This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota
The "History of the South Dakota Department of Transportation" found here indicates that the subject of this article is an early name for the branch of the South Dakota State government now known as the South Dakota Department of Transportation. Accordingly, the content of this newly-created article should be merged with the pre-existing article on the SDDOT. Cbl62 (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This merger proposal is also consistent with precedent at Minnesota Department of Transportation. In that case, Minnesota Highway Dept. (old name) is a redirect to the Minnesota DOT (current name). Also, the MN DOT article includes a list of historic sites, even though they were built while the entity was called the MN Highway Dept. The Minnesota precedent looks to me like the right way to handle this sort of situation. Cbl62 (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who created this article. I think it is fine to merge if the merge target article can include the list of historic works. If that list instead would be split out immediately as "List of works of ...", as someone did with Colorado comparables, then I would prefer to keep the older name with its list of works created under that name. As far as I know there are no historic works created under the new name. --doncram13:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The merge target does include the list of NRHP bridges. Such a list of historic structures is as appropriate there as it would be in an article about the agency's old name. Note that 7 of the bridges are called "South Dakota Dept. of Transportation Bridge No. ..." I'm not familiar with the Colorado situation you referenced, so it's hard to respond to what happened there. Cbl62 (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
