Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Userbox naming conventions

All of the userboxes listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canada_Roads#Userboxes, with the exception of one that I just changed, should be renamed to be "Template:User ...". Userboxes begin with that prefix. I've moved Template:Northwest Territories to {{User Northwest Territories Roads Wikiproject}} as an example of what needs to be done. --Durin 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nabox templates listed for deletion

{{AB Expressways}} has been listed for deletion (tfd) by KelvSYC (talk · contribs). Templates {{MB Expressways}} and {{BC Expressways}} have also been mentioned. Please share you opinion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 21. --Qyd 11:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge banners?

There are two banners used by this project: {{CANPR}} and {{Canada Roads WikiProject}}, they are very similar. I propose to merge them, or even better redirect {{CANPR}} to {{Canada Roads WikiProject}}. --66.82.9.85 18:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

I just tried to split up the Highway 401 (Ontario) entry, for a separate List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario), and was hit with a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario) while in progress; Moderators!!!

• (Help?)

Bacl-presby 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 15:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Subprojects nominated for deletion

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Canada highway WikiProjects. –Pomte 14:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Vote, and vote often!!

Bacl-presby 20:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• What can be done is create subpages to this project for the specific provinces and territories that groups of editors have active interest in, and set a parameter on {{CANPR}} (in fact, a lot of roads do not have this tag on their talk pages yet). –Pomte 20:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the Saskatchewan project page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/Saskatchewan. –Pomte 20:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Usage of Template:Infobox road

For the Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba highway pages, if we use Template:Infobox road in those pages, should we use a modification of that template so that it will show "Rural Municipalities" instead of/as well as "Counties"? The reason for this is that divisions within Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, which are the equivalent of the counties in other provinces and states, are officially named Rural Municipalities. Thank you. Ultraflame 01:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a parameter called rural_municipalities to appear at the same place as counties if no value for counties is given. If there are a lot of changes that need to be made, make a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. –Pomte 02:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not for Alberta, there they ae called either Counties or Municipal Districts. --Qyd 02:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Pomte. And I apologize for my incorrect statement. Ultraflame 02:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

New structure

I have added a skeletal structure to the project page. Comments and suggestions are welcome. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks great. –Pomte 00:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Check out the latest discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#Notability. It would be good to include a more worldwide notablity...thing. --MPD ^{T / C} 01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ontario county route shields

I've started making Ontario county route shields. It's just the general shape (it's a trapezoid?), with a number in it. It doesn't say the the county name or "COUNTY" or "REGION" in it, so they can be used in any application. I've only made like, 1-20 so far, and I won't get to the rest for another week or so. It will mainly be used for exit lists. Any objections, just let me know. --MPD ^{T / C} 02:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you leaving whitespace at the top and bottom, or is the number bigger to take up the spots where the words would be? A fast way can be to just crop text from Image:YRR1.png. Here's a gallery that might help for other purposes. –Pomte 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much what it looks like. This is actually the first time I've seen it on-Wiki, and it needs a little work. But before I go recropping them and all, any thoughts? I guess to anser your question, it's just without the words, and the number is a little smaller to compensate for 2-digit shields, then It'll be even smaller for three-digit shields. I'll make only until about 150, since that's the highest number I've seen. --MPD ^{T / C} 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that Ottawa route shields use a different shape, somewhat like the keystone except with rounded cornders. See Figure 1 example route marker in [1]. Dl2000 03:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A formatting problem with the WikiProject Canada Roads banner?

I first noticed this at Talk:List of Saskatchewan provincial highways. See how the banner "absorbs" the rest of the text on the page. The problem is also on the main WikiProject Canada Roads page; at the bottom, the list of expressway templates is completely within the example banner's borders (the banner "absorbed" the list). I'm not sure how the template is set up, so I unfortunately don't know how to fix it. Perhaps someone more experienced in templates can. Thank you. Ultraflame 00:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

For file names in this wikiproject, which example shall we go by:

1. Ontario Provincial Highway 3
2. Ontario Kings Highway 3
3. Ontario Highway 3
4. Highway 3 (Ontario)
5. Kings Highway 3 (Ontario)?

The official and legal designation is "Kings Highway" in Ontario, but this discussion applies to every other highway in canada.

I'd prefer "Ontario Highway 3", since it's unambiguous, the most concise and uses terminology everyone knows. Kirjtc2 20:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough... Possibly with starting off the article with that title, with "(Kings Highway)" in brackets, as shown? User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 01:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

1. 5 is good to me. I think it probably fits better.HurricaneCraze32 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ontario Provincial Highway 3. the word "provincial" to differentiate from "secondary". Also a redirect from Kings Highway if that isn't a disambig. --Qyd 02:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We should use (State Name) (Type) xx. A similar poll in the U.S. decided upon this principle. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Highway 69 (Ontario) is already the norm for how highways are listed, why should other roads deviate from this? Which is more likely to be used as a search term:
"Highway 69" or "Ontario Provincial Highway 69"
"County Road 8" or "Simcoe County Road 8"
already deviating from a norm of County Road 8 (Essex County, Ontario)

I would also like to point out that sub-categories (esp. Canadian County road categories) have already undergone a WP:CFD, on the grounds that a new catagory will have to be created for every country/county in Canada and every other country/county in the world. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

New IRC Channel for Roads of all countries

A new Internet Relay Chat channel called #wikipedia-en-roads has been opened! This channel is the main discussion channel for all of the roads WikiProjects and road/highway related topics. Small discussions as well as large meetings are held here. Logging is only permitted when a large meeting occurs, which will be logged in the subpage listed below. Come and join us! master son^{T - C} 00:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The link is busted. Can you find another access?Mitch^contribs 00:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

TFD nom

I have TFD'ed the Niagara highway navbox, the SK hwy navbox, and the MB navbox. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_29 --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Provincial/Territorial subprojects?

You know, if you adjusted the project banner to include "drop-down" tabs for all the areas, like the Template:WPBiography, Template:WPMILHIST, and others have, you could probably create work groups or task forces for all the areas. Just a thought. John Carter 19:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The subprojects have been sent to MFD. There are not enough editors to support task forces. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful anyway to have a province parameter, like the state one on template:infobox road template:USRD, so we can process statistics per province and easily convert if we do create a subproject in the future. It would of course take work, and this is one task I wouldn't do. It could be automated by bot though. --NE2 19:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... I'll look into it for the future. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Range Roads in Saskatchewan?

I tagged Range Road 3042 (Saskatchewan) for deletion. Why are so many of these apparently non-notable roads linked in Saskatchewan Highway 1? --NE2 15:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Next time, if you want to say something about Saskatchewan roads, please say it on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Saskatchewan. As for the links, they are because User:SriMesh linked Range and Township Roads on the List of Saskatchewan provincial roads, so I thought there was an intention to create articles for them. But I must say that I do not believe most of them are notable enough for their own articles, so it may be better to just have the list. Ultraflame 23:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:TCHshield.svg listed for deletion

It appears that this shield is still covered by crown copyright; see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:TCHshield.svg. If my analysis is incorrect, please give evidence to the contrary. Thank you. --NE2 15:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, another note: for the provinces where the shield is still copyrighted, like BC, we cannot use the shields anywhere but in the main article about the highway. (See Wikipedia:non-free content criteria.) However, it should be possible to make a simplified version that still looks similar but omits the copyrightable portions; mapmakers do this often. --NE2 17:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be game for that if possible. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious imperfections in it, how does this and this look? It was quickly made and still needs some polishing, but I'm not going to spend hours making something that won't be used. If we like it, I'll clean it up and upload a blank one. --MPD ^{T / C} 19:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks a little goofy, but not that bad, and really, what else would you do? So it has my support. --NE2 20:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So do we want shields with numbers, or just a blank shield? I don't know all the uses so I can't make this decision. --MPD ^{T / C} 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think all the numbers are in Category:Trans-Canada Highway. A few of the provinces, especially Quebec, don't put the number in the leaf though. --NE2 23:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reset Indent - The blank shields are for Ontario and Quebec. all other provinces I believe use numbers (and there are only a few numbers per province) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master son (talk • contribs) 23:49, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Number in the leaf is used for the following numbers:

• 1
• 2
• 16
• 100

Number below the leaf (Image:Nova Scotia Highway 104 (TCH).png) is used on 104, 105, and 106. Note that these are mainly for the 20x20px images in junction lists; the real ones can remain at the tops of infoboxes under fair use. --NE2 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. For consistency, I will put all the aforementioned numbers inside the leaf. Then we also don't have a weird-shaped image. I will also upload a blank (of course). I'll have those done and uploaded by tonight. Thanks for the info, NE2. --MPD ^{T / C} 12:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it'll even be accurate (except for the leaf shape) for some signs; see http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/20010609/tc100-3km.jpg (will have to copy/paste URL). --NE2 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, uploaded all necessary numbers at commons:Category:Road signs in Canada. Ignore the two with black boxes, those shouldn't have been uploaded. --MPD ^{T / C} 23:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've made the necessary changes to templates; they're now used on several articles including Nova Scotia Highway 104. --NE2 00:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Other shields

Alberta

Assuming the "Alberta" on Image:AB-provincial highway.png and Image:AB-secondary highway.png is a common font, nothing is copyrightable about that or any shields made with it. Otherwise just using the shape below will be fine. [2] shows a secondary variant with SECONDARY below; we'll have to research which is real.

British Columbia

Image:Bc2.png is copyrighted, but removing the top detail leaves just a U with a number and B.C., which isn't copyrightable.

Manitoba

Image:Manitoba Highway 10.png is copyrighted, but the slightly different older design on [3] is from the early 1950s at the latest and has thus expired. We should be able to use the current "Manitoba" text, assuming it's a common font.

