Talk:List of Recreational Roads in Texas

Merger proposal

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.

---

I am proposing that Texas Recreational Road 2, Texas Recreational Road 3, Texas Recreational Road 4, Texas Recreational Road 5, Texas Recreational Road 6, Texas Recreational Road 7, Texas Recreational Road 8, Texas Recreational Road 9, Texas Recreational Road 10 and Texas Recreational Road 11 be merged into this list. They are all currently very short articles and considering they are rated Good (i.e. have meet the broadness criteria) they are unlikely to grow any bigger. I am thinking that the merge would mostly be a copy-past job (minus the infobox and lead), with each road getting its own section and the section headers from the merged articles being removed. That way the quality of the information would be maintained. There is also Texas Recreational Road 255, which is much longer than the others and most likely is a viable split from this article (should be summarised here and have a main template if this merge succeeds). AIRcorn (talk) 06:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Example for RE 2

Texas Recreational Road 2 The Amistad Reservoir, served by RE 2 RE 2 begins at the Rough Canyon Recreational Area, in Amistad National Recreation Area. The western end of the road is at the boat launch on the Devils River on the northern end of the Amistad Reservoir. The roadway runs northeasterly past the Rough Canyon Campground, and a small mobile home park, still inside the national recreation area. RE 2 turns directly east at an intersection with the Cam Real road. The highway exits Amistad, and continues through the South Texas shrubland, passing a few small roads and homes, which are part of the community of Devils Shore. The highway runs through several miles of shrubland, before reaching its western terminus, an intersection with US 277/US 377. RE 2 was designated on June 1, 1970, traveling from a boat ramp on the Amistad Reservoir in the Amistad National Recreation Area to an intersection with US 277/US 377 in Val Verde County. The highway has not since been extended or rerouted. The entire route is in Val Verde County. Location mi km Destinations Notes Devils Shores 0.000 0.000 Amistad National Recreation Area Western end of state maintenance 1.088 1.751 Camino Real Street (CR 219) Southern terminus of CR 219 1.479 2.380 Alamo Drive (CR 39) Southern terminus of CR 39 ​ 7.198 11.584 US 277 / US 377 Eastern terminus 1.000 mi = 1.609 km; 1.000 km = 0.621 mi

Support as main contributor: However, I oppose the merging of RE 2 and RE 11. If I put work into these two articles, I could at least double the length of them, which I feel is sufficient enough to remain as separate articles. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 06:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Even doubled they would probably fit in here quite nicely. What about merging them for now, expanding them here and then splitting them out later if they grow sufficiently big. That way you are under no pressure to expand them straight away. The only downside is that they will lose their GA status, but if they can be doubled they most likely fail the broadness one at the moment anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Support WP:USRD/RCS scenario: A lot of the roads editors have been discussing the Texas secondary highway system lately, and I do not think that at this time these roads deserve their own articles. It has long been the standard at WP:USRD/NT that 99% of all primary state highways should have their own article, although this does not hold true for secondary state highways or county highways. These articles can be summed up in one paragraph, and if this is all there is at the GA level, then they can readily be merged away. I'm skeptical about expanding RE 2 and RE 11, but I suppose that we should see if they can be expanded.

