Talk:Missouri Route 165

Problematic merger of related topics
There are several problems by trying to merge everything together and doing so poorly. The notability of the county road segment isn't firmly established, so honestly it should be ignored other than the mention in the history. However, if the two topics are going to be merged, we need to do so with some intelligence. Some points:
 * 1) The infobox is a mess.
 * 2) The title of the article is "Missouri Route 165". Give that topic priority in the infobox. County Road 165 can get its own smaller infobox in the body of the article. That's one of the reasons why we have infobox road small. (See M-553 (Michigan highway) for an example.)
 * 3) The length is misleading, and frankly, inaccurate. Google Maps does not report to three decimal places, yet it's the source for "18.013 mi". The length note helps clarify, but each designation should have its own infobox, removing any need for written clarification.
 * 4) Do the termini apply to Route 165 or CR 165? From the presentation of the infobox, I can't tell. Apparently they're the termini of both designations since both are jointly given in the name location of the infobox.
 * 5) Is CR 165 really a part of the Missouri State Highway System? I don't think so, but the infobox implies otherwise.
 * 6) The lead is also not helpful.
 * 7) Is the name just "County Road 165" or is it "Taney County Road 165"? Why is the abbreviation missing?
 * 8) No mention of the history of CR 165 as a former segment of Route 165. For that matter, no mention of any history?
 * 9) The route description has some issues, but it's the least bad part. It would help the merger situation to break that section into three paragraphs: CR 165, Route 165/CR 165, CR 165 again.
 * 10) The history is just incomplete. Some dates would help, but again this is the least bad part.
 * 11) The RJL is another mess.
 * 12) You can't add numbers from one source with a precision of only a single decimal place (Google Maps) to numbers from another source with a precision of three decimal places (MoDOT) and get three decimals. You always have to round to the least precise figure. The solution is to respect the jurisdictional change and reset the mileposts. So 4.6 0.000 and yes. Then you can use MoDOT's more precise figures. At the other end, do the reverse, 8.413 0.0 and yes
 * 13) "Begins" and "ends" aren't directions. Remember, readers can read the column bottom-to-top to get the reverse direction of the roadway. Please use actual cardinal directions.
 * 14) Use yes so that "Route 165" isn't linked. When you link back to the same article, MediaWiki bolds the text. In this case, that bold "Route 165" violates the MOS.
 * 15) Also, put the Route 165 into the standard cells for the junction where it has its termini.

Merging the two related topics can be done, but they shouldn't be done as currently presented. The alternatives are separate articles, or giving CR 165 its own section at the bottom or the article, as M-554 has at the bottom of the M-553 article.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:21, May 8, 2020 (UTC)
 * I've restored some changes to being addressing these issues. More work needs to be done in copyediting the prose further.  Imzadi 1979   →   04:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)