New Brunswick

The outline is pretty distorted in Image:NB 1.png; it's not clear when that was adopted. Maybe we can fit it into an accurate outline.

Newfoundland and Labrador

None of the designs on [4] look copyrightable, assuming a public domain coat of arms.

Northwest Territories

[5] looks copyrightable, assuming the bear isn't public domain, but remove the bear, or find/draw a different one, and we're set.

Nova Scotia

The flag is public domain, and the rest is too simple, so Image:NShw 101.svg is public domain. Of course Image:NShw 1.png is, and don't even ask about Image:NSRoute204.PNG!

Ontario

The current design, except without "THE KING'S HIGHWAY", is from 1955, which is old enough. Adding "THE KING'S HIGHWAY" doesn't make it copyrightable. [6]

Prince Edward Island

The trees in [7] look copyrightable, but remove or replace them and you're set.

Quebec

Image:Qc132.png doesn't look copyrightable. Image:A-15.png... it depends where that overpass comes from.

Saskatchewan

Only the wheat sheaves in [8] are copyrightable.

Yukon

Yukon simply uses colored squares, though there are also separate logos assigned to all (?) routes. Of course a colored square is not copyrightable.

Any designs that were first posted more than 50 years ago are public domain. --NE2 00:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Saskatchewan provincial roads --NE2 02:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grasswood Road, Saskatchewan --NE2 07:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Provincial roads (descendant) wikiprojects

It looks like overkill. At least for now. Those wikiproject pages are just generic, nor even adapted to their specific object. I believe that just one wikiproject (this one, WikiProject Canada Roads), would suffice for the subject, with different users covering different regions. Having projects for each province-roads is just un-necessary fragmentation in my opinion. Thoughts? --Qyd 01:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:USRD has a similar setup that works perfectly. The provinces have vastly different highway systems. Someone does need to fix the WP pages though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been busy on the hurricanes but i'll work on them.Mitchazenia(8000+edits) 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support individual wikiprojects for each province. I have been messing around with the Nova Scotia road pages in relation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Nova Scotia, and would gladly join a Wikipedia:WikiProject Nova Scotia Roads (that doesn't link to WP:CR). Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 03:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

One person does not make a wikiproject. The reason they were redirected here in the first place is that they were inactive and no longer supported by editors. IMO, it would take a group of editors (such as five or so) to appear before I would support the "reincarnation" of a subproject. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Question about (was: British Columbia) naming

Why are articles like British Columbia provincial highway 1 not at British Columbia Highway 1? The Ministry of Transportation doesn't use the former. --NE2 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good question. I can start a mass move if there is a majority of support.Mitch32^contribs 16:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the Canada NCs are messed up, to be honest. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Manitoba's is almost cleaned up, except for 2 misnamed articles. Alberta's a complete mess. Saskatchewan is fine. Quebec is alright. Other than Alberta and BC, i see nothing wrong.Mitch32^contribs 16:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yukon, Northwest, and Nunavut are fine :) I don't see anything wrong with Ontario either, though some probably don't like its use of parentheses. It looks like Manitoba should use "Highway x". Quebec needs to capitalize Route. The others look fine at first view, but there may be some use of Route or Highway when the other should be used. I will definitely help with moves and subsequent cleanup; maybe we should also make a simple table like the one on WP:USSH. --NE2 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a table on the page. I have started the BC ones. Mitch32^contribs 17:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Agreed with the need for a better table; the one on this WP page was hastily made by me to replace a confusing bulleted list. I also agree with most of the sentiments in that comment, although the Northwest Terr. should use a capitalized highway (even though no standalone numbered articles exist =) ). --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Roads in the Northwest Territories has the three redirects that exist :) --NE2 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are my suggestions for "common name" for the table:

• Alberta: Highway x for all
• British Columbia: Highway x: though Route x is also used, Highway x seems more common, especially in the media, and is what we currently use
• Manitoba: Highway x and Provincial Road x: the full form of the former is Provincial Trunk Highway x; Highway x is also used for the latter but not as much
• New Brunswick: Route x
• Newfoundland and Labrador: Route x
• Northwest Territories: Highway x
• Nova Scotia: Highway x for arterial, Route x for collector and trunk: I'm not completely sure about trunk
• Ontario: Highway x
• Quebec: Autoroute x and Route x; I'm not sure about the unposted R-x routes, since they use that abbreviation for signed routes too, such as R-112. But we don't have ny articles on these, so we can cross that bridge later.
• Prince Edward Island: Route x
• Saskatchewan: Highway x
• Yukon Territory: Highway x

Please help with BC, MB, and NS. Note that PEI would change from Highway to Route, and Alberta's secondaries would drop the "secondary". --NE2 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate whether you agree with the above list in its final form. The only substantial changes, other than capitalization, would be:

• Alberta uses Highway x for secondary routes. I've already changed this with no complaints.
• Manitoba uses Highway x, not Provincial Highway x, for primary routes. We should either use Highway x or Provincial Trunk Highway x, and Highway x is much more common.
• The confusing "Quebec Route R-xxx" line is removed; we don't presently have any articles on these.
• PEI changes from Highway to Route. PEI currently uses parentheses; should we keep them?

--NE2 07:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree on all these, good work man.Mitch32^contribs 13:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The new NCs look legit to me. Regarding parentheses for PEI, I'd rather get rid of them; however, if we do, Ontario's parentheses should be removed for consistency. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer parentheses removal. However, I think the NCs are good (but then I don't know much about Canada highways...) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I implemented the new table; please look it over. For Winnipeg, would a change from City Route x to Route x be appropriate? See [9]. I'm still not totally sure about the trunks in Nova Scotia; the DOT-equivalent uses "Trunk x", but that seems almost unused by the public. --NE2 14:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone object to making the one- and two-digit Nova Scotia standard "Trunk x"? This is used by various governmental sources: [10] --NE2 17:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the change. Down home we don't really use the road numbers when discussing routes: an example for the 209, we call it the "Downshore road" in Parrsboro and along the route itself, and the Trunk 2 is either the "Amherst Road" or "Truro Road" depending on which direction we go. If the DOT uses Trunk x, then it should be used on wiki, but the local terminology standard cannot be considered because we view the roads by where they go instead of what they are. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 18:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Provincial highways in Prince Edward Island

Look at Google Maps or another map of PEI, and you'll see that there are A LOT of provincial highways. (You may have to zoom in far enough.) Basically, everything that would be a county road in some other provinces is a provincial highway. Articles like Route 154 and Route 157 include very little about the road itself, and I can't imagine having one for each of these roads. What should be done? --NE2 19:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I would side towards a list of them - and make article(s) for the major one(s).master son^{T - C} 01:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I took some notes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/Prince Edward Island/Notes on numbering and notability. --NE2 20:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bottom-of-article navigational boxes

One of the recent arguments has dealt with boxes like Template:Saskatchewan Provincial Highways and Template:ONT 400 Hwys. A few of the bigger ones have been listed or deleted on TFD. Personally I think the ones that list all routes are redundant to the browsing and link to the main list in the infobox (see Saskatchewan Highway 1 and Highway 17 (Ontario) for examples). I don't see a problem with the idea of the smaller ones (the implementation could be shrunken a bit) like the 400-series, when the province has set aside a certain set of numbers or otherwise explicitly defined a special system of high-speed roads. Can we discuss and hopefully settle this? --NE2 01:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

These are redundant to the browsing, and therefore I oppose all except for possibly the higher class road templates. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see templates like for the ON 400 routes, the NS 100 routes or the QC Autoroutes being useful. but not the ones that have every route in the province. As NE2 said - we already have a browsing system built into the infobox that cleanly goes through the routes - and one can use the List of routes pages for a quick browse to a particular route. Also - templates need to be kept to a maximum size (how big - well, maybe three or four lines tall IMO). The articles are much cleaner and more appealing with little or no template pollution. master son^{T - C} 01:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no difference in the value of strategic roads vs rural roads: both lead us from A to B. Why should strategic roads have a template when rural roads do not merit it? I believe either all roads should be included in a template, or no roads should have a template at all. It sounds naive, but I view it simplistically. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 01:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Another thing - currently few articles have the browsing. If we delete the boxes, should we wait until we add the browsing? --NE2 01:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm for either the infobox or the templates, but not a mix of both. This argument is essentially based on saving space on a page, so shouldn't the pages with the infobox remove the templates? Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 01:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with NE2 - We should put the browsing in first. As a browse is implemented - remove the template - but don't TFD any templates until browse is completely implemented. master son^{T - C} 01:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the argument for the deletion of {{NS Roads and Highways}}, even though I'm its creator. List of Nova Scotia provincial highways‎ already exists, and the addition of the Infobox to all of the roads on this page will render the template obsolete. Extending from this, I believe all Canadian roads should have the infobox instead of templates. If the 400-series of Ontario or the 100-series of Nova Scotia are so significant that a connection between them all must be made, couldn't it be put in the infobox anyway? Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 01:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The TFD for the templates has been withdrawn by the nominator - until we get the browses working on 100% of the articles should that be the consensus - these should stay available. They should be marked as deprecated on WP:CRWP and the browse box instructions added once full consensus has been determined. TFDs can then take place once all of the implementations of the browse are in place. master son^{T - C} 03:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 03:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And yeah. What? --NE2 00:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious! Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 01:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for my terseness in the above; I was running on negative sleep. Should I continue shrinking the navboxes while retaining the information? --NE2 15:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Shrinking the navboxes is a good thing (formating was terrible on some expressway navboxes). But keep the provincial navboxes. Eventually cleaned up, with removed country and secondary roads. --Qyd 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

