I have reversed the merger. I oppose how it was done, as frankly, it was done very poorly. I’ve been on record lately as opposing this sort of merger. They are ill-advised, and similar merged articles should be split apart. <span style=”background:#006B54; padding:2px;”>”'[[User:Imzadi1979|<span style=”color:white;”>Imzadi 1979</span>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<span style=”color:white;”><big>→</big></span>]]”'</span> 07:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
I have reversed the merger. I oppose how it was done, as frankly, it was done very poorly. I’ve been on record lately as opposing this sort of merger. They are ill-advised, and similar merged articles should be split apart. <span style=”background:#006B54; padding:2px;”>”'[[User:Imzadi1979|<span style=”color:white;”>Imzadi 1979</span>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<span style=”color:white;”><big>→</big></span>]]”'</span> 07:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
:I’ve undone my closure. @[[User:Imzadi1979|Imzadi1979]], any reason for opposing? The pages have been tagged for 4 months with no objection. You say {{tq|1=it was done very poorly}}; should I mark these as being merged, so that a different editor can have another stab at merging them? [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 09:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
:I’ve undone my closure. @[[User:Imzadi1979|Imzadi1979]], any reason for opposing? The pages have been tagged for 4 months with no objection. You say {{tq|1=it was done very poorly}}; should I mark these as being merged, so that a different editor can have another stab at merging them? [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 09:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
::IFF we are merging these two articles, it takes a fair amount of work to do. and can’t be just an indiscriminate copy and paste to say everything has bee moved over.
::IFF we are merging these two articles, it takes a fair amount of work to do. and can’t be just an indiscriminate copy and paste to say everything has moved over.
::#The infoboxes need to be carefully merged together to reflect both states’ routes.
::#The infoboxes need to be carefully merged together to reflect both states’ routes.
::#The lead needs to be updated to summarize the content from both states.
::#The lead needs to be updated to summarize the content from both states.
::#The route descriptions need to be merged and then copy edited into something harmonious.
::#The route descriptions need to be merged and then copy edited into something harmonious.
::#The junction list tables need to be merged into a single cohesive table.
::#The junction list tables need to be merged into a single cohesive table.
::#The see also should have the portals for both states, and to correct and oversight of the original articles, it should also have
::#The see also should have the portals for both states, and to correct and oversight of the original articles, it should also have
::Instead, looking at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhode_Island_Route_136&oldid=1318594716 the “merged” content], we got the RI map in the MA infobox and the RI lead without any MA content. The RD section started with the MA prose content and then it finished with the RI content. In other words, it was not a continuous narrative description from one terminus to the other, but literally started in the middle of the combined routing to proceed northward and then jumped to the extreme south to continue back to the middle. Similarly, the junction lists should be one table listing things in geographic order with a bit of extra work to comply with [[MOS:RJL]] because the county column needs to be present, and in this case, the state column needs to be added.
::Instead, looking at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhode_Island_Route_136&oldid=1318594716 the “merged” content], we got the RI map in the MA infobox and the RI lead without any MA content. The RD section started with the MA prose content and then it finished with the RI content. In other words, it was not a continuous narrative description from one terminus to the other, but literally started in the middle of the combined routing to proceed northward and then jumped to the extreme south to continue back to the middle. Similarly, the junction lists should be one table listing things in geographic order with a bit of extra work to comply with [[MOS:RJL]] because the county column needs to be present, and in this case, the state column needs to be added.
::But we shouldn’t merge these together. Had I see the tag earlier, I would have registered opposition a lot sooner. A merged article that looked like an indiscriminate copy and paste without consideration for narrative flow from one overall terminus to the other overall terminus meant that I had to undo everything as a service to our readers and then lodge this opposition.
::But we shouldn’t merge these together. Had I the tag earlier, I would have registered opposition a lot sooner. A merged article that looked like an indiscriminate copy and paste without consideration for narrative flow from one overall terminus to the other overall terminus meant that I had to undo everything as a service to our readers and then lodge this opposition.
