Talk:Rivers and Harbors Act

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merge[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. NortyNort (Holla) 16:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend merging the individual Act articles:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and these articles aren't very long or detailed, so I don't think each amending act needs its own article. LegalSkeptic 19:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Moreau1 (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Merge. If you look at Rivers and Harbors Act disambig page, you will see that there are several RHA. Each served to advance the scope (or intrusion, if you will) of the Federal Government into what could be termed local issues. Each served to advance the reach of the Corps of Engineers in some way or fashion. The reason they have not been expanded further is that my time was suddenly taken up with allegedly more important things. There is no doubt that the articles can be improved, and that is where one might want to focus. The challenge is not just listing the RHA but rather explaining the sociological and political aspects which they helped to define. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.