But why? They will be redundant. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Redundant to what? The two links in the infobox? Browsing with those is tedious and counter-intuitive in my opinion (for readers that don't know much about roads). I would certainly prefer a one-click solution. --Qyd 16:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why the link to the route list exists above the browsing. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

After adding infoboxes with browsing to all the Ontario King's Highways, I nominated Template:Ontario King's Highways for deletion. --NE2 13:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Illustration

Can road articles have images? Pendragon39 11:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. --NE2 17:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Quebec provincial highway template

I'm just following the other provinces with that one. Is there any major changes that it needs?JForget 15:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, it's rather big, and not needed with the links in the infobox. --NE2 22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It needs to have a {{tfd}} added to it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Would look better without the marker shields (more compact, and also the PD tags on those shields are questionable). --Qyd 22:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As per my comments here, I believe the entire project needs to stop randomly making templates and discuss the article tree structure and templates vs infobox's questions. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe they qualify as ineligible for copyright, as simple modifications to a design published over 50 years ago. (There are some old shields at [11], and I saw some photos recently, but can't find them, of old signs on the back side of post-renumbering signs, proving the shape is the same.) Maybe there should be only a template for the primary routes. --NE2 22:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Re copyright: Quebec has always been a little different. All other Canadian Provinces mark their material under the Trade Marks Act, and all signs and logos through the Queens printer or Crown. Quebec copyrights everything to the Government of Quebec, see this page. --Qyd 23:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite franquly, I would prefer the template before the infobox browser since it would be more easy to navigate but is there any way to hide the template content when it is the only navigational template for the article? It seems to hide automatically when there is another one present like Highway 417 (Ontario) but not the case when there is not another one like for example Quebec Route 155. That would certainly make it much smaller at first.--JForget 00:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Although Looking at NE2's comment above, maybe we can split it into three templates per series (100's, 200's and 300's) but with links provided for the two other templates as well as the existing templates of the Autoroutes and the Montreal and Gatineau roads- that seems to be a reasonable compromise. It would much smaller.--JForget 00:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Add "|state=collapsed" to the navbox code to always start in the hidden mode, or "|state={{{state|collapsed}}}" to be hidded by default, but the syntax {{Provincial highways in Quebec|state=expanded}} will force expanded state. --Qyd 02:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, although since I've separated it into three the templates have shrunk so the size shouldn't be an issue for the three, although it would be useful for some other large templates I've found in articles I've contributed related to roads.--JForget 23:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the hiding. If it's the only template, and it's at the way bottom, what's the point in making users click "show"? --NE2 00:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That was for size issues, because some have complained about the size of the templates and it's mentionned also at Wikipedia:Navigational templates the first phrase of the General navigation templates section. So it was the reason why I was wondering about hiding the templates content (thus forcing the user to click show which is the case for several other templates) so that it looks much smaller in the first place or to split it in three different templates as I suggested above (one for the primaries and two for the secondaries. Numerous articles which has the Quebec provincial road template are quite small and thus makes the impression for some users that the template is big (i.e Quebec Route 162. It is a good thing that I have added a section containing the list of towns as welll as an external link provided and a see also link but still some of the roads have few towns, thus making the template in some articles still big, particularly the secondary short roads with few towns. Even to click show, it would be much shorter via the browsing or the list.--JForget 00:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay it has been split into three templates now - the titles are necessarily official though and can be modified if necessary--JForget 02:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

nominations for deletion

Discussion moved from User talk:NE2

I, and the rest of the Wikiproject Canadian Roads are asking you to stop nominating everything for deletion and blanking everything. it is vandalism and will not be tolerated. if you do not stop, you will be blocked from editing. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think so, and know so. You need to stop this vandalism at once. I've read the article, and what you've done qualifies as vandalism. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:VAND before continuing. Good faith edits are not vandalism. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with RingtailedFox. You need to stop this at once. Stop blanking out pages. I cannot say anything more but what RingtailedFox said.
By the way, I still disagree the fact that you think Infobox Road could "take over" the job of the templates. If infobox could serve as templates, then what are templates for? I like the way you made improve the infobox, but that does not mean I agree with the fact Infobox Road could take over. Say if I want to jump from Highway 2 to Highway 148, I could not do it by clicking the next consecutive highway over and over again. Yes, I could do it by using List of Ontario Provincial highways, but it would be too time consuming to search for it in such a big list (you know, the list has other introductions and texts as well).
 Smcafirst | Chat  at 00:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

However, the templates are too big and are red-link farms, which are not recommended in articles. I do have to agree with NE2 and Rschen7754 for NE2's actions that may have made two people in a walled garden WikiProject to overreact. RingtailedFox and Smcafirst, please calm down from this; you guys are making this much worse than it can be at this point. —O (说 • 喝) 00:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

also please take a look at this to find that there was an attempt to reach consensus at the Canada Roads Talk page. I too agree with NE2 and Rschen7754. The infobox has a link on it that takes readers to a "List of X highways". You can jump from Highway 2 to Highway 148 just as easily in this manner as with a template. master son^{T - C} 00:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Even more, we're not supposed to self-reference, and that is what some templates even did. NE2 did absolutely nothing wrong with anything here. —O (说 • 喝) 01:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't add any new arguments, but I'm on NE2's side. Many of the templates are redundant, and the infobox can provide sufficient information for each article while linking to a summary page that other roads can be found on. If I'm looking at, for instance, Highway 104 in Nova Scotia, why would I want to suddenly look at Trunk 1? There is no connection between the two of them, even in the real world. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 03:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How did this become "my side"? I'm just the puppet of the big guys behind the scenes :) --NE2 14:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - we're not taking any sides - just trying to solve a problem here ;) master son^{T - C} 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, the King's Highway one isn't a link farm, and it's pretty small (if you remove all the extra stuff at the bottom). It's just clutter. Maybe part of the problem is that list of Ontario provincial highways is somewhat messy? I've started work on a redesign. --NE2 01:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some of those navboxes are red-link farms, some have ugly cross-space links, some have semi-copyrighted logos in them, some have terrible designs. None of that is reason for deletion, they can be cleaned up and used to neatly end an article. I find them much better for navigation (their name, navigational boxes, is well deserved) when compared to other solutions (category listing, succession boxes, etc). --Qyd 15:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I still have the coding for the pages and the original Template:ONThighways template if anyone wishes to restore it. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 17:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you save it? Shouldn't it be accessible in the edit history of the page, or was the template successfully deleted? Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 19:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it would be speedied as a recreation per WP:CSD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I saved it because it was deleted, and i didn't want to recreate it and violate the rules. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Why I am leaving this project

Unfortunately, some users have made this project a mess, placing redundant and oversized templates on just about every single page. Too many stub articles have been created, ensuring that there are 82.5% stubs at this project. USRD has been doing much of the improvement work, and all we get is rejection of our efforts. USRD has been doing practically all of the assessment work for CRWP. To top it off, the highly bureaucratic Golden Horseshoes project was created which amounts to a whole bunch of nothing. When USRD has tried to make improvements, they get critiqued and rejected. Hope that you can improve your stubs- they are 82.5% of your project and reflect poorly on all of the roads articles and on Wikipedia as a whole. I don't want the responsibility of fixing CRWP crap anymore, especially when my own project USRD needs help. So goodbye, and hope you can fix your project. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with much of what you are saying. I would hope you really only take a wiki-break from this project instead. Your contributions are appreciated. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is just CRWP I am leaving. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Templates for deletion

I've nominated a few nonstandard templates for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 16#Templates that link to templates. --NE2 22:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Portal:U.S. Roads or North American Roads?

Please see the discussion at Portal talk:U.S. Roads. --NE2 23:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues CRWP edition

A lot of issues have been arising, especially in the IRC channel. The following are major

1. Template TfDs: Many templates that work on collaborating articles together are being deleted. However, in the process it has caused a lot of misconduct by users. Now if we can work together, maybe we can solve this.
2. Article quality: Most of the 1466 articles currently under CRWP's jurisdiction are in real poor condition. Manitoba specifically needs. Saskatchewan's almost done (article-creation-wise). Otherwise, try to work harder.
3. Inactivity: We've had more Saskatchewan users than any others, now I suggest getting more users to start working on more desperate projects.

