Talk:Dixie Highway

message: I've seen this name applied to several routes:
*This 1924 map, this website and this 1949 article label the route between Jacksonville and Macon as the Central Dixie Highway. (Note that in 1924 the western division still ended in Tallahassee.) This 1917 article calls it the central Georgia division.
*This website applies it to the Jupiter-Indiantown Road in Florida, called the South Florida Connector on this website.
--NE2 21:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Central Dixie Highway

message: It must be noted that when people in the Midwest today refer to Dixie Highway they are speaking about  Interstate 75 which runs from Canada to Miami.
:If this is true, you should be able to attribute it to a reliable source. --NE2 13:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interstate 75 

message: Noting that the "Cultural references" section was deleted, I thought it worth discussing whether this was an appropriate move.  As a point of comparison, the article U.S. Route 66 has a subsection entitled Route 66 and pop culture, and the highway has become enough a cultural icon that I don't think an argument for the removal of the section would pass muster.  Dixie Highway may not have as much notoriety as Route 66, but it has enough enough that it is worth asking, can a case be made for Dixie Highway being enough of a cultural icon that it deserves mention in the article?  --Mwalimu59 21:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find sources that state that it has become a cultural icon, sure. A few songs that mention it does not count. --NE2 02:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Since I posted the original comment above, the "in popular culture" section has been removed from U.S. Route 66 and relegated to a couple of sentences in the article header.  If a popular culture section is no longer considered appropriate for that highway, I doubt if a case can be made for putting one back in this article or any other about a highway.  --Mwalimu59 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural references 

message: This is a bit too detailed, at least without figures from other years:
:By 1925 the Dixie Highway system had 5,786 miles of paved roads. In places it incorporated older local and county paved roads.
This is true of all old roads:
:In rural areas, the paved portion was often just a single lane; when two vehicles needed to pass each other, one or both needed to pull partway onto the road's shoulder. 
And this needs a reference:
:Much of the southern portion of the highway was paved with brick from Alabama.
--NE2 13:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from the article

message: It has been suggested that this be split up, but no rationale has been added to the talk page. At this time, I oppose such an effort as premature. The parent article at the moment is not so overly detailed, nor so overly lengthy, as to call for a split. We can concentrate our editing here for now to improve this article, and if we get too much per WP:SIZE, then we can talk about a split. Imzadi 1979 →  01:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I also oppose a split. At this time, I do not see why the Dixie Highway or any other auto trail should have a state-detail page as all the information can be covered in the main article without overburdening it. Should the main article be greatly expanded, then it may be split into state-detail pages similar to the Interstates and U.S. Routes. Dough4872 05:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Oppose.  Not enough content. Plain and simple. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 00:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spitting into state-detail articles