Talk:State Road 4081 (Florida)

I don't think it's a good idea to merge this article with the soon-to-be-loaded SR 408 article, which is sure to expand as construction continues in the Orlando area. SR 4080 is already there, and currently NONE of the information in the SR 4081 article is in the SR 408 article. "State Road 4081" is a unique route (after all, there is no pavement and no traffic); this article is fine as it is. In fact, it could use the picture that SPUI used for it on his prior site to complete it. To merge would be to lose a part of its uniqueness. Let it be. B.Wind 05:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Apparently someone does not. So much for consensus. 147.70.242.39 19:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a former section of SR 408 what was abandoned when SR 408 was extended. The only reference for the 4081 number is an FDOT internal database. There is nothing to say that cannot be said in the SR 408 article. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 23:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So there's still no consensus, and deleting the stand-along SR 4081 diminishes Wikipedia slightly. As you so fervently asserted elsewhere, since it was given a SR number, it is significant enough to have its own article (unlike, say, something that was proposed and later killed, perhaps?). I don't see the point of the redirect aside of the possibility that you tired of the original article and simply wanted it removed. The uniqueness should be preserved - and not buried in a much larger article. 147.70.242.39 23:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is lost - it's just in a better place. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 23:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good joke, son - the UNIQUENESS is lost amongst the detail overload of SR 408. Did you bother to look at the reference showing the picture of SR 4081? The article on SR 4081 is more likely to survive AfR than, say, the one on the Central Connector, a road that never existed -- and at least the SR 4081 reference showed where it was (and whatever did happen to the SR 4081 picture on your former site, by the way?). OBTW... I still see no consensus for a merge or a move, and for that reason alone, the article should be left alone... at least for now. 147.70.242.39 22:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"and whatever did happen to the SR 4081 picture on your former site, by the way?" What are you talking about? --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 14:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...the one you had in your terminus galleries of the SPUI Freeway - you know, the site to which you have an external link on your State Roads in Florida page labeled "Unofficial Florida route log"? Believe it or not, you have dozens of people in southern Florida who got interest in Florida State Roads past and present, thanks to that site, including yours truly. B.Wind 06:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... I still don't know what you're talking about. The only photo I may have had was an aerial photo of the right-of-way. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 06:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it was a ground level shot of the well-groomed right of way. I can provide the link (which has since been broken) if you so desire. The old link was on your defunct site (thank goodness for archive.org).B.Wind 12:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. And that's a great source for the fact that it's known by FDOT as SR 4081. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 14:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we agree. It also had the picture showing the right-of-way, not the retention pond. B.Wind 04:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've referred the matter of the merge to Wikipedia:Third opinion. I wholeheartedly agree (and State Road 913 (Florida) should go there as well to end the bullshit that has been going on for the past two or three weeks). In the meantime, I will ensure that this article remains intact until a decision is made by the third party... and SPUI should, too. B.Wind 12:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In the meantime, it would be best to leave the SR 4081 article intact in order for the Third Opinion process to work; otherwise no one else will see why you brought it to the dispute resolution process in the first place (never mind the biased description you gave on the listing: it was the old SR 408 right-of-way as the former ramps straddled the retention pond. State Road 4081 was not the pond itself (although that would have added to the novelty of a State Road with no pavement and no traffic). B.Wind 04:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • There was no pond when SR 4081 existed. The pond was added once SR 4081 was removed. SR 4081 no longer exists. It was never anything more than a temporary designation. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 06:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • At least it DID exist, unlike, say, the Central Connector, which never did. B.Wind 10:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Opinion:

Unfortunately, I really don't see the significance of a road that has "no pavement and no traffic", and "does not appear in Florida Department of Transportation public GIS data." The SR 408 article isn't that big, and I think a merge there would be the best option. --Hetar 06:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]