Please reply soon and start joining the new IRC channel #wikipedia-en-roads-can. Thanks.Mitch32^contribs 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

3 Saskatchewan highways up for deletion

Saskatchewan Highway 703, Saskatchewan Highway 704, Saskatchewan Highway 707 are all up for deletion. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saskatchewan Highway 703. NOTE: I did not initiate these AfDs. They're shown here for informations purposes only as they fall within the scope of this project. --Oakshade 01:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

a reliable source

I have had a question posted on the Template_talk:Ontario_King's_Highways page for quite a time now. Is there anyone that is able to awnser this question ? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you may be right, but I propose a solution that avoids the problem altogether, as the TfD had people disagreeing with you. Merge

{{Ontario King's Highways}}

{{ONT 400 Hwys}}

{{Ontario Secondary Highways}}

{{Ontario Tertiary and 7000 Highways}}

as we don't need 4 navboxes for Ontario highways alone. The combined template will not be too much bigger than any of them, as it should contain no red links, no redundancy, and less of the bottom links. Well, maybe not the secondary or tertiary ones if it starts getting ridiculous, but the 401 etc. appear on way too many navboxes to be intuitive. –Pomte 12:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This could become agreeable. Do you have a working example? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 19:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

See User:Pomte/Template:Highways in Ontario. I've avoided group names to avoid controversy and to save space, and it's not necessary for navigation anyway. –Pomte 05:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed standardization of importance rankings

Hello, WikiProject Canada Roads. The other Canada-related wikiprojects have been merging their talk-page templates so that articles can be added to WikiProject Canada and to other Canada-related projects at once. This should help all of the Canadian wikiprojects spread awareness about each other and co-ordinate improvements and assessments. We would like this objective to include WikiProject Canada Roads. Under this system, an article about a British Columbian road (for example) would look like this:

This template uses the same assessment criteria for all listed projects; so if WikiProject Canada Roads were to integrate with the other Canada-related projects, you would have to change your importance-ratings scale to standardize with that of WikiProject Canada. This would mean that your only top-importance article would be Transportation in Canada and only very important roads like Highway 401 (Ontario) and Sussex Drive would be mid- or high-importance. Would you, the regulars in this project, be open to thus changing your importance ratings? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds fair. At least it would keep control of ranking issues.^Mitch32^contribs 01:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm for it, it will clean things up somewhat. Is it to be done manually, or is it a Bot task ? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We can replace the old templates with the new one using a bot, but before that many of the articles will have to have their importance-ratings demoted by hand. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

an afterthought - just for discussion not action (untill concensus)

Would it be easier for the bot to go ahead and conduct the changeover and leave incompatable fields as blanks (if thats possible). Then the first editor to get there can manually correct it to the new system? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What's going to happen to importance? It seems that the importance will be less useful if almost everything is demoted to low. --NE2 15:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going through the articles with AWB. The script lowers the importance rating by one step, but I try to monitor that anyway, and change it by hand if needed. The provincial wikiprojects get coded in too, and that adds some extra exposure to the articles. --Qyd (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

On an assessment page can a general guideline be drawn up for low, mid, and high importance as relates to highways...such as examples given on the Canada wikiproject assessment pageSriMesh | talk 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Navboxes

Let's decide on this. Either we keep them and organize/merge them into compact navboxes, or we delete all of them and rely instead on alternatives: categories, lists, infoboxes, URL changing. Feel free to edit the pros and cons below so we account for all points of view.

Advantages of navboxes, with counterarguments

• Arguably faster than the alternatives, for readers. An expanded navbox requires only one click to go from article to article. The alternatives require 2 clicks, or more depending on the use of the back button, and whether there are multiple pages in the categories or lists. Even if the navbox is hidden by default, the 2 clicks take less time.
  • They can just change the URL.
    • Changing the URL requires more clicks on the keyboard, and it's not exactly trivial to go from Kipling Avenue (Toronto) to Islington Avenue.
      • Why would named routes be in the navbox anyway?
        • If we have navboxes, we'd have them for both numbered and named routes.
          • Why? To make the navbox bigger?
            • Because we cover both types. They're generally distinct from each other, so no, it doesn't make the navboxes bigger.
• Arguably faster than the alternatives, for editors. Personally, when I edit multiple articles, a navbox allows for much faster clicking on the links to open them in new tabs.
• Against infobox navigation, why would a reader want to jump from Highway 10 to Highway 11 if they're essentially unrelated?
  • Why would a reader want to jump from Highway 10 to Highway 123 anyway?
• The navboxes can be improved from their current state. For instance, all road articles in Manitoba can be linked from a navbox with only 4 rows. The Saskatchewan navboxes can be split.
  • The navboxes need to go, period. That just makes it more confusing, and more likely that the article the reader wants to read will not be on the template, which will force them to use the lists and categories system anyway.
    • I don't think you understand. Right now, {{MBHighways}} covers all the articles on MB highways, and look how small it is. Unclear how it is confusing in any way. My point was that if they are confusing right now, they can be made less confusing.

Disadvantages of navboxes, with counterarguments

• The articles can't become GAs or FAs with navboxes.
  • But we're not even at the stage to think about GAs and FAs. If the navboxes are good, maybe reviewers will accept them, like they accept navboxes on other types of articles.
    • You should write articles from the ground up to potentially be GAs and FAs, rather than have a bunch of articles that don't fit the standard and that will take hours to rewrite.
      • Is this related? Navboxes can easily be added or removed, and is distinct from the content.
        • This is related. Navboxes cannot easily be added or removed from several articles. Navboxes are part of the content.
          • First, if you have an article that'd be a GA/FA and the only problem is the navbox, it'd be easy for you to remove it, much easier than the other aspects of "articles that don't fit the standard and that will take hours to rewrite." I've been cleaning up some articles, and the navbox is far from all the other things that make cleaning up difficult. If we do decide to remove them all, I (Pomte) will volunteer to do it, and the fastest way is incidentally using the navboxes themselves. Or we could always get a bot to do it. Second, navboxes are not part of the content the same way See also sections are not part of the content, as they are purely for navigational purposes.
            • Not if you have a poorly designed category system, as has been stated that you have at IRC.
              • The quality of the category system is irrelevant, and I don't see how this is a response to my point. I don't know of any deep problems with it, but I'll look into it and improve it.
  • No they're not. Most GA's and FA's contain navboxes.
    • They contain small navboxes that are broad in scope. Look at Interstate 155 (Illinois) - that is the proper way to use a navbox. Not in the crummy way that you guys have abused them.
      • Here at the Saskatchewan roads wikiproject have been trying to develop a few articles to try to nominate them at GAN, they still need some more work. If the GAN process provides comments then the above section would have an answer. SriMesh | talk 01:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Too big.
  • They can be split such that the navboxes don't overlap in scope with each other, which means the average article will have only one navbox.
    • So what, we can have more small navboxes that drag the article quality down?
      • I fail to see how a small navbox can drag quality down. Stubs without navboxes are still going to be stubs. Good articles with small navboxes are still going to be good articles.
        • The templates are red link farms and take up space.
• The USRD navboxes have been deleted by precedent. These are documented at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Precedents#State highway system templates.
  • USRD standards are not CANRD standards. We should formulate our own standards and stick to them. There are many more American road articles, which means navboxes are probably worse suited for them.
    • Even the templates for smaller states got deleted. Furthermore, the USRD standards have been proven.
• USRD uses categories and lists, and they have been a successful project.
  • USRD's success depends not on this, but on other factors, such as the fact that they actually have dedicated contributors.
  • Precedent doesn't apply here. Different country, different administrative pattern, different roads.
    • Um, no. Why should Canada have navboxes when the US doesn't? I've been to Canada; I see no difference requiring navboxes.
      • Under Canadian Law, highway maintenance and administration falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces (even for trans-national highway). It thus makes sense to group them by province.
• Categories and lists are more effective than navboxes.
  • • • • So? That's how the US works.
  • Categories and lists may span several pages, decreasing their effectiveness in aiding navigation.
    • a) Lists span several pages? b) regardless, that is still more effective than a bulky template.
• Categories are not in article space, obviously. We tend to create an encyclopedia for our readers. That encyclopedia resides in article space. There's where the work should be.
• Templates look unprofessional and messy.
  • The look of navigational templates has improved greatly over the past year. A properly formatted navbox is as organized as the alternatives.
    • They are still unprofessional and messy.
• Apples are red. Well, sometimes. Messy templates look messy, but well written navboxes look great.
  • So?
    • So please don't try to make a pointy point.
      • This is not a WP:POINT; Templates are unprofessional and messy.
• A bunch of templates are being created with too narrow of a scope.
  • The purpose of a navigational template is to restrict the scope to allow for intuitive browsing across articles within that scope.
    • Nope. Why create a template about all Manitoba highways that are in the 200's for example? That is a template with a narrow scope that is nearly useless.
  • Agree. Keep only navboxes that make sense from some official point of view.
    • Which, right now, are none. Currently, the Manitoba template only has links to the highways that exist. That is not official at all.
      • As stated above, highways are governed, maintained and administered by provinces. That is the structure of Canada. Very officially.
        • Throwing out highways that do not have articles is not official.
• We already have lists and categories, which will stay regardless of the existence of navboxes. The lists and categories are an effective system of navigating among provincial highway systems. Thus, why would we need another, less effective system of navigating among the provincial highway systems?
  • Because categories are not in article space. Thus not part of the encyclopedia.
    • So then why do we have a link to the categories off the main page? And you are admitting that lists and categories are more effective? Speaking of which, even if your premise is true, aren't lists part of the encyclopedia?

Discussion

You could always keep the navbox in projectspace for editors' benefit, like WP:OKSH#Articles has. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Or you could make your own frameset that puts the template at the right of every window. I could make one for you on request. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry; if they get deleted, I'll manage. –Pomte 09:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Images for highway articles

Instead of making a whole whole bunch of images for each highway for the infobox template, can a locator map type template be used. I don't have to make a map for each Saskatchewan town, I just use the Saskatchewan locator map template and then voila, there is a labelled map with the correct co-ordinates. There should be a template code for highways also to do the same thingie, but instead it would just insert the highway number over a picture base. Another good reason to try to make a code for the highway numbered images is that in this image...Image:Saskatchewan Highway 913.svg... there are three symbolic wheat sheaves which used to be a symbol of Saskatchewan. Our new premier Brad Wall is changing this symbol - so there is news in the newspaper about the cost that the province will entail changing letterhead, and signs all over the province. Already the letterheads just bear the Saskatchewan emblem and not the symbol, as does the Provincial government website So having a template which could use one base which could easily be changed once the province adopts its new symbol would be handy. SriMesh | talk 04:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what Alberta does, though they don't look perfectly aligned. Mess around with {{Text-superimpose}} and we'll check that it's consistent across browsers. –Pomte 04:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!! Have made use of the Template:Text-superimpose to try to re-use the same image for several highways such as those shown here. The Municipal road sign looks close as the writing is actually dark green, and so black text works OK. On the Provincial Highway sign, the lettering should be white, so the black text does not look well at all. I am not familiar with how to change the template to make the text superimpose change colour.SriMesh | talk 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC) - I got the colour in by using the command :-) I will have a peek at yours now....SriMesh | talk 02:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've created a test template for SK specific images and colours at {{User:Pomte/Template:SK road shield}}. I'll be fine-tuning it to work better.

