point since the scope of both articles are the same and the length and overlap in content of the articles does not justify two articles about one subject. - SudoGhost 11:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
@ SudoGhost -- MOST small Pennsylvania towns have less and will never have more information. The state is the size of Merry Old England, with Scotland's terrain features superimposed. Most of it's towns and hamlets have shrunk from boom industrial times to what little commerce and industry that can be supported locally. It is very common in rural Pennsylvania to drive 1-2 hours as a daily commute, I've loads of relatives that I cite living or once having lived in that mode. Bottom line, your rationale holds water as well as a sieve. Article length is not a good criteria. Town states, and demographics DON'T belong in an EVENT article, either. Who, What, WHen, WHere and WHy is the training one receives in News writing, the event article should cover those, the town article the town. Hyperlink or use the template suggested below otherwise to trim maintenance: // FrankB
A compromise suggestion
  • Don't merge - I've never been a fan of throwing the kitchen sink in with all the other article junk... unless the section on the fire can be written comprehensively, it's not a good idea.
    • However, the Fire page can be written and used as a template, it can even be written that way so when included it asserts a edit link just as if the page were local, one which when clicked, opens the 'templatized page' for editing, so it can be maintained and refined from the Centralia town article. It can also be maintained from it's regular place.
(There is still a template... {{edit}} [or one of it's spin-offs] that should do that correctly.)
    • See operation of wiki markup's <includeonly> and <noinclude>... tag pairs which can break apart what might be redundant text in the fire article, and that can be included in the town article:
    • by Using: {{:Centralia mine fire}} where needed. Put noinclude blocks around parts to not show in the town article, and so forth.
    • You can see the techniques in just about any template/doc documentation page with the way categories and interwikis and selected text is and is not included in the template page proper. I can help if someone needs advice and a start. The first trial should be done in sandbox pages, and I've at least a dozen sitting idle that can be used. // FrankB 15:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
There's no reason to use a template; it just complicates the article unnecessarily and is not how articles are done. That other small towns in Penn are small (go figure) doesn't mean that this article somehow shouldn't be merged; that is in no way a convincing rationale. I don't care how long it takes to drive somewhere, when the event and the town do not exist without the other in reliable sources, and when the content does not warrant a separate article, there's no reason whatsoever to have a separate article. - Aoidh (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC) (Formerly User:SudoGhost)
  • Keep Separate I strongly agree with JOJHutton that the notability of the fire is seperate from the notability of the town which contained the disaster.

- Andrew B (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Short of providing sources to show that notability, no, there isn't. Simply saying there is doesn't make it so. - Aoidh (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate and close this RFC, it's been going on for long enough. THere's definitely enough material to support two articles. SnowFire (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that most of the material in both articles are redundant with one another, how is there enough material? - Aoidh (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate The mine fire affected other areas, and not just specifically Centralia. You could even make a case that nearby Byrnesville suffered more damage than Centralia--Centralia still has some residents and Pennsylvania Route 61 still runs through the borough while Byrnesville was abandoned altogether and PA 61 had to be re-routed in that area. However, IF they are kept separate, the regular Centralia, PA article should focus STRICTLY on the borough itself and maybe a brief mention of the fire. Centralia was notable for the Molly Maguires long before the mine fire anyways, so there is material for the Centralia article to focus on besides the mine fire. Jgera5 (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Several town articles focus on more than one aspect of the town, that's not cause to split something when there is insufficient material and notability to do so. Per WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT, two small, incomplete articles is in no way an improvement over one complete article and actually covers the subject material. - Aoidh (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by and thank everyone for supporting this article. It makes me feel really good about myself for creating it. Leoesb1032 (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate Virtually every city and town in the U.S. and probably the world -- ghost towns included -- has its own article. I don't see why Centralia should be any different. Meanwhile, the mine fire is clearly a big enough phenomenon to deserve its own article. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Separate The fire is certainly the best known incident about the town, and deserves its own article--probably about 90% of people coming here will be looking for it. But the town existed for a full century before the fire. Had the fire never happened, and the town been abandoned, it would still have an article.Every town gets an article--its our basic principle of geographic coverage and there are fully sufficient sources. The most important fires and disasters get articles also. They may overlap, but there's nothing wrong with that. If the fire had been soon extinguished , it would have gotten perhaps a paragraph in the town article, but since it's the bigger topic, and more will always be written about it than the town, it gets its own article. This is known as WP:Summary stye, and it's the way complex subjects in WP iare written. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate I highly doubt that the town is just known for this fire, per WP:NPOV they should remain separate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate; the mine fire itself is obviously notable and has enough about it to support its own article per its extensive references. The town, in turn, seems to have enough to say about it beyond the mine fire to sustain an article. Not sure why this is being brought back up again, since the expansion to both articles in the past nine months is clearly enough to rule out a merge. --Aquillion (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Trivia section removed[edit]

