Talk:Washington State Route 21

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Washington State Route 21. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326014935/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/PDF_and_ZIP_Files/Annual_Traffic_Report_2007.pdf to http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/PDF_and_ZIP_Files/Annual_Traffic_Report_2007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Merger with British Columbia Highway 41
British Columbia Highway 41 is a continuation of State Route 21 and is less than a mile long. There is no point in giving it a stubby article instead of continuing it here. This kind of merge is not unprecedented, as British Columbia Highway 15 is merged with its short Washington State counterpart, State Route 543. I propose the article about BC 41 be integrated into this article Zacharycmango (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - They are separate highways and do not share a common number. I'd argue for splitting SR 543 from its BC counterpart, given that it could stand alone now that it has better sources.  Sounder Bruce  04:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SounderBruce. I urge the nominator to not suggest any more mergers like this and at the one at US 395. –Fredddie™ 12:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason why most of us become editors is because we weren't satisfied with the status quo. I understand that some mergers have more merits than others, but to discredit all my current and even future proposals is not conductive. Zacharycmango (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose—the two subjects do not share a number, which would be the first requirement before looking at any merger. I find the other merged article to be a suboptimal merger for a number of reasons, and that combination should be reversed and not replicated. (There are issues with mixing measurement systems from the sources, issues with the infobox, etc.)I also suggest that the nominator reflect on the feedback here and consider it in the future when considering additional merger proposals. That is how I read Fredddie's comments: as constructive feedback.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * After careful consideration of the feedback received from all parties, it seems merging is not a popular option. However, I do think it is still very notable to mention that the highway connects to BC 3 almost immediately after crossing the border. Most people approaching the border on this rural highway are doubtless planning to cross it and drive onto BC 3. Zacharycmango (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why? We rarely mention the roadway at the opposite terminus of a connecting roadway if it's not mentioned in highway signage.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)