1

File:Saskatchewan Highway 789 (jct).svg

–Pomte 00:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the new template! Good job. I will transfer this talk also to SK highway project so that folks there know about it. SriMesh | talk 02:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is another old style image for the highways (not 600s and 700s that use the single wheat sheave green and white) So we can show evolution of signage as the wheat sheave is soon going to change, then we can have old, current, and future sign on the page  :-) SriMesh | talk 02:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

An open letter from USRD

A few months ago, I left this project because it had become unhealthy. Nothing has changed since then. Editors have been continuing to create stub articles that could barely survive an AFD. You still have kept the massive templates that will continue to keep you back from WP:GA or WP:FA. You still hold on to WP:GHR, which is a highly bureaucratic project.

But most of all: I get the feeling, after talking to some of your editors, that most of you don't care about CRWP. Most of you don't care if your articles are the worst on Wikipedia. And I daresay that they could possibly be.

Here are my suggestions, from a project that has overcome similar challenges and has become more successful. You may choose to take them or leave them, but if you leave them, I warn you that your project will continue to remain stable, weak, and underdeveloped, and may face further peril at WP:AFD.

1. I would encourage you to take pride in CRWP. You have a lot of potential, and if you used that potential, you could be more successful than you are and possibly even give WP:USRD a run for its money (oh no! :) )
2. I would restructure your project from the ground up. At USRD, we have done this for the last year, and the results have paid off. Unfortunately, this process is not pain-free, and some editors have complained, but this process has paid off in the end. Higher standards and assessment are key for this.
3. Then, removing some elements are necessary for CRWP growth. WP:GHR is too regional and too bureaucratic - look at 98% of other WikiProjects, they do not look even close to this project. In addition to this, WP:FA and WP:GA will not take your large templates - and you want FAs and GAs, don't you? It may be a pain to lose your templates, but it will be better in the long run. A person who is able to look to the long term and make sacrifices in the short-term is a person who will go far in life.
4. Finally, Quality over quantity is important. You need to focus on a better standard of article - you don't want somebody to AFD all your articles, do you? An essay written by Scott5114 at Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Newsletter/Issues/Volume01/Issue13 describes how this applies.

I know it doesn't sound easy. However, this is better for the good of the project. After all, we're all here to improve the articles, right? The best way to do this is to get CRWP back in functioning order. For example, look at WP:UKRD, which started in the last few months. Although they have a long way to go, they're on the right track. And CRWP could easily be at this point.

Feel free to ask us at WT:USRD or on IRC if you have any questions about this.

--Rschen7754 (T C) 06:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight. Hopefully we'll get more people to actually make this work. I agree that WP:GHR needs to go. –Pomte 20:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

While I'd agree with a fair bit of this comment, I'd also note that WP:GHR was not created by this project, nor is it up to this project to decide its fate. It was independently created by a small coterie of editors who have a consistent habit of overstating and overestimating the actual importance of the Golden Horseshoe, and attached to this project after the fact. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The complete overhaul

This is the detailed list for the Canada Roads overhaul.

I. Scope

The scope is very easy, focus on PROVINCIAL Roads in each province.

II. Task forces

The following should be the new task forces:

1. Manitoba Provincial Highways
2. Saskatchewan Provincial Highways
3. British Columbia Prov. Highways
4. Alberta Provincial Highways
5. Ontario Provincial Highways
6. Quebec Provincial Highways
7. Atlantic Canada Highways
8. Territorial Highways (proposed at WT:HWY)

---

That's the beginning. I'll finish later. ^Mitch32^contribs 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have the people to make these designations meaningful. –Pomte 00:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We'll see, this may get us some people like I've said before.^Mitch32^contribs 00:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Will it help to start a robot search page to find newly created highway articles, and an outreach page. This would be so that as new articles are being created then the editor may be informed of the wikiproject, and extended an invitation to join. That may help the situation out. See the main Wikiproject SK page for either of these examples of what I'm talking about. SriMesh | talk 02:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we've got the 1.0 bot, which will record all articles tagged for Canada Roads. ^Mitch32^contribs 17:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds awesome. The robot picking up new aricles finds those mainly created by new users to wikipedia who don't place project banners onto talk pages as of yet. SriMesh | talk 18:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

Placed three articles Saskatchewan Highway 1, Saskatchewan Highway 11 Louis Riel Trail and Saskatchewan Highway 58 under peer review to help improve quality levels. Any comments welcome. (Still working on red link farm in Hwy 11 - but provided content to highway article prose itself. SriMesh | talk 18:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Freeway Traffic Management System

I found this information stuck into a UK road article. I have moved into a separate article at the above link. I know nothing about the scheme so will leave it to someone more familiar to work on it. Regan123 (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussions #1 and #2

• Template:MBHighways is at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion
• Most of the Essex County routes are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 2 (Essex County, Ontario).

That is just the beginning for article/template/category/etc. removing.^Mitch32^contribs 00:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you want to do?

Template:MBHighways was closed today as a no consensus deletion. Since their is easy to see oppositio. What should be done? What do you want to do with these gastly templates? Express your opinion.^Mitch32^contribs 23:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Highways at Commons

WT:HWY#Highways at Commons 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationales needed

Someone needs to make rationales for images like Image:Manitoba Highway 12.png, and remove them from all articles but the one about the highway. See British Columbia shields for a template you can use. --NE2 19:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Is it possible to find some more sources of information on these topics York Regional Road 21, and New Brunswick Route 705, ? It is tagged with a notability tag, and there are currently 31 articles in the scope of wikiproject Canada which are tagged with notability concerns, so I am contacting all those editors who may be able to see if the quantity of notable articles can be reduced, and quality increased. For more help see this note. SriMesh | talk 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Template revision assistance for highway segment names

Discussion about a possible template revision started for segments of highways with name designations. SriMesh | talk 04:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Trans Canada Highway template

Trans Canada Highway new template discussion link. SriMesh | talk 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge certain municipal roads with those of highways?

This is just reading from articles about the GTA, but it is perhaps applicable in other contexts: certain roads in Toronto are contiguous with those in Peel, York, or Durham Regions. Though considered to be one road (for example, if they keep the same name across the border and for its entire length on both sides), yet they are split into separate articles depending on their geographic location, and sometimes the highway naming convention leads to something that's counterintuitive in terms of the overall WP naming conventions: for example, the casual reader would not know that York Regional Road 67 is the continuation of McCowan Road in Toronto. This raises up several things:

• The potential to have duplicate articles: the two articles have a common history, after all. As an example, Warden Avenue is the article about the street in Toronto, but diverges somewhat to talk about what it becomes in Georgina - which is in York Region and duplicated by York Regional Road 65.
• Responsibility: we'd rather not do mop-up jobs when one links to Bathurst Street but really is talking about York Region rather than Toronto, and thus should really link to York Regional Road 38.
• Nomenclature: If the regional road is known by two or more names, what do we do?
• Diversion: On the flip side if the regional road diverges from the street name, what do we do?

There have been movements to reduce this, and it would be nice to have some things codified. For example, York Regional Road 6 redirects to Keele Street, York Regional Road 8 redirects to Woodbine Avenue (Ontario), and there are increasing movements for Yonge Street, Kennedy Road (Toronto), and possibly others. I'll try and name a comprehensive list here of where a road crosses a border and does not change name (Roads in Toronto first, whenever applicable):

• Yonge Street - York Regional Road 1, York Regional Road 13 (Part), York Regional Road 51
• Kennedy Road (Toronto) - York Regional Road 3
• Keele Street - York Regional Road 6
• Woodbine Avenue (Ontario) - York Regional Road 8
• Leslie Street, Don Mills Road - York Regional Road 11
• Islington Avenue - York Regional Road 17
• Albion Road - York Regional Road 24, Peel Regional Road 50, Simcoe County Road 50
• Bayview Avenue - York Regional Road 34 (Part)
• Bathurst Street - York Regional Road 38
• Dufferin Street - York Regional Road 53
• Jane Street - York Regional Road 55
• Weston Road - York Regional Road 56
• Pine Valley Drive - York Regional Road 57
• Warden Avenue - York Regional Road 65
• McCowan Road - York Regional Road 67
• Markham Road - York Regional Road 68, Main Street Markham
• Steeles Avenue - Peel Regional Road 15, Halton Regional Road 8 (Part)
• Finch Avenue - Peel Regional Road 2 (Durham Regional Road 37 is also Finch Avenue, but is not contiguous)
• Kingston Road - Durham Regional Highway 2 (Part)
• Lake Shore Boulevard - Lakeshore Road
• Airport Road - Peel Regional Road 7, Dufferin County Road 18, Simcoe County Road 42
• Britannia Road - Peel Regional Road 3, Halton Regional Road 6
• Derry Road - Peel Regional Road 5, Halton Regional Road 7 (Note: Derry Road is merged with Rexdale Boulevard in Toronto, the merged article is in Derry Road/Rexdale Boulevard)
• Stouffville Road - York Regional Road 40, Durham Regional Highway 47 (Part), Main Street Stouffville
• Winston Churchill Boulevard - Peel Regional Road 19, Halton Regional Road 19, Wellington County Road 42

Some good discussion, I suppose.

kelvSYC (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to expand ELG's scope to non-freeways

A proposal has been made to consider expanding ELG to cover non-freeway junction lists. Please voice your opinions about the idea and how it should be implemented there. Thanks. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Quebec primary highway template

I see that Template:Quebec Routes (100-199) doesn't actually have all of the Quebec primary routes given in it. Should the unlisted routes in that range be added (where articles exist) or should the template be considered as deprecated? Carolina wren (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Canada Roads

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of coordinates?

