Talk:River Arts District

Merger proposal
I was not aware of Wilma Dykeman RiverWay Plan when I created River Arts District as a draft. I still don't think the River Arts District article is quite ready for mainspace but I couldn't propose a merger without it being there. The RiverWay Plan article has a lot of valuable information that needs to be in the River Arts District article, and it is my opinion that most of the content of the RiverWay Plan article belongs in the article about the district rather than the RiverWay Plan article.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  16:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's another idea. I can take my article and move its content, since I am the only one who has contributed to my article. That will make attribution simpler. Then we can decide whether a move is warranted, which of course would mean rearranging text. Is Wilma Dykeman RiverWay Plan really entitled to its own article, or is it better to make it a section in the River Arts District article?— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Correction: and a bot. But this will still work. Koavf removed something that won't be in the final product and the bot added something that will be gone in the final product.—  Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My tags are trivial and my contributions are in the public domain. No need to credit me. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. It doesn't matter anyway because it looks like the better option is to leave some of the Wilma Dykeman RiverWay Plan content where it is and move to River Arts District what really belongs there. I'm trying that, just to show how it would look, even though it makes attribution more tricky, but there is a formal process for acknowledging copying of text from one article to another. I haven't asked anyone to do it, but I'd appreciate someone taking a look at what I've done. The lede of Wilma Dykeman RiverWay Plan is somewhat excessive but my desired final result would have only a brief summary of what is under the history sections, keeping the "parks and greenways" sections, and then the text now in the lede divided between the lede and one or two more sections. Everything under the "history" sections has been incorporated into River Arts District, though I will admit at this point it looks a little strange. The end of the River Arts District is far from complete and that's obvious. Some of the details from the "parks and greenways" sections left in the Wilma Dykeman RiverWay Plan article should probably go in the River Arts District article.


 * And if anyone disagrees, that's what a discussion is for.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed irrelevant information because the River Arts District is the more appropriate place. I left just enough background information (I hope).— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)