Talk:U.S. Route 127

Route Length

[1] Pfft. Forgot about Droz's website. Duh. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 15:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Mixed-up directions

It looks like the list of states has been rearranged so that the states are now listed from south to north. However, the routes within each state are still described from north to south. Am I alone in finding this very confusing? --Orlady 05:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The states were likely rearranged to be south-to-north per project standards, but the descriptions weren't updated at the same time. I agree that it is confusing, but the only thing that can be done is to fix the descriptions state-by-state to read south-to-north. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

After nearly 11 years from the time this thread was started, the last segment in the wrong direction is gone. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

US 127 in Ohio

I have changed the section on US 127 in Ohio to more accurately describe the path of the highway north of Cincinnati.

The biggest issue I saw was that Hamilton was listed as a "rural" community, despite being much larger than the other towns in the list, and being within 8 miles of two interstate highways (3 miles west of I-75, 8 miles north of I-275).

There are also three rural communities along US 127 between Hamilton and Eaton, so I added those to the list. I also mentioned that US-127 travels through the city of Fairfield before entering Cincinnati's northwestern suburbs (Fairfield isn't really considered a suburb of Cincinnati).

Oldiesmann (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Content removed from Ohio section

An addition I had recently made to the Ohio section was reverted due to "undue weight". WP:UNDUE is actually a function of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, and my edit was not controversial.

I believe what the reverting editor meant to cite was WP:DETAIL, under the Wikipedia:Summary style editing guideline.

As it currently stands, I do not believe the brief Ohio section of this article is particularly well-written or informative compared to the other states' sections. Must I then split this, IMO, deficient section into its own article? I absolutely do not want to lose the content I've added, as it is quite relevant to "US 127 in Ohio" and would be welcome in a standalone article.

Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Chaswmsday: this is an article about US 127 on a national level. The amount of detail added is simply undue weight: it's a single intersection singled out for a full paragraph that is almost as long as another paragraph in the section covering the entire state of Ohio. Maybe that amount of content would be appropriate in a separate article that provides an appropriately detailed coverage of U.S. Route 127 in Ohio, but it's overkill in this context. Imzadi 1979 → 11:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: What then to do with this content? As you have read the Ohio section yourself, do you agree that it is too deficient to be split into a standalone?

And I still disagree with the categorization as "undue weight". --Chaswmsday (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Chaswmsday: a separate U.S. Route 127 in Ohio article should be written. It should have an appropriate route description section detailing the routing the highway follows through the state. That article should then have a history section written detailing the various changes to the highway in Ohio since US 127 was created in 1926. And the biggest reason that such and article should be created is that we do not yet have a tabular junction list in any location for US 127 within Ohio. If all of that were done appropriately, the paragraph added here would fit into that article well. That said, no, the current level of content here on Ohio is not enough to warrant a direct split, so any editor creating this missing article would need to do some additional writing. Imzadi 1979 → 18:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)