A bot is going around tagging various articles for missing coordinates. One recent tagging was on Highway 8 (Ontario) (see [12]). Given that a road will have numerous coordinates, what sort of coordinates should be defined for Canadian road articles, if any? Terminus points, perhaps control cities would be obvious candidates. Dl2000 (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A discussion regarding the primary source or secondary source classification of highway maps

Wikipedia talk:No original research#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

USRD/CRWP Cup contest

This is an announcement for the USRD/CRWP Cup contest, which aims to improve USRD/CRWP article quality and participation. All editors are welcome to participate. See User:Rschen7754/USRDCRWPCup for more info. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The contest will be starting this Saturday at 00:00 UTC. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Roads

The World Roads Portal is at Peer Review, if any editors know of any articles, images, news items or DYKs which could be added to the Portal, please add them directly to the portal or contact ....SriMesh | talk 19:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Washington State Route 543 (Pacific Border Crossing)

I've placed the WP:Canada:Road:BC template on this article, even though its subject is stateside. The reason is that Pacific Border Crossing redirects there and should be a separate article; not sure what the BC highway designation for 176th Street is or I'd add this comment there, also.....See also Talk:Blaine, Washington.Skookum1 (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Un-numbered and minor numbered BC roads/highways

I'm thinking of both the FSRs as well as important ranch/range roads, e.g. the Pavilion Mountain Road, though maybe that can overlap/merge with Old Cariboo Road, but the Jesmond-Kostering-Big Bar Road splits off from it; even so technically the West Pavilion Road is not quite the same thing as teh Slok Creek Forest Service Road. There are numbered roads, also, such as British Columbia Road 40, sometimes called Highway 40, which is the Lillooet-Gold Bridge Road - NB the term "Bridge River Road" refers historically only to the section from the north foot of Mission Pass to Gold Bridge and also the Gold Bridge-Bralorne Road is a separate entity. There are lots of these around BC, not sure how to cite them or which to bother with; some are important local routes, some are historically notable or otherwise important....Skookum1 (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Monkman Pass highway puzzle

The BCGNIS history for Monkman Pass, which I've quoted on that page, and also ref'd from another mention on The Green Bowl's BCGNIS (that's a gorge I'll be making an article for) there is mention not just of a highway proposal but of the building of a highway through Monkman Pass in 1937-39. I'm unaware of a road route here, unless this is the access road for Tumbler Ridge now. I'd thought the John Hart Highway (97) was the first road route between the Peace Country and the rest of BC; maybe i just have never looked at hte maps closely for that area. Does this have a highway number, or is it maybe an abandoned route, or something that got started and never finished?Skookum1 (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:55, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Forest Service Roads article/redirect

I just happened to follow the FSR link in the previous post (my own) just now and it relays to an American page on Forest Highways aka Forest Routes, with no mention of BC or Canada; seems like that redirect needs to be coopted as an article, as FSRs are major thoroughfares in large parts of British Columbia.....not into writing an article yet, and it would take some digging into MoF and legislative sources re their budgets/mandates etc...but if anyone would be willing to "go at it", it would seem much needed....a List of Forest Service Roads in British Columbia would also be fairly easy to source, I think.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Meet up 2009

In 2008, a Wikimeetup was sceduled for those interested in editing Saskatchewan articles. Is there interest for a 2009 Wiki meet up? In 2008 Craik was chosen as a mid-point between the two major cities, Saskatoon and Regina, and it coincided with the Craik Sustainable Living Project (CSLP) Solar Fair and Trade Show. June 20 and 21, 2009. Please comment on the here on this talk pageSriMesh | talk 18:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Important poll at WT:ELG

There is a discussion and an important poll at WT:ELG regarding standards for whether major intersections tables for at-grade roads should follow ELG standards and whether or not colors should be allowed in exit lists. We could use some votes from members of this project. Dough4872 (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute on Highway 7

Another user and I are fighting over whether BC Highway 7 is continuous or broken into two sections. I've sourced from the MOT that the Highway is broken into two sections, the first from 300m W of Coleman to 300 E of United and then 95m W of Ottawa street to Hope. The user states that that is wrong.

From the junction with Route 1 near Hope, westward through Kent, Mission, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows to a point 95 metres east of Ottawa Street in Port Coquitlam. Then beginning again at a point 300 metres east of United Boulevard, westward and terminating at the onramp to Route 1 westbound, near Coleman Ave. The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (TransLink) has jurisdiction from the point east of Ottawa Street to the point east of United Blvd, and for the portion of the Lougheed Highway from Coleman Ave to Kingsway, via Broadway in Vancouver. [13]  єmarsee  • Speak up! 05:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The MOT article is a very reliable source. Unless the other users source is very reliable, and from a later date, your source stands correct on the issue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody here still?

Seems like the project is two years dead. Any active contributers here (esp to Ontario)? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I know its dead - more activity seems to resonate in Saskatchewan and Ontario.Mitch/HC32 22:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

new stub pages

I have started a number of stub pages on Ontario secondary highways.
If anybody knows anything more about any of them, please feel free to add them to improve the articles.
Thanks, *Pepperpiggle*^*Sign!* 18:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got an old 93 Gousha (I've never heard of this company otherwise) map book which shows all of the secondary/kings highways leading up to 97/98, so I can provide it as a reference to any coordinates, lengths, etc. I'll see what I can do for the articles themselves as I stumble upon them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

List of bridges in Montreal

Not much is left to do before I submit List of bridges in Montreal to featured list evaluation. A reference attesting to the construction dates of the three bridges to Repentigny, and that of earlier structures if any, and perhaps choosing a better color scheme for the tables. I was told that the picture of Jacques Cartier Bridge, as artistically sound as it is, is unsuitable for encyclopedic purposes.

Any other comments? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Some better sourcing, and maybe on the colors a bit.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 19:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the picture. Sure, there could be a better one without the sun glaring, but that is no reason to go without one altogether. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Exitlists.com isn't a reliable source, and montrealroads.com is somewhat iffy. You might also want to add the current owner and the original builder/owner. I can help with the rail bridges if you have any questions. --NE2 09:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For Steve Anderson's sites, I've found that citing his sources are best.Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 12:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The latter source is pretty reliable. It lists it sources (Including the Quebec ministry of transportation) at the bottom, which could be used as the actual reference, linked to that site for online access to it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem I'm finding here is that the sites do not say which source says what, at least when it comes to offline sources. But the online sources could be sufficient for our purposes. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured List nomination for List of bridges in Montreal.

See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of bridges in Montreal/archive1. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

TFD

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 15#Template:Jcon --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario/archive2

If anyone has the time, the above FLC needs reviewers. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Road template mod discussion

just to let anyone know who might be interested - this option came up originally with Canadian Roads. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#infobox_road_option_to_allow_user_to_specify_shield_size stmrlbs|talk 01:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

New infobox for Ontario roads

Not that anybody is here, but I thought I'd post in case there are a few stragglers. I am making an infobox for Ontario roads, as infobox road has been locked down and does not have the required features to improve Ontario roads beyond the unsourced mess that they currently are.

The infobox is at User:Floydian/Infobox Ontario road. Happy to take any suggestions for improvements. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? The Template:Infobox road works just fine for me in Alberta. My articles include: Alberta Highway 1A, Alberta Highway 28, Alberta Highway 855. 117Avenue (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

By all means keep using it if you find its working for you. Unfortunately it has some nuances that WP:USRD refuses to allow to be changed, such as the hardcoded sizes for things. It's also just really blah looking. The new one for Ontario will use a colour scheme to differentiate between county roads, city streets, provincial highways, and freeways. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. 117Avenue (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite of Highway 401 (Ontario)

Just thought I'd post that I am in the process of rewriting the Highway 401 article from the ground up. I've added over 40 new sources so far to cover the Highway of Heroes (from Warmington's columns, to Jay Forbes petition, to recognition and designation by Joanna Cansfield, to signs erected in September; the Toronto–Hamilton Road (1914), the Queen Street Extension (1931) and the Middle road (1935); the Toronto–Oshawa Road (1937), trans-provincial freeway (1938), and Highway 401 (1952). I could still use some help in finding provincial legislature for the designations of 401, Macdonald-Cartier Freeway, and Highway of Heroes, for a description of the route from the MTO/DoH, and for any sources regarding any of the trivia that any editors are attached to, because otherwise it is going... and of course anybody is welcome to jump in on the editing. Going for a Featured Article here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

roadscholar.on.ca is a reliable source

Thought it deserved posting here. Per discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here, Ontario Road Scholar website passes WP:RS since the webmaster, John Shragge (recalling from memory here) is a retired MTO employee of 28 years, and the co-author of "From Footpaths to Freeways" (established expert), who has been featured in multiple reliable third party sources because of the position he is in.[14][15][16][17]

Cheers - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thekingshighway.ca as a reliable source

Another source popular on our Ontario pages is http://www.thekingshighway.ca, which is considered a self-published and thus unreliable resource.

Cameron Bevers is a senior traffic engineer, and highway historian. Though the latter is never an official job, the fact remains that he has been the subject of a couple of third party publications concerning him and his website: One in the Toronto Star,[18] one in the Hamilton Spectator.[19] I think this qualifies as an established expert in his field being covered by reliable third-party sources. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Naming of Ontario highways

I'd like to point out that according to the Municipal Act 2001, c25 s24/25, provincially maintained highways are known as Provincial Highway ##[20] As such, I am being bold and implementing this as well as the new infobox across all Provincial Highways. The lead sentence across every article should begin:

Provincial Highway X is a provincially maintained highway in the Canadian province of Ontario.

