Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2010
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 17:23, 16 January 2010 [8].
- Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because the last nomination went stale / had a lot of editors that were arguing with me in another context that came to simply oppose it, and since the holidays are all but over. While I have created my own format in this road list, I feel its essentially as complete as possible (Minus a completely unavailable history of the system), and provides a more visually pleasing article.
A few notes for reviewers:
- No, I am not prepared to remove the Google Map references. They are there for the reader to visually see each route, as it is not possible to add visible numbers to the city map without distorting the thumbnail. The only information on the article contrived from Google Maps is the 0.1 kilometre accuracy of route lengths (I used a government made topographic map to measure distances to the nearest kilometre).
- Please don't oppose simply on the basis of the shields in the table. They add a nice touch for the 99.99995% of us that do not use Lynx.
- History is important, especially in this case. The province of Ontario downloaded most provincial and secondary class highways to the regions/counties they were within in 1998. The County of Victoria was restructured as the single-tier municipality of Kawartha Lakes in 2001, causing all Victoria County Road X to become Kawartha Lakes Road X. This little switcharoo can make things a bit confusing, but bare with it.
- I have tried to contact the city, the road maintenance department, and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation regarding a history of the system. According to them, the information is "too spread about in various archives and offices, and not available at hand".
- I fail at grammar (I'm about as qualified as the checker in Microsoft Word), so if anybody is a wiz with it, please fix any nuances. The article has been peer reviewed twice and a FL candidate
twice before, so I'm certain most of it has been caught, but second eyes are always appreciated. Cheers - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Review by Imzadi1979
| First Review |
|---|
Further replies: I do see your reasoning, and I disagree, plus I have some addition points to make now.
I hope this helps Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: Just found this on my camera. It shows a 7 & 35 shield alongside the Trans-Canada marker. How would I go about citing these images? Should I do it as I would a website, simply linking to the file namespace in the url? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I believe that I've fixed every issue you've brought up thus far, with the exception of the Google Maps issue and adding shields to the map (in progress). Let me know if I missed something. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
- Second Review by Imzadi1979
| Second Review |
|---|
|
I've collapsed the original review, and I'm restarting it here with the remaining points left to address.
I still can't support the article at this time. Yes, substantial progress has been made, but there are still remaining issues. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I started a sandboxed version of this article to better illustrate some changes. I cleaned up and standardized all of the references in the main list. One change I made that is more of a personal preference was to spell out the full date, rather than using ISO dates. All of the citation templates are in the {{cite XX}} family instead of the even worse mixture of {{citation}} now used. I moved the History section down, which has the benefit of pushing the current designation types up including the IMHO better photos. The King's Highways table was reorganized to move the references into a separate column. The Names column was eliminated as it duplicated the names given under the Route # column, and the non-duplicative names could be moved to the Comments column. The Lengths column was moved left so that the two sortable columns come first. Finally, there was a lot of unnecessary code I removed to streamline the table. A lot of the WP:OVERLINKing was removed, including the extra links to MapArt in the references. The note at the bottom of the table needs to be reworded. The City roads table should be organized along the same principles, but in this case, I would prune out some of the unnecessary trivia from the Comments column to merge the names into that column. Barring that, the Names in this table could stay, but I'd remove the duplication between the Names and the Route # column. The other suggestion I would make is using some abbreviations. I've read the word "Kawartha" SO many times in reviewing this article that it looks misspelled every time I see it. "Kawartha Lakes Road 8" could easily be abbreviated to "KLR 8". Only the abbreviated version I just gave would need a non-breaking space. Street names do not. Please consider some of these ideas to help clean up this list. Imzadi1979 (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I have a small point of clarification for the KLR 2 entry in the table, the comments are: "signed as Kawartha Lakes 2 north of Seagrave, where it forms the boundary with Durham Region, but is maintained by Kawartha Lakes". Do you mean that it's signed as Durham Regional Road 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imzadi1979 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
|
- Third Review by Imzadi1979
I collapsed the second review and pulled the follow remaining items here into a short list.
- Google/Bing Maps: still an issue. Consensus is against them in this article. You have yet to present a compelling reason to convince the three reviewers of the article otherwise. This is an actionable oppose, and must be rectified to remove three opposes.
- Shields on map. It's a minor detail, and one that takes time, I know.
You cleaned up the reference formatting nicely, but there's still "Government of Ontario" vs. "Ontario Provincial Government" in the article though.- Overlinking is still a major issue. The King's Highways table doesn't have much left, except all the Communities links, several of which are duplicated. All three usages of the word causeway are linked. That's a bit excessive.
- The King's Highway table looks great. The City roads table though is a sea of blue and red. Please remove the redundant links.
- You don't need to use {{jcon}} to create a link without the shield to an article. A wikilink works just fine by itself. I would hope that when you remove the links from the two termini columns that you use plain text instead of relying on a template to generate plain text. I know you're proud of the template, but there's no reason to ask the servers to parse a template when plain text or a plain wikilink will do. The reason so many US roads editors use {{jct}} now is that it simplifies calling the correct shield graphic, adding the
|link=|alt=parameters and formatting the correct wikilink, with abbreviation. We don't have to remember the naming convention for 50+ systems of roadways' shields and links. Having said that, if I'm linking to another road in the prose of an article, where the shield will not be displayed, I enter a wikilink, not a template. If I'm not linking the text, I wouldn't use a wikilink either. It just makes editing the article that much easier for others. - Are all the road names needed for all of the intersecting roads in the various terminus listings? In the listing for Highway 7, you give the first terminus as "Kawartha Lakes Road 2 (Simcoe Street)", when KLR 2 would suffice.
