Talk:U.S. Route 27 in Georgia

message: There's no need for this section, as it's repetitive and unencyclopedic. S. Dean Jameson 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Banner routes" 

message: Why was the infobox for US 27 Alternate changed back to "un-small"? What is a "location transclusion issue"? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the small Infobox requires a location.  To see what happens when you change it to small, make the change, and preview your change - you will see a new category at the bottom to do with the transclusion issue.  Since the actual location does span multiple counties, I would argue that the regular Infoboc is more appropriate in any case, unless the counties can be indicated on the small Infobox. Concertmusic (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't realize that there would be an issue for that. I think you could put the terminii of the route in the infobox. Did you check with WikiProject U.S. Roads, to see if there is any other way to rectify this issue? By the way, I, too, want to "betterize" the Georgia State Route articles. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not asked around.  BTW - I just read up on non-breaking spaces after seeing your reversion, and learned something already today - I'll start inserting them in future articles I edit. Georgia road articles can use all the help we can provide! Concertmusic (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  is used for alternate routes, so it should be used for US 27 Alternate, and the location should be Columbus–Carrollton. –TCN7JM 15:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, all those bannered routes should go into Bannered routes of U.S. Route 27 and stop cluttering this article.  If a route is notable enough, and I'm talking about US 27 Alt. specifically, it may be wise to split it out into its own article.  I don't think anybody will bite anyone's head off for doing so. –Fredddie™ 15:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my. I didn't see how long US 27 Alt. was. Almost 100 miles? Hmm. Yeah, I guess it could be split into its own article. –TCN7JM 15:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  with everything I mentioned. –Fredddie™ 16:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about possibly overlapping you - still learning the semantics (doing versus done - shouldn't be that difficult to figure out!  I like the net effect - thank you! Concertmusic (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Please let me know if you will be doing so, or if you'd like me to - thank you! Concertmusic (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Go right ahead. –Fredddie™ 17:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  US&nbsp;27 Alternate infobox 

message: I noticed that the history section was revamped and expanded to be much, much longer than it was before. I'm pretty sure I'm far from the only one to say that he or she won't actually bother to read the new content. Paragraph breaks are a great thing; without them, the text is very hard to read. Imzadi 1979 →  22:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You also need to watch repetition.  The word 'segment' is used 110 times in the new history section.  There are also 238 en dashes on the page, though that includes the junction list and references. –Fredddie™ 00:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Surface', especially 'Completed (semi) hard surface', is used way too many times.  To reply to Imzadi1979's point, I didn't read the whole thing.  Patterns stuck out to me and I did a  to highlight them. –Fredddie™ 00:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

text: A quick comment regarding reference, but we need to watch anachronisms. I don't think GDOT was the agency's name in the 1940s, as just one example. Imzadi 1979 →  00:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walls of text