Talk:Sunset Highway (Oregon)

Merge discussion
Material here is by definition redundant to U.S. Route 26 in Oregon. – Kacie Jane (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And by the same token material in Oregon is by definition redundant to United States. But we don't want to merge everything upwards (and as I will cover later they are not actually redundant, just overlapping). Here, "Sunset Highway" is notable, and thus should have its own article. If you merge it like you did Oregon 18B, then you will likely lose the detail, and you would likely lose the more zoomed in map and images. Plus, you would actually create a problem of WP:UNDUE since the detail coverage of the Sunset would be far more than the rest of the US26 article, and not in proper proportion. Now you could then add those additional details for the rest of US26 across Oregon, but then you might have a really bloated article. Which would then lead to the need to split off sections, such as the Sunset portion. Anyhow, in general, merges are alternatives to deletion. And none of those rationales actually applies here, since this is not non-notable, nor a tiny stub not likely to grow, and lastly, they are not redundant. Redundant would be if they both covered the same material, and they do not. This article only covers the section of US26 from like I405 to US101. US26 covers a lot more turf. Redundant for Wikipedia would be having an article on World War I, the First World War, the War to End All Wars, and the Great War. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a distinction that gets complicated by Oregon having officially named highways that don't always correspond to a specific signed route number. For a select few named highways, I could see having a separate article due to the named highway following more than one numbered route. In this case, where the named highway appears to follow only one numbered route, I think the argument in favor of a merge is much more concrete. Should they be merged, I'd suggest the Sunset Highway information be placed under a separate subheading or otherwise made distinct from the rest of the information. --  LJ  ↗  19:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Aboutmovies, take a look, for example, at Interstate 70 in Colorado, a featured article. Note in particular the subsections of the route description and history section. If the article on U.S. 26 in Oregon were to make it to that stage, it would have to talk in depth about each section of the route, including the section from Cannon Beach to Portland. It would have to include the route's entire history, such as when each section (such as the Sunset Highway) was built and was added to the state highway system. And all that information would be duplicated in this article.

You may be confused on the definition of redundant. It does not mean that they are exactly the same. The two articles do cover the same thing. The U.S. Route 26 in Oregon article covers the section of highway from I-405 to US 101, just like this article does. It just happens to cover the other sections of that route, as well, which is what makes it the perfect target for a merge. – Kacie Jane (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, the information about Sunset Highway can adequately be covered in the US 26 in OR article.  Dough 48  72  01:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * KJ: no, they do not cover the same thing. US 26 is redundant to the Sunset Highway, but not vice versa. The Sunset Highway article mentions zero about Redmond, meanwhile Redmond is mentioned in US26. What's more, is why not merge US26 back into U.S. Route 26, which by your definition is also redundant? As to your FA example, it is getting to the point where it "May need to be divided" due to the size. And, per your argument, to get that article to FA we would need to cover the Oregon items indepth, thus creating your redundancy. Again, we can always upmerge topics, but just because we can does not mean we should. We break things off into smaller articles for a variety of reasons. Here I think a roughly 75 mile stretch that includes one of the busiest freeways in the state that is far more often referred to as the Sunset than 26, simply makes more sense. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Aboutmovies' arguements are far more compelling. We would lose more than gain by the merge.  --Tesscass (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems like kind of a silly issue. Why not just have a link within the US26 article to the Sunset Highway main article which focuses, as the current Sunset Highway article does, on a description and history section of that road? This is not unlike the way the California State Route 2 article has a link out to the well-known and named Angeles Crest Highway segment. Seems like for well-known named roads, it's worthwhile to provide that info (and as a side note, it would be nice to see the same kind of treatment for other well-known named segments which are currently shoehorned into the numbered articles, like the Pacific Coast Highway and the Santa Monica Freeway). --Esprqii (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If this article looked like the Angeles Crest Highway article, then there would be absolutely no doubt that these should be kept split. We do break things off into smaller articles for a variety of reasons, and I think we can and should do that if our coverage of US 26 in Oregon gets to that point – which I don't think it has yet.
