Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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)

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)

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 sonT - C 00:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The link is busted. Can you find another access?Mitchcontribs 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)

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)

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)

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.Mitch32contribs 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.Mitch32contribs 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. Mitch32contribs 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.Mitch32contribs 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 sonT - 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 sonT - 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 sonT - 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 sonT - 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)

v • d • e
Quebec Routes (100-199)
101 · 105 · 107 · 109 · 111 · 113 · 117 · 125 · 131 · 133 · 137 · 139 · 141 · 143 · 147 · 153 · 155 · 157 · 159 · 161 · 165 · 167 · 169 · 171 · 173 · 175 · 185 · 191 · 195 · 197 · 199
104 · 108 · 112 · 116 · 122 · 132 · 134 · 136 · 138 · 148 · 158 · 162 · 170 · 172 · 198
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)

v • d • e
Quebec Routes (100-199)
101 · 105 · 107 · 109 · 111 · 113 · 117 · 125 · 131 · 133 · 137 · 139 · 141 · 143 · 147 · 153 · 155 · 157 · 159 · 161 · 165 · 167 · 169 · 171 · 173 · 175 · 185 · 191 · 195 · 197 · 199
104 · 108 · 112 · 116 · 122 · 132 · 134 · 136 · 138 · 148 · 158 · 162 · 170 · 172 · 198
v • d • e
Provincial Secondary Highways in Quebec (200-series)
201 · 202 · 203 · 204 · 205 · 206 · 207 · 208 · 209 · 210 · 212 · 213 · 214 · 215 · 216 · 217 · 218 · 219 · 220 · 221 · 222 · 223 · 224 · 225 · 226 · 227 · 228 · 229 · 230 · 231 · 232 · 233 · 234 · 235 · 236 · 237 · 239 · 241 · 243 · 245 · 247 · 249 · 251 · 253 · 255 · 257 · 259 · 261 · 263 · 265 · 267 · 269 · 271 · 273 · 275 · 276 · 277 · 279 · 281 · 283 · 285 · 287 · 289 · 291 · 293 · 295 · 296 · 297 · 298 · 299
v • d • e
Provincial Secondary Highways in Quebec (300-series)
301 · 303 · 307 · 309 · 311 · 315 · 317 · 321 · 323 · 325 · 327 · 329 · 333 · 335 · 337 · 338 · 339 · 340 · 341 · 342 · 343 · 344 · 345 · 346 · 347 · 348 · 349 · 350 · 351 · 352 · 354 · 358 · 359 · 360 · 361 · 362 · 363 · 364 · 365 · 366 · 367 · 368 · 369 · 370 · 371 · 372 · 373 · 381 · 382 · 385 · 386 · 388 · 389 · 390 · 391 · 393 · 395 · 397 · 399

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 sonT - 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 sonT - 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.Mitch32contribs 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:

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
NA This page does not require an assessment on the quality scale.
Canada Roads
This article is part of the Canada Roads WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
British Columbia
British Columbia Portal
This article is part of the British Columbia WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

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.Mitch32contribs 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
789
1
789


–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 Image:OldSask-Small.jpg :-) 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)

Deletion discussions #1 and #2

That is just the beginning for article/template/category/etc. removing.Mitch32contribs 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.Mitch32contribs 23:01, 4 January 2008 (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. Mitch32contribs 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.Mitch32contribs 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. Mitch32contribs 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)