Talk:U.S. Route 60/62 in Illinois

Untitled
Hmmm... I don't know for sure that it entered Illinois after the Mississippi River Bridge opened - it may have continued to use the ferry until the Ohio River Bridge opened, but that's rather doubtful, given that US 51 had to use an Ohio River ferry. --SPUI (T - C) 05:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind - hell yeah. --SPUI (T - C) 05:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge
Note: this discussion was moved from WT:USRD

I have put merge tags up for this article, discuss here.Mitch/HC32 19:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Links please?Dave (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Check the header. 0.92 of a mile ain't that worthy.Mitch/HC32 19:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want the discussion to take place here, you might want to fix the merge templates, as they point the discussion to 2 different pages. For the record, Merge why does this article exist?Dave (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I put two on purpose, as it is two separate highways on a concurrency.Mitch/HC32 21:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Due to the highway's short length in Illinois, I would suggest the information in this article be merged into the US 60 and US 62 articles. The problem is, where should "U.S. Route 60/62 in Illinois" be redirected to? Dough4872 (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say merge the content to the US 60 and US 62 articles and nominate this article/the post-merge redirect for AFD/RFD. Although, from what I've seen lately, AFD is incredibly reluctant to delete items that were phased out through merges (probably for edit history reasons) so it'd probably save everyone time if this was just redirected to either US 60 or US 62. I agree though, there really is no ideal target for the redirect. –  T M F 23:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think deletion is the best scenario, although if that doesn't work we could convert to a disambig page... --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say just pick one, let's go with U.S. Route 60. IMO it doesn't really matter as this is such an unlikely search term. Even if someone did search for this more than likely they would still find the right pages in the results.Dave (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Something that could work would be to have all the Illinois-specific US 60 redirects point to US 60 and all the Illinois-specific US 62 redirects point to US 62. Meanwhile, the US 60-62 redirects could continue to redirect to U.S. Route 60/62 in Illinois, which would become a disambiguation page as Rschen suggested with links to the US 60 and US 62 articles. Dough4872 (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this idea is feasible. –  T M F 20:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it okay if I undertake it? Dough4872 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd go ahead and do it. –  T M F 00:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Dough4872 (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)