Talk:Selma and Meridian Railroad

·

Merger proposal

I propose that Alabama and Mississippi Rivers Railroad be merged into Selma and Meridian Railroad. We're talking about a single company here, with a rename. As written the two articles contain a good deal of overlapping material, which is somewhat confusing. See North Pennsylvania Railroad for an admittedly minor example of an article handling multiple company names. Mackensen (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose but with possible editing of the articles to simplify and clarify the progression of earlier and later companies (addition: now done, February 16). These two companies involve a name change but each iteration may have some separate history. That is not the only reason smaller companies changed in the early days of railroads and combining those company articles could result in loss of information or being able to follow the continuity. I have some concern that other such proposals could follow. That could even happen here, especially for railroad buffs trying to find specific 19th and early 20th century railroad histories.

There are still many, mainly small railroads, whose histories still need to be included. Such detail as is provided in the historic progression in other articles may be all that exists in Wikipedia about them at this time.

Railroads have a long history of name changes (often due to bankruptcies or reorganizations) mergers or other combinations and leases. Ultimately, many hundreds of companies, some with distinct histories and progressions, result in just a few dozen larger companies and ultimately fewer than ten major companies today. More or less detail can be found about each company in the progression. The proposal doesn't propose anything like the book-like articles that would result if the process resulted in only a few dozen articles about large companies were included with long corporate and developmental histories, and such incidents as might be found. But it could head in that direction - which ultimately might lead to calls to cut down the long railroad articles with loss of detail.

Name changes are not the only progressions in the corporate history of railroads. There are combinations of various kinds. Each company in the progression may have individual history including track built or abandoned or notable details.

Railroad history buffs could be looking for information on how the early companies progressed and what is known about them. They also may be looking for the few companies of the many hundreds (thousands, actually) of railroad companies that were directly associated or part of the progression. They may want to find which stretches of track were included in what predecessor companies, for example, and how the companies grew - or disappeared into others.

Since combining articles could eventually result in culling out details and losing the more easily found progression of the history provided by smaller articles, I would not like to see this progression and potential loss of information or at least continuity. Each successor company in turn may have other smaller companies that combined with it and are not shown in the article on one stream of predecessors. All of that information would need to be included in more detail as larger companies, not just successors, are formed, which could result in longer articles, eventually. The progressions might be included but eventually the older companies which have the progressions might be linked and only later companies included as part of the still later, bigger companies.

Not every small or successor or predecessor railroad has an article. At least stubs could be written for all of them but that would take quite some time to finish as many are missing. Those gaps could also result in the loss of the historic progression if the details, or even mention of these companies, are culled out of articles on later companies.

While the two companies involved as part of the proposal might share some continuity, the later companies in particular may have some different prior histories.

The precedent of combining such articles could lead to calls for other combinations of articles that could result more in the loss of history that in the culling out of overlap. This would especially be true if the articles were combined because of historic progressions that did not result from simple name changes without combination of companies with different histories.

I think it is important to keep and to be able to find the continuity in the history of the companies and the stretches of track they included and any notable incidents or persons connected with them. If these articles need to be cut somewhat for clarity, I would rather see the articles kept as separate articles but cut by describing only such specific detail as is available the history of the individual small company and merely listing the predecessor and successor companies up to one of the large prominent companies from the late 1890s or somewhat later. That might simplify the articles.

Thus after introducing the name and dates connected with the subject of the article, the article could then add, generically, "the company was preceded by x in this year and y in that year, etc." Then any other details about the stretches of track or history of the subject company during the time period it existed could be added. It could be concluded by the company was then succeeded by or merged into "a, b and c in certain years, ultimately resulting in merger into Southern Railway Company in 1894." (That would not always be the end of the line but it is the large company which is well known and lasted for a considerable time with respect to these railroads.) Then readers could see the progression without additional language and detail.

Articles on the other companies would be linked and the reader could go to those articles to see any more specific details only about those companies in those articles. It might be clearer if some detail could be eliminated from each article - though it may be more the presentation than the detail that might cause confusion here.

Railroad history can be confusing and detailed. Maybe this is actually part of the reason history buffs like to delve into it. I have researched one company which is the subject of an article. Some details are not quite right, some are missing, some seem confusing. I still need to fill in a few blanks before I can change, mostly add to, the article with confidence.

I apologize if I have rambled on for too long - perhaps I am writing this at the wrong time of day for me. In any event, I take several factors into account to come to the conclusion that I would prefer to see the articles edited and simply refer to other companies in the corporate history by links where other details about other time periods can be found. The progressions could be kept in the articles up to the point where the larger railroads are created. Quite a few direct predecessors are still needed to be included in those articles to show where the location of the tracks of those companies, and a few other details, come from.

Thanks for considering my thoughts on the matter. Donner60 (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I certainly need no reminder that railroad history can be confusing and detailed, hence this proposal. If the articles are going to remain separate, then Alabama and Mississippi Rivers Railroad should have a hard stop at 1864, with readers directed to Selma and Meridian Railroad for further corporate history. In the present state of affairs the story of the railroad from 1864–1871 is told in both articles. Entire paragraphs are duplicated between them. The opening paragraph on Selma and Meridian Railroad was obviously copied from Alabama and Mississippi Rivers Railroad, because it includes a sentence about the name change! There's nothing in Alabama and Mississippi Rivers Railroad which isn't repeated in Selma and Meridian Railroad. I think a single article can tell the story of this company more clearly. Compare with Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad#History, where several name changes occurred early in the company's history. There's also a good deal in both articles concerning railroads which aren't part of this company's corporate structure, which again makes it (as an outsider to the topic but a railroad buff) hard to read. I don't want to lose any information; I do want the information that we have to presented more clearly. Mackensen (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mackensen: I want to be clear that despite my too long ramble, I am not emotionally invested in this nor do I take a hard line position. I think we are thinking along the same lines concerning not letting information fall through the cracks. That is my main point along with trying to be sure the corporate continuity and development, mainly through construction, abandonment and combination, are not lost. I know I have included a few "slippery slope" comments but as long as these things are approached on a case by case basis and keep the unique information and appropriate corporate connections in such articles, we will be fine. When I wrote the two articles, I think that I was trying to have them stand alone and show the changes in the companies and properties up to their inclusion in Southern Railway Company. I may have not taken enough time with them and that approach may have been unnecessarily duplicative and somewhat unclear. I would likely write them differently now.

The desirability of a somewhat different approach is necessary to keep in mind for the future. Although I have other history interests and have been mainly reviewing recent changes for too long a time, I do intend to get back to filling in articles on the missing early railroad companies as well as other content work.

The apparent need for some improvement of these articles is why with even a brief current glance, I realized the articles could be simplified and improved even if both are kept. I will try to do that within the next two days. If you think that the articles remain unsatisfactory after that, of course, you can either edit them further or renew the proposal. I don't think much time will be needed. I put this time limit on myself because I may be offline except for brief periods of time, if at all, for as much as a month or so because I need to attend to a close relative who is having a serious operation and likely will need quite a lot of attention for a few weeks at least.

Thanks for your effort to improve these articles. That is part of the purpose of the project as you know. Certainly one can think he has done decent enough work on a topic but looking back at it can see that improvements are possible or necessary. Donner60 (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I have edited, and I trust I have clarified, the two articles and added a new article about the Alabama Central Railroad. As I noted, I will be offline most, or all, of the time for about a month. Donner60 (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Closing merge proposal given that the articles have now been separated in terms of their scope, and the discussion has been stale for more than a year. Klbrain (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

American Civil War

As time permits, probably later in March, I will do a little research to see whether some facts can be found about the company during the American Civil War. Donner60 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)