 * Regarding the FA example, no, it has not got to the point where it "may need to be divided". If it were, it wouldn't have passed its featured article nomination.  That is the sort of article we should be aspiring to, single articles that are broad in their coverage, not many short articles.
 * My point is this. I'd like to start cleaning up and fleshing out the articles on Oregon highways.  When I write an expanded route description for U.S. Route 26 in Oregon, it's going to include everything that's currently in this article.  So essentially, it's going to be merged anyway.  The only question is whether we redirect Sunset Highway to point there, or whether we needlessly keep duplicate information in two places.  You're obviously pretty strongly opposed, so if you want to keep the information here, I'm not going to stand in your way, but I just don't see the point. – Kacie Jane (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If the goal is to make the article as good as Angeles Crest Highway--which would require it to be split out to a separate article--why wouldn't you just expand the description in the already-existing Sunset Highway article rather than duplicate the effort in another article? That doesn't make sense to me. If your point is that Sunset Highway is never going to be significant enough to warrant a separate article, that's one thing. But it seems like we should try first before merging it back, expanding it, and then possibly separating it back out as a separate article. So how about this: let's leave it separate for now since it already is that way; then you, and anyone else who might be interested, put in the work to see if it can become a strong, separate article. Then if after a while we all realize that there just isn't enough there, we can merge it as you proposed. What do you think? (And of course this is a challenge to the WP:ORE folks.) --Esprqii (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A fine end goal would be to make this article as great as the Angeles Crest Highway, sure. But a more attainable intermediate goal (at least for now) would be to make the article on the longer highway well-rounded.  Then if you, or anyone else who might be interested, expands the Sunset Highway portion beyond what can be contained in the larger article, I have zero objections to it being split out.
 * My argument is simply this. It is far more likely that the article on the whole highway will become a strong article first, and will need to use the content that is here to do so anyway. – Kacie Jane (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my goal (right now) is to make the U.S. Route 26 in Oregon article as good as the one on Angeles Crest Highway, and the other quality articles mentioned here. The reason I would choose that one is because I know that there is enough there, whereas I'm skeptical there's enough information out there to cover a portion of the route beyond what could be contained in the larger article. – Kacie Jane (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Currently I would support a merge; however, I would support having separate articles once the content has been expanded. There are precedents for doing both. In my opinion, the question should be: If we have two separate articles, is there enough content left in both articles such that they are relatively solid without being redundant to each other. For example, Million Dollar Highway currently redirects to U.S. Route 550. I've driven and am an avid fan of the Million Dollar Highway, and do think that a unique FA quality article could be written about just that section of US-550. However, currently there is not enough content to merit splitting the articles. Were they split in the article's current form, we would be left with 2 stub articles, instead of 1 start article. Similar to what Kacie Jane proposes with US-26, and assuming nobody else plans to expand US-550, I plan to keep them merged for now. I would split once enough content has been added to meet the above mentioned threshold. An example of what this would look like once expanded would be the Pasadena Freeway which is a section of California State Route 110. Both articles peacefully co-exist and are relatively solid articles without much redundancy. Dave (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it appears that the road folks have some sort of rule that only FA article can exist, could you point the rest of us to that rule? Otherwise, as I pointed out with my first response here, the reasons we merge are not because the article is not yet FA (or even GA), but as an alternate to deletion. One reason is redundancy, the other is:
 * Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists. For example, information about family members of a celebrity who are not otherwise notable is generally included in, or merged into, the article on that celebrity. Stub pages about minor characters in works of fiction generally are merged into list articles.
 * Here, it seems people agree that there could in the future be a need to split it out. Well, then we don't merge it since that means it is not "unlikely to be expanded". The article as it is, is start class and with a little work is easily C class. It is not a stub, it is not a really short article of a few sentences. It is not the type of article we merge. A merger candidate would be West Valley Highway into Oregon Route 18 Business, as those are almost exactly (if not exactly) the same highway. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) My only point, and then I'll shut up and support whatever you all think is best, is that we have the split article already. We're not talking about creating a new one. To me, it seems silly to put it back into a bigger article basically to expand that article, with the eventual goal of splitting it back out. Certainly, if no separate article existed, it makes more sense to expand the master article first; but that's not the situation here. I suspect that the Interstate 70 article didn't start out as one article that had to bulge at the seams before being broken out into separate articles by state. --Esprqii (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that every article must be an FA, nor did I mean to imply it. I was merely trying to show an example of what an ideal highway-related article looks like, and how it is possible for an article like U.S. 26 in Oregon to cover Sunset Highway adequately.