However, it has also been the concern of a lot of us that other editors might use this as yet another attempt to garner support for deleting or merging many articles on primary state highway routes that are considered "not notable" due to length or the sole use of "primary sources" that are reliable and authoritative government documents. I am hoping that this does not become a witch hunt just like what happened in July, and that we do not see attempts to mass-delete/GAR/FAR USRD GAs and FAs. If this happens, I will be greatly disappointed and lose all motivation to edit this site, and likely retire. --Rschen7754 07:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This proposal came about as a direct result of the thread at WT:GAN#Good article statistics. I don't have any particular interest in road articles beyond any other topic here, it is just that many of them get nominated for Good articles and I do have a strong interest in Good articles. I don't actually think it is a witch hunt, but more a case of these articles being so small that most non-road editors are surprised that they meet the notability requirements. AIRcorn (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My comments weren't directed at you specifically (and I was aware of the thread), but I am aware that some other USRD GAs on primary state highways are the next shortest GAs and are thus possibly next on the target list. I am also concerned that this merge may result in the wrong message being sent to editors who will then proceed to send USRD GAs and FAs to GAR/FAR/AFD. Many of these editors either have a personal vendetta against our project, or what our project stands for, or against our editors, or against road articles in general, and will take any chance they can get to disrupt the content work that we are doing here. What happened last July was particularly unpleasant for all the road editors and caused many of us to lose our motivation to edit, and if this keeps happening, it will reflect an encyclopedia that does not protect those who put our heads down, attempt to stay away from the Wikipedia-wide drama, and actually generate content from those who seek to attack other people's work just for the sake of revenge or just because it does not fit their idea of a "traditional encyclopedia." The last thing I ever want to do is associate myself with the "unblockable" editors who get caught up in the civility brouhaha, but if this is how we treat those who write content, then I don't want to be a part of this site anymore. --Rschen7754 08:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I was involved a little bit in July. My involvement came about after the drive where there was some rubber stamping of GA's, many of which were short road articles (something that you have commented on previously). That lead me to investigate some, eventually commenting at Talk:M-147 (Michigan highway) and a few other locations regarding the notability of roads. My position now is that if there is a suitable merge target for multiple short roads (size and scope wise) then they are probably best merged, otherwise I accept that there is consensus to have standalone articles. I think that roughly corresponds with the Rockland County Scenario linked to here. As far as my understanding goes the Michigan highways (which is the next obvious target) can't be merged due to size and I would think the same would apply to the short Delaware, Kansas and Vermont ones. I am thinking the Texas farm to market ones and the Texas park roads (which I think are mentioned below) could probably be merged into a similar list. Maybe your project could scan through them to see if there are others. Oh and for those that don't know the list of short Good articles is here. AIRcorn (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment—any merger should be completed using {{infobox road small}} and follow the general concepts of the "Rockland County Scenario". The section headings for each roadway should omit the word "Texas" as that isn't a part of the actual highway name; state names are prefixed to article titles based on the results of WP:SRNC as embodied in WP:USSH. They should also have a pseudo-heading for the junction list rather than run it unsegregated.

  Beyond that, I take no position on the merger in general. Imzadi 1979 → 07:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry most of that is Greek to me. I am willing to do the merge if necessary, but it would probably be better if one of the regular road editors did so. In this RCS scenario what happens to Texas Recreational Road 255? AIRcorn (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Provided there is consensus of course. AIRcorn (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

List of state highways in Maryland shorter than one mile (2–699) is a good example; there's a mini-infobox for each route. --Rschen7754 07:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Each highway's name is "Recreational Road #"; the "Texas" is only part of the article title based on a many-years-old and very contentious debate ("State Route Numbering Convention", SRNC), the results of which were codified in a naming convention (USSH). Since the state name isn't part of the highway name, the subheadings should not include it.
• A list article that follows RCS is essentially what you are proposing with the merger. See List of County-Designated Highways in Michigan‎ for one of the original list articles to follow this format, predating the RCS-ificiation of the county road articles for Rockland County, New York. Imzadi 1979 → 08:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Support merger. This would be a fine first step to taming the horde of Texas secondary-route articles. Maybe we can do the same for FMs eventually. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Support merger. I think this is the best option for the encyclopedia at this time. I also agree that we should do the same with the FM/RMs, too. –Fredddie™ 13:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Support merger. FMs, RMs, and PRs also need their own lists. Most, if not all of these articles can't stand alone. –TCN7JM 15:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Support using WP:USRD/RCS. RE 255 may retain its own article, but can still be summarized in the list. Dough4872 18:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Support per WP:ROADOUTCOMES "County roads are disputed, but are kept if genuine fame or notability is demonstrated." Since none of these do much more than say "it goes here, then here, then here" then a merger is appropriate. How did these get through a GA review? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that these aren't county roads; they're maintained by TxDOT, so they are state highways. Imzadi 1979 → 18:12, 11 February 2013 (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.

References