I removed the incredibly long trivia section, and replaced it with a discussion of the town's legacy as an inspiration for many ghost towns in popular culture. I kept a few examples, which I think were highlighted by reliable sources as prominent examples, but, hopefully, this section won't take over the article again. If people want to add back some of the examples, that's fine, but I would request that they find reliable sources to back them up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for removing that. It was as you said "Incredibly Long" and the viewers of Wikipedia have no desire to read it. Good move. Leoesb1032 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Gallery Section[edit]

We should have the photos that have to do w/ the Centralia mine fire on the mine fire's page. Ex.- Th pictures w/ the smoke in them. This could make a significant difference between the two articles and and give more reason to keep the page Centralia mine fire. Leoesb1032 (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Byrnesville Article[edit]

I think that that article Byrnesville, Pennsylvania does not have enough information to remain as a single article.I am suggesting that we merge it with Centralia. Leoesb1032 (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Style Issue?[edit]

"Every few years, a reporter will write a piece about the remaining residents of Centralia, wondering why they have not left."

I'm not an expert at Wikipedia, but does that belong in an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.146.162 (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Some residents are nostalgic and want to stay where they have lived for many years; and yes, it is noteworthy for the Centralia town article. You can add it if you wish. Just make sure it follows the policies and is not opinionated. Leoesb1032 (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually happening?[edit]

Is there any evidence that this mine is still burning? Can anyone get any citations from any news outlet that there is still a fire under the ground? This so-called "continuous" mine fire sounds like a figment of someone's imagination. Bobber0001 (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Smoke still rises out of the ground....emission detectors are still out, and not a soul is attempting to mine there ....its burning, there us enough fuel for it to burn for at least the next century.......Coal town guy (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
(Bobber0001, check out the Media section on the page.) The thing that a lot of people don't realize about the "fire" is that it's not necessary an actual fire; more like smoldering coals, like the coals in a fireplace ...just on a much larger scale. Navy2004 (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I think in some ways its a tad of a mis nomer to say a mine fire, BUT, it is just that. To the point it is NOT a roaring blaze or inferno on the ground level...Coal town guy (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Here's a link to information on it at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, which has sub-pages for additional details on the fire (chronology, FAQ, and maps/images). If it were "a figment of someone's imagination" as you suggest, it would have to be one of the all-time greatest hoaxes. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Their PO has been closed for a while, the highway going to it, is closed, and shattered in the middle, all of the homes are either gone or abandoned, the detection devices and signs are there...some folks must indeed have powerful imaginations...Coal town guy (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It would be one of the biggest conspiracy theories ever if so. Smoke rises, only 7 people remain, everything is torn down, the highway has a 4 foot gash in the middle of it... The list goes on and on. There is just too much proof against it.Leoesb1032 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the town and the fire articles be merged?[edit]

