Talk:Derby–Shelton Bridge

Redirect undone

I undid the redirect as it was done without discussion and am happy to talk about it if desired. Markvs88 (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Crossposted. Markvs88 (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Connecticut Route 712

NOT MERGED

No consensus to merge. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 08:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Route 712 is the hidden highway designation for the bridge. As a secondary highway designation, Route 712 would not on its own pass the notability thresholds for inclusion as a stand-alone article, especially given that all of its content pertains to the bridge. Imzadi 1979 → 16:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Can you specify these notability thresholds, please? As far as I know, an article needs two sources for notability and the 712 article has four. Also, please note that while the route is short, it is 390 meters long while the bridge is only 142 meters. Markvs88 (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". We may presume notability for primary state highways, but this is a secondary highway designation. That means we need news articles, books, etc. that specifically discuss the roadway and not just tangentially mention it. That also means the sources should not be from the DOT or other government sources directly involved. Imzadi 1979 → 00:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one is asking for presumed notability. Likewise, just because primary state highways are presumed notable it does not mean that others are not. In this case, the subject is a road. Clearly it is not the state and the road has no input into sources as the road cannot self publish, unlike a human.

The idea that DOT sources cannot be valid for just the 712 article is absurd. There is nowhere on Wikipedia any validity to the idea that a source is valid for one type of article and not another if it is about the subject in question. If DOT is not admissible, I see a lot of things to purge... starting with M-96 (Michigan highway), which is somehow a GA rated article even though it has a *single* source -- namely, the Michigan CDOT. Markvs88 (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, secondary state highways are not presumed notable for stand-alone articles. For that classification, we have to follow WP:GNG to determine if there should be a separate article. That guideline specifies "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". A DOT source would not be "independent of the subject" because the DOT owns the roadway. That doesn't mean that a DOT source is unreliable or can't be used, just that it doesn't contribute any weight into a notability test. So the challenge I've laid to you is this: find me independent reliable sources about Route 712. That's what we need to determine notability for a stand alone article.

As the secondary highway designation involved here covers the full length of the bridge, and the bridge article is rather short, it only makes sense to merge the two articles together and combine the related topics into one more comprehensive article. Should there ever been enough information someday to warrant, we could always discuss splitting the articles back apart in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 15:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion closed as Keep. Markvs88 (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep what? Please let this be closed by a non-participant. Imzadi 1979 → 15:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, there you are. Nice of you to stop by again. Since there has been no merge discussion for 3 months, it's dead. Consensus was reached by your long non-presence and failure to defend your POV. Feel free to re-open if you think it's worth it, I'll be happy to join in. No other participant showed up in all that time... why would you reasonably assume that a non-participant would randomly show up and do this? Let the technicality go. Markvs88 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed merge with Connecticut Route 712 too

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge given no support, opposition and stale for more than a year. Klbrain (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"State Route 712" is the unsigned internal highway designation for the bridge and its approaches. Essentially we have two stubby articles on the same topic (highway designation, bridge) when we could have one decent combined article. Additionally, as a secondary highway designation, any presumption of notability is lacking for a separate, stand-alone article. There are two sources present for the designation, one that fails the reliable source prong of the WP:GNG test (it's a self-published road geek website), and the second fails the independence prong. As an unsigned designation, there aren't likely to be that many sources outside of CDOT or the designation itself, hampering the search for "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject", which is the guideline we need to meet to warrant a separate stand-alone article. Imzadi 1979 → 05:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, most of the content of the highway article is related to a bridge improvement project. In the grand scheme of the history of the designation, this is actually a minor event, so if that content were trimmed down there to its expected length, the highway designation article gets even stubbier. There are much more significant events in the history of the designation (when was it designated? was it ever rerouted/truncated/extended? when was the route fully paved?) that are missing. That isn't to say that it isn't important information for the bridge as a topic though. Imzadi 1979 → 05:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As stated previously, the Bridge and the Route are not the same length nor the same entity. That it is unsigned is of no particular relevance. I don't know what you mean by "presumption" of notability means, both articles are reasonably cited and pass wp:N: this article has two state of CT citations, the SR has one state of CT citation and two local government sources in addition to any "road geek" source. The idea that CDOT is self published is again, spurious: the road is not sentient. If you want to improve both articles, go for it, but they're clearly notable in their own right. Markvs88 (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - I have just proven on M-96 (Michigan highway) that CDOT sources must be considered independent. Markvs88 (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't, Markvs88. You've confused independence, for notability under WP:GNG, with reliability to meet the Good Article criteria. The GA criteria do not address notability.
The situation between the bridge and its approaches being given an unsigned highway designation here is not much different than Interstate 478 and the Brooklyn–Battery Tunnel, where we have one article addressing the two intertwined topics. Surely if an Interstate Highway designation can be merged as thus, a secondary state highway designation can as well. Imzadi 1979 → 02:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is yours to have... as my opinion is mine. Ah, a nice example there. Personally, I prefer the tack you took with not merging Interstate 675 (Michigan) and Zilwaukee Bridge. Markvs88 (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be odd to propose such a merger since the Zilwaukee Bridge is part of I-75, not I-675. Imzadi 1979 → 03:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed merge of Connecticut Route 712 into Derby–Shelton Bridge

MERGED

There is enough consensus to merge. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Connecticut Route 712 is the unsigned designation for the Derby–Shelton Bridge. The highway article fails to establish notability for the highway under WP:GNG, but all of the information present would be a valuable addition to the article on the bridge.

We have here an unsigned secondary highway designation that encompasses the bridge. This situation is analogous to Interstate 478 and the Brooklyn–Battery Tunnel [the former (the unsigned highway designation) redirects to the latter (the infrastructure carrying the unsigned highway designation)]. So if an unsigned Interstate Highway designation can be merged into its infrastructure, then surely an unsigned secondary state highway can as well, especially when the sourcing for the highway article relies on non-independent sources, or self-published sources. Additionally, the majority of the highway article is about a bridge improvement project, which is good content for the bridge, but a minor event in relation to the highway designation. Imzadi 1979 → 18:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Derby–Shelton Bridge shows what a merged article could look like. Imzadi 1979 → 18:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the I-478/Battery tunnel analogy. — C16SH (speak up) 00:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.