This provides a worldwide overview of what the subject is. After this, you can zoom in and explain its location more specifically (ie. southwestern Ontario). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Golden Horseshoe roads subwikiproject?

Someone tagged Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/Golden Horseshoe for speedy deletion under the grounds that its deletion had been project-approved. I can't find evidence of any discussion of its deletion, other than the MFD that resulted in keeping it; if deletion really has been project-approved, would someone please renominate it with a link to the discussion? And if not, would project members please discuss here whether deletion is appropriate or inappropriate? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The deletion discussion was withdrawn when it was decided to broaden to Ontario roads, where the Golden Horseshoe roads project has been moved to. The Canadian Roadgeek started the group, and even he agreed with the idea.

Now that I think of it though, an administrator isn't necessary. It can be made into a redirect instead of being deleted. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the situation. I don't see any evidence of project discussion, since XFD isn't projectspace, but redirecting does make more sense than deleting. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no project participation, let alone discussion. Hopefully that will pick up now, though. :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Exit list guide discussion

All editors of the WikiProject Canada Roads are requested to voice concerns that they may have with WP:ELG, the MOS exit list guide, so that it may be amended and used for exit lists in all countries. Please see WT:ELG#International changes for discussion and to propose changes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll on ELG revision

There is now a straw poll at WT:ELG to decide on the proposed revision and renaming of WP:ELG. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Assessing redirects

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Assessing redirects about whether we want to keep tagging redirects as part of the project. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Pomte/Template:SK hwy tiny shield & User:Pomte/Template:SK road shield

FYI, some articles are using templates sitting in userspace. I don't think it's a good idea to use userspace material in articlespace.

76.66.193.224 (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The second template is User:Pomte/Template:SK road shield. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

road-importance

The WikiProject Canada banner can now allow projects to have their own importance scale separate from the main Canada scale using road-importance=. This may be of interest to the roads project since most of your articles get bumped down to low-importance. Let me know if you would like that set up. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The eventual plan is to give CRWP its own banner, as with USRD. This will be merged with {{WPOR}} to make a common banner for every province. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Portal: U.S. Roads

P:USRD has been renominated at for featured status at WP:FPOC, with the nomination here. Any comments are appreciated. Imzadi 1979 → 00:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Quebec Autoroute shields are wrong

The autoroute shields used on the articles, and residing on Commons are wrong. They have a red rectangle at the top of the shield, but the real shield has a representation of a viaduct and a divided roadway beneath it in white in the red rectangle.

See File:Quebec Autoroute 30.svg and http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/Librairie/Images/Symboles/ecussons/r30.gif

76.66.193.224 (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is done to avoid copyright issues. I assume the actual autoroute shield is still copyrighted. However, mere coloured shapes cannot be, so it is a way of getting around that issue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't the official one be used under a FUR, with the image residing here on Wikipedia? (atleast for the main image on each article) 76.66.193.224 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that is what is normally done (At least it has been done with routes in BC and Saskatchewan). I would question it myself, as the EXACT shield used by Quebec (as opposed to a geometrically identical simple version) isn't necessary to understand the subject matter. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with FUR for the autoroute design is that you have provide rationale for every instance of the design on every page. With junction lists, talk pages would have far too many FURs to justify using it at all. —Fredddie™ 01:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you go the FUR route, the only place a shield graphic could be used is on the subject article, and nowhere else. Imzadi 1979 → 00:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal involving infobox road

There is currently a discussion taking place at Template_talk:Infobox road involving the updating of the template and the global application of it. Since most of Canada was set up by the members of WP:USRD, we already use infobox road (except in Ontario, where I found it was unable to accomodate the needs of the article writing I was doing).

One of the updates of the new infobox is the ability to display colours instead of every road having the same infobox. I would personally like to take this opportunity to try and establish a theme of colours to differentiate between the different classes of roads.

If I am not mistaken, every province except Ontario has the following order Freeways -> Provincial Trunk Routes -> Provincial Secondary Routes -> Local Streets In Ontario, the third is simply replaced by 'County Routes' and the second by 'Provincial Highways'.

The colour scheme I currently use in Ontario is based upon those used by MapArt in their atlases. A shade of blur for freeways, green (I changed this from orange) for provincial highways, yellow for secondary routes and white/grey for other roads. These colours are essentially arbitrary, but the idea of assigning one to each type of road is what I am after. The colours used would be the next decision.

The discussion on infobox road has drawn a consensus that colour schemes be applied on a national level, so we have to decide this together.

What do other members think? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a number of problems here. One, you're pretty well off on Saskatchewan and Manitoba, since 1, and 4 don't apply, plus Manitoba has the Winnipeg Routes, which also apply. Second, you're not being specific to which infobox you are referring to, Infobox Road or the hot box Ontario, which is in question since you've said you chose the colors from a copyrighted item. That alone is a question of copyright infringement, which has been reported as a result. The next problem is colors don't work all that great since most provinces use different colors and I don't buy the colors being needed at all. Our purpose is to inform, not inform with pretty colors. Learning does not come from what color the infobox is, but by the context of the article itself. Your infobox is kind of scrappy and leaves a lot of white space I may add, but I don't care about its look, I care about its purpose. My purpose is to write on Saskatchewan and Manitoba, plus follow world-wide standards. A big portion of Wikipedia is about the world-wide view of a situation, which is important, and some standards should be the same, worldwide. Finally, I have a major problem with this sense that Ontario doesn't need it when its the only one who has something and 12 other provinces/territories don't use it. Please care to explain what makes Ontario exempt from 12 other geographical locations.Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 01:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What have you reported? An IRC conversation? Perhaps you misread what I said, that it is based on the colour scheme from that. Just because they use blue and I use blue does not mean it is copyright infringement. It is exempt because the consensus of more than one editor is to use it. Can you find more than one editor in the other provinces? I think you'd find yourself hard pressed to find ANY editors for most other provinces. The status quo on terrible articles should not set the standards for our professional encyclopedia. Colours have nothing to do with being pretty, it's about organization... Just like it would be if the signage were coloured. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, just a few comments, but there are talk page archives that state that the color scheme for the maps being made or remade for ONRD use the same colors based on MapArt's color scheme (with the exception of the orange color). There are more editors in CRWP than just ONRD. The fact that it took a week for anyone to reply just means that the other provinces' editors either aren't as active or just don't care. Last, there are GAs for provinces other than ON, and those GAs use the standard infobox. Since we're only discussing one part of the article, honestly I don't see how a discussion on the infobox is impacted by the overall quality of the rest of the article. There would be no harm in removing the colorization from the infoboxes in the ON articles. None, nada, zip, zero, zilch. The fact remains though, the signage isn't colored, and loudly proclaiming that you have or had a consensus to use an infobox doesn't make your opinion right. If the others in ONRD really cared, they would have replied to requests to join the discussion at the infobox talk page, or they'd have replied here by now. Consensus can change, and the circumstances surrounding the infoboxes have changed in the last month. Imzadi 1979 → 04:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll interject here briefly, since I am nominally a member of ONRD for the purposes of cross-border collaboration on stuff between Michigan and Ontario. The guideline that was discussed on the talk page for the infobox template had 4 key points:

1. Color combinations have to meet accessibility guidelines (WP:COLOR).
2. Colors should be representative of actual signage.
3. Colors should be consistent at the country level.
4. There will be special cases, but any exceptions must have logical arguments for their inclusion in the templates.

I will also note that there is an RfC related to the limits of WikiProject consensus with respect to some style guidelines across all of the Wikipedia. One limit that could come from this is that template colors could be standardized to generic defaults in infoboxes and navboxes, or color combinations that are pre-approved for accessibility-based reasons. For that reason, that's why I support basing the color schemes used in the infoboxes on actual highway signage, which when translated correctly meets accessibility guidelines already. Imzadi 1979 → 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me the only thing holding Ontario back from using {{infobox road}} is the "consensus" of Floydian to use his own color scheme. No other editors have shown up to defend the scheme. --Rschen7754 04:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't informed any editors, I've just posted this here. This is how active CRWP is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Fredddie (talk · contribs) personally invited the ONRD members to join in the discussion at Template talk:Infobox road. No one came. Imzadi 1979 → 04:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE would apply in that case, and the consensus would be status quo. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, Silence implies no objections, which means that you can go ahead with whatever you are proposing. --Rschen7754 17:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant in the case of switching to Infobox road, not adding colours to it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Started a thread at WT:ONRD. --Rschen7754 22:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Geocoding discussion

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Geocoding_of_highways for a discussion on the use of coordinates on road articles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WT:MOSNUM discussion that could impact this project

Under a proposal made in this discussion at WT:MOSNUM, all Canadian road articles with a junction list would be required to have a footnote giving a conversion value between kilometers and miles. This means that at minimum a footnote section would have to be added to the thousands of articles within the scope of this project. Discussion is still ongoing at the link above. – TMF 22:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Canada Roads articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Canada Roads articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Highway Route Marker Bot

I have created a new bot that can create and upload a full sequence of highway markers. I have already used it to complete Alberta's highways markers and I am looking for new projects. If you provide me a completed SVG template and which signs you are requesting, I will run the bot. At this point this bot only runs on Commons, and will only create "free" images. --Svgalbertian (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Portal