 * Also, just because they mention merging as an alternative to deletion doesn't mean that it's the only reason to merge. I certainly don't want to see anything get deleted.  What I am saying is that since this material has to be in the U.S. Route 26 in Oregon article, what's the point of duplicating it here?
 * And I do agree that there could in the future be a need to split it back out, but that doesn't mean it's likely to be expanded anytime soon. Looking at the edit history, there hasn't been any content added to this article in over a year and a half.  To me that indicates that it's unlikely to be expanded.  (And yes, you could make the same argument that the US 26 article hasn't been touched in quite some time either.  My point is that I could – and will – expand that article quite easily by merging – or copy-and-pasting without redirecting – this material in and fleshing out the route description of the other 2/3 to 3/4 of the route.)
 * Esprqii, you're probably about half right regarding Interstate 70. You're wrong when you say that it didn't start out as one article; the article on the whole highway was created long before people decided to split off/create articles on individual states.  But you're right in the sense that they got split off long before they needed to be, and got expanded independently of the main article after they got split.  (Also, part of the reason for splitting something like I-70 or US 26 by states is because the resources are different – different DOTs maintain the highway, different newspapers covered its history, etc.  That doesn't apply nearly as much when you're discussing parts of a highway within a state.)  The eventual goal might be to split this article back off, but from where I sit, I think we're a long way from that being necessary. – Kacie Jane (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Back to the FA items. I'm not saying you alone are saying that, but that is the impression given by the road people when write "and do think that a unique FA quality article could be written about just that section of US-550. However, currently there is not enough content to merit splitting the articles." As to the need to split out larger article, trust me, FA would pass it even if it was larger, as they don't care that much how big it is (here is a list of the ten largest that would all need to be split out). Size is more of an accessibility issue, not a quality issue. From personal experience with Hillsboro, Oregon size was mentioned at peer review or FAC, but in the end they didn't care as to promoting.
 * With your "What I am saying is that since this material has to be in the U.S. Route 26 in Oregon article, what's the point of duplicating it here?" Actually, I hope not. The amount of materiel that could go into the Sunset Article would be way out of proportion with the US 26 article if both are fleshed out. Last week when I was doing some work with WPA items I came accross probably 30-50 articles in one newspaper concerning WPA work on what was then the Wolf Creek Highway. And that was a search not meant to find sources on that work, which only did something like the last 60 miles from about Banks to the coast. There is still the freeway section from about 217 to Banks that was completed in 1948. And the numerous expansions since then. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When I say "this material has to be duplicated", I'm referring to material currently in the article. The four paragraphs that we're looking at right now would be duplicated, but I certainly agree this article could be expanded beyond that.  The impression I (and I assume Dave as well) am trying to give with FA talk isn't that all articles need to be FA right now otherwise they're not worth having – of course they're worth keeping around – but in a perfect world, all articles would be FA at some point, and when we're editing we should be working towards that goal.  I think it's certainly possible that both articles could be wonderful at some point, but I thought that the best way to go about doing that would be to focus on one article for now, and split them when/if they needed to be split.
 * Clearly I'm not convincing you, and that's perfectly fine. Let's just go back to editing the articles, and maybe we'll revisit this issue when we see how the two articles have come along.
 * On a related note, generally speaking, "the roads people" like me lump bannered routes like Oregon Route 18 Business into the parent route – since being bannered makes them somewhat less notable/important than the parent route – which is why I merged that without a formal proposal/discussion/etc.  If you want to keep those split as well, that's fine with me. I see they have separate highway numbers/names, so that may be a reason to treat them separately.  However, I feel pretty strongly that 104 and 104S (which I've already merged), 42 and 42S (which I haven't merged yet), and 223 and 223S (which were never separate articles) should be merged. – Kacie Jane (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)