Overwhelming consensus was that this should be closed with the result being no merge. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 18:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since there was no consensus in the previous merge discussion which is now nine months ago, I wanted to start a new one and try to establish some sort of consensus for whether the material should be merged or not. As I said previously, you can't have the fire without the town, and the town without the fire. The two are intricately linked and neither article is long enough to warrant two separate article about the same subject, especially when you remove the redundant information found in both articles. The previous discussion used the word "RfC" but no actual RfC template, so I'm placing one here to get more opinions to try to get a consensus one way or the other. Sorry, was wrong about that - Aoidh (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Just for clarification; the prior discussion did use the RfC template; it was automatically removed by RFC_bot when the term of the RfC expired. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose and speedy close as a waste of everyones time. There is no consensus and nothing has changed to repeat the discussion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • You noted on AN/I that there was no consensus and unlikely to be one anytime soon, so with an RfC you want to close this because...what? A consensus might occur? - Aoidh (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It's called no consensus, happens all the time. See any number of AFD's where it's disputed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • By that same token, it's called a new discussion, happens all the time. See any number of AfDs where a previous one had already occurred. As you noted, the previous discussion is "nine months old". New discussions can and do occur, a previous discussion isn't cause to speedy close anything, otherwise every subsequent AfD would be speedy closed, that obviously isn't how it works. - Aoidh (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Virtually every city and town in the U.S. and probably the world -- ghost towns included -- has its own article. I don't see why Centralia should be any different. Meanwhile, the mine fire is clearly a big enough phenomenon to deserve its own article. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm certainly not suggesting the city gets merged away, what I'm suggesting is that the fire be merged here, since there's not enough content to justify two separate articles, especially when you remove the material redundant to both articles. (Just trying to clarify what I was saying, not argue) - Aoidh (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no city, called Centralia anymore, at least in the logical functional sense. It is utterly abandoned, as are the roads leading to it.......Coal town guy (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy close. Aoidh, there *was* consensus in your old RFC, and it was obviously against you. It was already highly irregular to leave the merge tag on for so long, it's ridiculous to start a new RFC so you can continue tag-spamming the page. SnowFire (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • If there was a consensus the tag would have been removed without issue, even Hell, who isn't keen on discussion, notes that there was no consensus previously. Now it looks like there will be, so a "speedy close" wouldn't be appropriate. Your speculation on motivation is not only inappropriate, but pointless and (more to the point) inaccurate. - Aoidh (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The !vote count before was 12:5, which means that the arguments on the 5 !vote merge side would have needed to be amazingly compelling. I'm biased of course but I suspect a neutral observer would see the consensus as against your side. You were the only one making "issue" with the tag anyway - there are tons of pages with discussions that have less consensus than the above, and don't have tags announcing that Wikipedia editors can't make up their minds. As for motivation.... sigh. (For the record: No, I'm not accusing you of being a fan of tags because tags, I understand that you want to merge the pages, and tags are a means to the end, and this is fine. This should be entirely obvious. I was not "speculating on your motivations" which are clearly good faith but rather complaining that you were refusing to let the issue go and placing what I felt to be an unnecessary and misleading tag, which has nothing to do with your motivations.) SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
In all fairness to Aoidh; at the time that this rebooted RfC was started, the prior RFC had a raw count of 8:5. The other four responses at the other RfC likely were made as a result of the ANI discussion, and posted to the old RfC instead of this one by mistake. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • In addition to Barek's point above, some of the comments (including yours) were little more than "I agree" comments; hardly the "compelling" rationale you seem to be expecting from others. - Aoidh (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll continue this on our user talk pages, since all that's left is procedural discussion. Suffice to say, I am a huge fan of using the talk page for discussion, but I am not a huge fan of leaving merge tags on articles for nearly a year without exceptionally good reason. SnowFire (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I had initiated the original RfC because, at the time, the content about the fire in both articles were nearly word-for-word identical. That is no longer the case; the article about the fire has been vastly improved, and contains additional details that make sense to keep separate from the article about the town. There could be some additional cleanup of this article; for instance, I can see an argument for removing the disputed cause of the fire from this article (a disputed detail is better explained in an article about the fire itself) - but that's a question for a different talk page thread, and a merge is no longer justified given the current state of the two articles. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
STRONGLY OPPOSE. There are many mining disasters associated with a specific town or place within the United States. AND looky looky, they are a seperate article...Coal town guy (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • keep both as is and improve both through regular normal WP editing. Clearly the borough and the fire deserve their own articles and placement into their own appropriate category structures. Hmains (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The previous discussion had no real consensus one way or the other, so I wanted to see if consensus had changed. I think between this talk page section and the new comments (those after 3 February) on the previous one, that's it's quite obvious that this has changed and there's a consensus to keep the articles separate. As long as nobody objects I'm going to remove the tag on the articles. - Aoidh (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy close Really sounds like there was consensus on the previous RfC, and even if there wasn't, there certainly is now. I also want to say that as someone who was pulled here from the FRS, this RfC is very unclear. It could use a link to Centralia mine fire and be, like, clearly defined.0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 00:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Incorrect info about accessibility?[edit]

I got the impression from reading this article (and the photos) that access to Centralia had been blocked or restricted. This bit in particular:

"The current route was formerly a detour around the damaged portion during the repairs and became a permanent route in 1993; mounds of dirt were placed at both ends of the former route, effectively blocking the road. Pedestrian traffic is still possible due to a small opening about two feet wide at the north side of the road. "

However this kinda ignores the fact that, in addition to pedestrian traffic via the gap, the new route 61 still leads into the town freely, as does route 42, and route 2004. Google map's satellite photo shows significant traffic passing through "downtown" Centralia. I haven't verified this in person so I don't want to make the change, but I certainly got the wrong impression from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:9600:771:659B:66C:DDD5:9C5D (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That paragraph has been changed to clarify that Route 66 is still passable. There is a portion of the old Route 66 that is abandoned. The new route was a detour and then became permanent. Please see if the new one is better. Z22 (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)