Jump to content

Talk:M-83 (Michigan highway)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Proposed merge to a double-feature article

No consensus. --AdmrBoltz 17:38, 29 January 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.

In the general sense, M-83 and M-54 as solitary routes collectively use one long route paralleling I-75 between Flint, MI and Richville, MI, whereas the concurrency between 83 and 54 between I-75 and the "number changer" intersection is nothing more than a spur connecting Birch Run, MI and nearby I-75 to the longer paralleling surface street. So, I say we propose an article titled M-54 and M-83 (Michigan highway) to address this anomaly of the "concurrency spur" and "number changer" intersection. --Highway 231 (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose because they are separate highways. To consider such a merger, we would need reliable sources that treat them in such a merged fashion. Otherwise it is original research to apply such a theory to merge the two highways together and call the concurrent section a "spur". No such sources exist in sufficient quantities to warrant a merger. No other pair of highways in Michigan have such a merger, not US 10 and M-25, not M-38 and M-64, none of those pairings. Imzadi 1979 → 10:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Just a note, but the proposed article has been moved to the Draft: namespace. Unless and until such a merger gains consensus (which would have to go back through Good Article Nominations), the Draft: namespace will mean an incomplete article won't show up in Google search results. Also, those who use a search engine won't be presented with the original and merged articles. Imzadi 1979 → 10:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Also working against any merger: M-83 predates M-54 by a few decades. What is now M-54 used to be US 10/US 23, and when those two designates were shifted to the I-75 freeway in the 1960s, M-83 was extended along the new M-54. So the two highways have totally separate histories, which doesn't warranty any merger. Imzadi 1979 → 10:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just because we can merge this articles doesn't mean we should. Other than that, Imzadi has already articulated why they shouldn't be merged. –Fredddie™ 12:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Imzadi. --AdmrBoltz 13:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this slope is slippery enough.  VC  15:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above. --Rschen7754 17:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Merging different-numbered routes is cherry-picking. I only support merges if they are same-numbered routes across state lines. Dough4872 18:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • *sigh* maybe if you guys take some time to reconsider your input, maybe you'll realize that we could just Keep these M-54 and M-83 articles as "separate ones" and have them focus more on historic iterations that didn't result in this apparent continuation with a wrong-way concurrency spur, but the article about both highways should definitely Stay for the sake of the current-day configuration of the route though, besides what good is having one convoluted article when we can have another article to refer to another concept related to it? We have special concepts like Newfoundland and Labrador which is a single province of Canada which collectively uses two areas to refer to it of which even Newfoundland and Labrador even have their own articles too, we also have separate articles like Napster and Napster (pay service) which were formed because of separation from significant historic milestones of their legacy. Besides I'm just saying that some topics become a subject of ambiguity, so this is why Wikipedia has disambiguation pages, as well as parenthesis around the flags that differentiate topics. But in this case this is a proposal for "ROTE A and ROUTE B" as an article treating two separate routes as one in which the "double terminus" concurrency is nothing more than a spur route observed from it. --Highway 231 (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
@Highway 231: your argument for keeping the "article" doesn't make any sense. For one, you are misusing the term spur, which the M-54/M-83 concurrency is not. Two, the other two examples are red herrings (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). And three, the two highways already have sufficient coverage as they are both Good Articles.
Both articles already have the typical page sizes for highways of those lengths, so creating a new article for a two-mile-long "highway" would make a very short article that probably would not be GA quality without a lot of fluff. –Fredddie™ 13:12, 23 January 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.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M-83 (Michigan highway). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M-83_(Michigan_highway)/Archive_1&oldid=1136973598"