{{Portal|Canada Roads}} Hello guys i see by the members list most of you know me. I am here to make you guys a portal ..I will then add it to all appropriate temples etc...I will also post here all the sub pages etc so you all can copy edit the whole thing if you like. Moxy (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys spam {{Portal|Canada Roads}} i have only added 2 selection, but we can add more soon.....Moxy (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

here are the pages
Portal:Canada Roads
Portal:Canada Roads/Intro
Portal:Canada Roads/Did you know?
Portal:Canada Roads/Selected article1
Portal:Canada Roads/Selected picture
Portal:Canada Roads/Selected panoramic picture
Portal:Canada Roads/News
Portal:Canada Roads/Category
Portal:Canada Roads/Topics
Portal:Canada Roads/Portals

Colours page

Portal image

note -- Template talk:WikiProject Canada#Portal:Canada Roads to be added pls and Portal:Canada/Related portals

Just a comment, but when I spammed the US Roads portal to all of the Michigan articles, I did also included a link to the Michigan portal. If there is a portal for that province, you should include it at the same time, save the effort. P.S. Why did you use the wrong icon for the US portal? The US is about more than US 66 when it comes to roads, which is why didn't pick that. We've actually talked about switching the portal graphic to the USRD project logo, but you should respect other portal's "branding" choices and use the defaults. I also think that the assessment chart on the portal is unnecessary and overkill. Portals are for readers, and most readers don't know about or understand our assessments. Imzadi 1979 → 04:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done but Pls edit the pages at will...Have no need to ask anyone anything if you want to change and/or correct things.Moxy (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder, portal boxes are supposed to go in the See also section. (If that section doesn't exist, I insert the box into the top of the references.) Commons category, wikisource, wikinews, etc boxes go in the External links section. The reasoning is that See also keeps you on the English Wikipedia, External links sends you to another website. Use {{-}} as necessary to force clear spaces to prevent bunching. Imzadi 1979 → 05:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Now we just need to get on the ball and change the several-year-old selected article/picture.

By the way, since there is more activity here now than at any other point in time; how do the other Canadian road editors feel about creating a Canada Roads banner? This way the other provinces aren't limited to the same importance as the Canada wikiproject. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes pls change the portal as you fit - as i am unaware of what exactly the project has been up-to and thus what you guys would like to highlight in the portal. I do this portals to help projects get reinvigorated and to give and avenue for projects to display there best work. I normally fill portals with 5 - 7 selections (FAs and GAs), but now see this projects is active. Perhaps you guys you like to fill it in or i can continue if you guys like? DO you guys have any FA images we could add and or to replaces what is already there? Or any suggestion for articles besides the GA ones? Moxy (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please! As it stands this project is very inactive and most of the work goes into content-building, and not backend work. Any help we can get is always appreciated! The Ontario subproject has several good articles, a featured article and a featured picture. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

More back work will led to more editors, this is y i do this on my down time from making articles. Ok will look at a few the options you have mentioned --will also wait for more comments if there are coming. Moxy (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Another thought, but I'd merge the two selected article subpages together and devote that space for the second article to something else. The DYKs look bad above the rest of the sections, by spanning the full width at the top, it's implying an importance that isn't there. For the second article box on the portal, you could use that space for news (either user-submitted like P:USRD or WikiNews-generated like P:Roads and P:USRD's second news section.) The DYKs could be moved there as well, but they might work better below the selected photo to keep all of the Wiki "selected" content on the left and other content on the right. I also think there are too many "related" portals. Aviation, Bridges, Rapid Transit, and Trains would be child portals of transport. This one and P:USRD would be child portals of P:Roads, which itself is a child of Transport. Engineering is just weird, so I'd just ditch the whole second row of portals. Imzadi 1979 → 20:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have do some of what you have suggested (using news from Portal:Roads for now) .......the rest is up to you guys.Moxy (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Banner template

YES! Unmerge it from the main WP:CANADA template and call it a day. Set it up so that it will track the province(s) and feed the articles into assessment categories. Once that's done, I can help the project set up their version of WP:USRD/A/S with daily bot updates. Seriously, that chart is very beneficial to USRD in many ways. I was issued a challenge one day on IRC in January 2008. Our project newsletter highlighted the top 10 states/district each month. On January 17, 2008, Michigan stood at #21. By the February newsletter, the state moved to the top of the chart.[21] That initial surge also produced the first state to break the 4.000 barrier on the older 5.000-scale that predated the introduction of C-Class. A little friendly competition between provinces could do wonders to help reinvigorate the project. Even if it's just a competition to reach the next goal (Michigan is now below 3.0 on the 6.0 scale, partially as a race to see if it could be done before the end of September this year.) This is only one benefit of the project having control of its banner template. As things at WP:HWY rejuvenate, expect to see a similar table created by continental task force and full national wikiproject. We'll need each of the highway/roads subprojects to modify the banners in use to accommodate that project. Imzadi 1979 → 19:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm certain the ONRD banner could be quickly modified to have a province parameter (send a bot to make all current uses have ON entered) that handles categorization. Then move it to {{CARD}} or something along those lines.

I'm certain it's more complicated than this, but regardless I'm ready to expand {{WPOR}} to cover all of Canada, even if other provinces aren't on board to use it at this point. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, my take is that Canada Roads WikiProject previously had its own banner that was "forcibly" merged into the main CANADA banner during a period of low-Canada Roads WikiProject activity. This would just be a reversal of that process. Any previous discussions about unmerging it resulted in a parent-project-enforced status quo. Seriously, we've already demonstrated some benefits. Canada Roads WikiProject is really the nexus of WP:CANADA and WP:HWY. It should have its own template. If WP:CANADA wants to dual-tag the articles for the provincial subprojects, that's fine too. Imzadi 1979 → 20:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been a single comment to my use of the ONRD banner on ~750 pages. This really isn't a controversial plan to implement without discussion; nobody operates the backend on Canada Roads WikiProject, so nobody would put up a fuss. Is it worth getting {{Canada Roads WikiProject}} undeleted, or was it just a generic banner? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's get the template undeleted and see what's there to work with. We can merge stuff together and rebuild it as needed. Imzadi 1979 → 21:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's alive again. Time to update it and rebuild it. Imzadi 1979 → 21:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Canada Roads}} and {{Canada Roads WikiProject}} once again redirect to the template. Shall we continue discussions on modifications on the template's talkpage? Imzadi 1979 → 22:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. I can see the discussion getting long very fast, knowing the joy of templates. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The new template is LIVE! I'm setting up the new assessment categories as we speak. A couple things. Set up the province= tags and remove the roads=yes from CANADA's template. (The new template uses a new assessment category tree.) Copy over the class and importance tags as needed. If a roadway is in multiple provinces, suffix the province parameter with numbers. (province1, province2, etc up to province10). If the roadway is part of the TCH, add TCH=yes and it will be assessed that way too. If you see redlinks at the bottom of the talk page, don't worry. I'm still working on the categories. Imzadi 1979 → 21:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sweet! Going to deploy a few tests in Ontario tonight. We should set up a bot to handle the majority of the articles though (grabbing the province from the Canada banner, perhaps)... Thars a good 2500 to switch over. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I tagged Talk:Trans-Canada Highway as a test. Since most articles will only be tagged for a single province, the Canada Roads WikiProject and provincial importance should be the same. Once the articles are done, we can tell CANADA they can remove the roads= coding since that could screw things up. (Editors using the wrong template and the article(s) getting lost.) Imzadi 1979 → 22:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I updated the banner slightly. Since a few other provinces have subpages of Canada Roads WikiProject, I added their links. At some point, I need to set up the rest of the assessment classes. (I forgot to do List or FL-Class. I wasn't planning on the odder ones like Project, Book, Category, Template during my first pass. Take a look at Category:Michigan road transport articles by quality for the full list of options. We have the FA through Stub plus File created now.) I'm hoping that a bot will come through and add the banners to the pages. We will have some manual updating though. Things like whether or not an article needs an infobox, a map, a shield, etc. will have to be done by hand. We may have some fixing for dual-, triple- multi-tagging provinces in the cases where they occur. Floydian said he was working on some generic, blank shields for BC to get around the copyright. Several other provinces/territories don't have blanks yet. The leaderboard table is going to be coded in the bot around Sunday, so it should be on line and ready to add to the page early next week. (It will probably change a lot as the categories fill and the data are created for it.)

Later this month or early next year, I hope to bring some updates online for WP:HWY that will generate a leaderboard for that project displaying USRD Canada Roads WikiProject. UKRD and the regional taskforces under HWY. We have a lot more work on the HWY end first though. (Only 384 articles there are assess with over 4400 left to go, and we'd still have to tag at least the assessed articles by region first.) Imzadi 1979 → 09:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Leaderboard

The bot is now updating the new leaderboard for the project on a daily basis with the rest of its tasks. The table is a WP:CRWP/A/P and the US version is at WP:USRD/A/S. Now then, one caveat to mention. There are still a couple thousand articles to retag until that table is an accurate comparison. Please help by removing |road=yes from {{WikiProject Canada}} and adding {{Canada Roads WikiProject|province=|class=|importance=|needs-map=}} to the articles' talk pages. It is important that the province be tagged, or the article will only be counted under the national statistics. If the article needs a map, please tag that parameter yes. At some point in the near future, the logic will be enabled, and articles needing maps will be placed into a category. If the parameter is not given, the article will go into a category to have it filled it. If the article does not have nor need a map, use NA. Imzadi 1979 → 02:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Two last things, but if the highway is part of the TCH, add |tch=yes to the template. That will then categorize the article under the TCH group for comparison. If an article encompasses more than one province, use numbers like this: |province1= |province2= ... |province 10= and it will tag for multiple provinces at once. Imzadi 1979 → 02:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)