Talk:Florida State Road 63

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles

U.S. Roads: Florida

	U.S. roads portal This redirect is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Locations	Florida

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think the first sentence of this article shows the redundancy this article has to U.S. Route 27. I am fully aware that U.S. Route 27 in Florida does not exist, but besides the lack of the better merge target, this article still shouldn't exist just to signify one portion of US 27 in the absence of a better article. Unless someone can point out that FL 63 is not entirely redundant, I propose a merge into the FL section of US 27 with mention of FL 63 as a secret designation. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 22:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - if the state route covered all of US 27 in Florida, it'd be a logical merge choice - but it doesn't, therefore this should not be merged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. US 27 covers all of SR 63 so it should be merged. –Fredddie ™ 23:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support since all of SR 63 is part of US 27 in FL, it should be merged. If however, a section of SR 63 wasn't also US 27, then we'd have a case for not merging, but Bushranger's objection shouldn't hold up the merger. (US 102 is merged to US 141 even though only a section of US 141 is former US 102; the redundancy doesn't need to be total.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As for Scott5114's comments below, this article could be moved to replace the U.S. Routes 27 in Florida redirect and then expanded to cover the whole length of US 27 in the Sunshine State. Imzadi 1979 → 02:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is standard operating practice. --Rs chen 7754 00:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article should be merged, you can add a section/note in US 27 how SR 63 is also there.Millertime246 (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to U.S. Route 27 in Florida and expand. This would be a good starting point for a US 27 in FL article. Grab some details from the pertinent section of the US 27 article, add a junction list, and it's no longer a stub. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Moved from Talk:U.S. Route 27 here:

User:Mitchazenia has proposed that Florida State Road 63, is merged into this article. While I understand the reason for a merger like this, I'm afraid I have to oppose this decision for the following reasons; 1)Florida SR 63 is only a small portion of US 27, 2)It's only a small portion in the state of Florida, 3)It contains a separate suffixed route, although that route is a Leon County Road rather than a state road, but it could warrant a "related routes" chapter. Bear in mind, I might be willing to consider a possible merge into a U.S. Route 27 in Florida article if one were to be written. ----DanTD (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing a point though, Dan. If all of SR 63 exists concurrent with US 27, the article can be moved/merged in with the Florida content of US 27 (either in the national article or a state-detail article) with a simple statement of: "US 27 is also State Road 63 from Tallahassee to the state line." Even if there is a related routes section (please stop calling them chapters; Wikipedia Books have chapters and subchapters made up of individual articles and articles have headings and subheadings) that's perfectly fine. The fact that the county road is a 63 suffixed designation doesn't make it any less related to US 27/SR 63. The BUS M-28 in Ishpeming and Negaunee is still mentioned in U.S. Route 41 in Michigan because it is still related to the US 41/M-28 highway through those cities (and yeah, it did briefly carry BUS US 41 designations on paper pre-1958). Imzadi 1979 → 00:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see what you're getting at, but at the same time, Florida State Road 57 is in the same boat as this, and I remember seeing a map with a county extension either in or around Jefferson County south of the southern terminus. ----DanTD (talk)
    - Futher comment - I'm not going to deny the fact that Millertime and Scott have some good ideas about how to handle this issue. I'm certainly more than willing to add material from SR 63 to a US 27 in Florida article. ----DanTD (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, article contains good info on State Road 63, which is useful as a separate article. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But how would this info not be useful in an article on US 27? --Rs chen 7754 02:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMHO, cleaner & easier to follow to have a separate article. Is there a notability problem here? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not like U.S. Route 41 in Michigan and M-28 (Michigan highway). In that case, of the 290 miles for M-28, only 59.4 miles is concurrent with US 41. It's closer to a case like Interstate 296 and U.S. Route 131, but the 3.4 miles of I-296 would be very much dwarfed by the rest of the 266.8 miles of US 131 and there is a section of I-296 that is independent of US 131. Unlike those cases, there is a bit of an identity problem here in that there isn't really a SR 63; it's really US 27/SR 63 because it doesn't exist independently at all. Imzadi 1979 → 02:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The U.S. Route 27 in Florida option sounds like a good course of action. I support that. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support U.S. Route 27 in Florida option: In fact, I put together a junction list (sans mileage) that is ready to be dropped into the article when it is created. V C 21:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that so? Because I started working on a U.S. Route 27 in Florida article in my sandbox a few days ago, and I'd like to see what you've cooked up. I may even grab it from you before I'm done writing the article. ----DanTD (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just give me permission and I would be happy to transfer it to your sandboxed article for you to do whatever you want with it. I have it stored off-wiki. V C 17:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You've got it. The sandbox is Right here, and the chapter is prepared. ----DanTD (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - FL 63 is entirely part of US 27. I would prefer for a U.S. Route 27 in Florida page to be created to cover FL 63. Dough 48 72 02:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also check out Talk:U.S. Route 19 in Florida#Merge proposal for a proposal to merge Florida State Road 57 into U.S. Route 19 in Florida. Dough 48 72 02:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE - I finally wrote the U.S. Route 27 in Florida article. Thanks to VC for the intersection list, although I did have to make a few adjustments. So it's available for merging. Admittedly, I was leaning towards a U.S. Route 441 in Florida article instead.----DanTD (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2011 (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.