Talk:U.S. Route 166

Removing content
I just re-removed content, and I agree with others that it isn't appropriate here. I mentioned three reasons, and I'll expound here better.


 * 1) It's overly detailed. A good highway history section details the changes made to the routing to arrive at the current condition. We don't need such an explication of the old routing. Some of the details as written are just too much (the hay bales, physical descriptions of specific buildings, specific business names and addresses, etc) and really I don't think we need all of the street names of the old highway alignment. Also, that much text for just two counties in one of the states? Sorry, but that's overkill.
 * 2) It reads like Original Research. Again, some of the details here can only come from someone driving the roadway, not based upon information gleaned from published sources, like maps.
 * 3) It's full of inappropriate or improper external links. We don't use external links inline. If a subject is going to be linked, it should be linked to its Wikipedia article. If it lacks an article, we'll have a redlink. We don't use an external link instead. Such links only belong inside references or at the end of the article in the external links section.

 Imzadi 1979  →   22:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is also WP:NOT a travel guide. --Rschen7754 05:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)