::They are separate state highways in different state highway systems under the maintenance of different state departments of transportation. At one time, the fad was to merge similarly numbered highways on either side of a state line together, especially if one or both were short. However, I’m of the opinion that isn’t as helpful as some may think. While we don’t have history sections in either article currently, the history of each may not be as coordinated as implied by the duplication of numbers.
::They are separate state highways in different state highway systems under the maintenance of different state departments of transportation. At one time, the fad was to merge similarly numbered highways on either side of a state line together, especially if one or both were short. However, I’m of the opinion that isn’t as helpful as some may think. While we don’t have history sections in either article currently, the history of each may not be as coordinated as implied by the duplication of numbers.
::Additionally, the lack of opposition should equally be read as a lack of support for a proposal. There isn’t consensus to do something here either. <span style=”background:#006B54; padding:2px;”>”'[[User:Imzadi1979|<span style=”color:white;”>Imzadi 1979</span>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<span style=”color:white;”><big>→</big></span>]]”'</span> 17:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
::Additionally, the lack of opposition should equally be read as a lack of support for a proposal. There isn’t consensus to do something here either. <span style=”background:#006B54; padding:2px;”>”'[[User:Imzadi1979|<span style=”color:white;”>Imzadi 1979</span>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<span style=”color:white;”><big>→</big></span>]]”'</span> 17:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
 |
|
I propose merging Massachusetts Route 136 into Rhode Island Route 138. Since the Massachusetts section is less than 2 miles long, merging to and renaming as “Route 136 (Rhode Island-Massachusetts)” similar to the Route 114A (Rhode Island–Massachusetts) title would be appropriate; the combined article would only be a little longer than each of the existing articles. Thanks!! EPBeatles (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
I have reversed the merger. I oppose how it was done, as frankly, it was done very poorly. I’ve been on record lately as opposing this sort of merger. They are ill-advised, and similar merged articles should be split apart. Imzadi 1979 → 07:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve undone my closure. @Imzadi1979, any reason for opposing? The pages have been tagged for 4 months with no objection. You say
it was done very poorly
; should I mark these as being merged, so that a different editor can have another stab at merging them? FaviFake (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)- IFF we are merging these two articles, it takes a fair amount of work to do. and can’t be just an indiscriminate copy and paste to say everything has been moved over.
- The infoboxes need to be carefully merged together to reflect both states’ routes.
- The lead needs to be updated to summarize the content from both states.
- The maps need to be merged together.
- The route descriptions need to be merged and then copy edited into something harmonious.
- The junction list tables need to be merged into a single cohesive table.
- The see also should have the portals for both states, and to correct and oversight of the original articles, it should also have the link to the U.S. roads portal added.
- Instead, looking at the “merged” content, we got the RI map in the MA infobox and the RI lead without any MA content. The RD section started with the MA prose content and then it finished with the RI content. In other words, it was not a continuous narrative description from one terminus to the other, but literally started in the middle of the combined routing to proceed northward and then jumped to the extreme south to continue back to the middle. Similarly, the junction lists should be one table listing things in geographic order with a bit of extra work to comply with MOS:RJL because the county column needs to be present, and in this case, the state column needs to be added.
- But we shouldn’t merge these together. Had I seen the tag earlier, I would have registered opposition a lot sooner. A merged article that looked like an indiscriminate copy and paste without consideration for narrative flow from one overall terminus to the other overall terminus meant that I had to undo everything as a service to our readers and then lodge this opposition.
- They are separate state highways in different state highway systems under the maintenance of different state departments of transportation. At one time, the fad was to merge similarly numbered highways on either side of a state line together, especially if one or both were short. However, I’m of the opinion that isn’t as helpful as some may think. While we don’t have history sections in either article currently, the history of each may not be as coordinated as implied by the duplication of numbers.
- Additionally, the lack of opposition should equally be read as a lack of support for a proposal. There isn’t consensus to do something here either. Imzadi 1979 → 17:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- IFF we are merging these two articles, it takes a fair amount of work to do. and can’t be just an indiscriminate copy and paste to say everything has been moved over.