- You don't need to use {{jcon}} to create a link without the shield to an article. A wikilink works just fine by itself. I would hope that when you remove the links from the two termini columns that you use plain text instead of relying on a template to generate plain text. I know you're proud of the template, but there's no reason to ask the servers to parse a template when plain text or a plain wikilink will do. The reason so many US roads editors use {{jct}} now is that it simplifies calling the correct shield graphic, adding the
- Abbreviations: use them and embrace them. Safari will not tell me the exact usage of the phrase "Kawartha Lakes"; it just tells me "more than 100 matches"". For List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan, a current FL, there are 17 matches for "Marquette County". Shortening "Kawartha Lakes Road 8" to "KLR 8" is perfectly acceptable. Shortening "Highway 7" and "Trans Canada Highway" to "Hwy 7" and "TCH" once in a while is also acceptable.
- The organization of the City roads table needs to be revamped yet. There's no need to have anything in that table except # and length sortable.
- References columns in the tables would be a good thing as well. This was something that was suggested when my FL when through an FLRC.
- City roads table Comments:
- Fix the confusing comments for KLR 2
- KLR 3 comments: "Hartley Road exists as Kawartha Lakes Road 3 for just under one kilometre as it crosses Mitchell Lake by causeway, making it the shortest numbered road in Kawartha Lakes" could be shortened to "Shortest city road in Kawartha Lakes" since the length and both names are listed in other cells of the table already.
- The comments for KL 6: "Prior to 1998, the portion of Kawartha Lakes Road 6 between Kirkfield and Sebright was designated as Highway 503[10][11]" could be shortend to "Prior to 1998, was Highway 503" or ""Prior to 1998, was Hwy 503"
- KLR 47 has its comments in the Communities column.
- References:
- Ref 2 doesn't specify where in the resulting link the information being cited is located.
- Ref 4 has a URL in the template that doesn't lead directly to the source. Either remove the URL, or use [13] as the url since that will cause the reader's browser to download the file. (I'd recommend erasing the link completely as unnecessary though.)
- Concerning Ref 6, I can't find the standards being referenced at that link.
- Ref 9 needs a page number
- Ref 12 should give a page number, or a schedule table number or something to aid in verifying the information in the source.
I've done a lot more than most reviewers in reviewing this list. I've researched better sources to clear up your SPS issues, and created the sandbox to illustrate what this list should look like. You still have a lot of work though to get this up to the quality that's expected of the bronze star. I'm still going to oppose until it's complete. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reply by Floydian
-
- Like I said, I'd like to come to some compromise. This provides useful information to the readers, which is too detailed to include in the article, and which could only become more difficult to locate as I move it away from this article. Most of the roads are far from notable enough to have their own article in which to put a drawn map.
- Coming very soon
- Will go with Government of Ontario, as thats how they more frequently refer to themselves.
- My thoughts on the causeway issue are that if its linked ONCE (will remove the second) in the article, and then once in the picture description, it lets people click that link instead of searching the prose for the link.
- I have yet to do the city table, but that will be done sometime tonight likely.
- The reason I use it is so that I can make rapid changes. For example, if you really insisted on using abbreviations, and I wasn't stubborn enough to say "no", then I could simply open up template:jcon, and change two or three pieces of text, and have all 100+ uses change immediately. Bandwidth is not an issue, and the template is certainly well documented (much more so than jct is, as I found out numerous times when I tore apart the template). Also, the code I use to display a plaintext road name is shorter than the name of the road itself. It is for this that I plan on making every instance of a road name in every Ontario article use jcon.
- I'm sure you saw my rather passionate ranting in regards to abbreviations on the US road talk page. I also notice that close to 100% of the featured "list of roads in x" do not ever explain what the various abbreviations stand for. For this one, I must stick with accuracy and fore-go the abbreviations. I insist on being left on this, as it a personal style choice which I am allowed to make.
- Thats not true. The terminii sort properly and in numerical order, with the township roads all grouped together at the end, and the King's Highways grouped at the beginning. I have removed the sorting of the names column, as that was unnecessary.
- Wouldn't that cramp things more by pushing more columns in?
- City maps table
- Fixed
- Fixed
- Yes, but only a portion in the centre of route 6 was part of Highway 503.
- Fixed
- Refs
- How would I go about adding that into the citation?
- The URL for the pdf file appears to be a session ID that changes day-to-day. Having no link is a step backwards, since the onus is then on the user to track down the information. The URL currently leads to the summary information for that source.
- OPS volume 1 deals with most of it. Grading, general specs, drainage, electrical, watermains, etc. However, the entirety of that page deals with the specifications for the construction of King's Highways.
- The whole document is the source though. It is the final report ordering the creation of Kawartha Lakes out of Victoria County.
- Fixed
Thank you very much for the continued reviews. I've revamped the City Roads table, removing many instances of 'Kawartha Lakes' from the comments, removing repeated route names from the names column, eliminating the links from the terminii columns, cleaning up the comments, using {{ntsc}}, and shifting things around. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Replies
- Guess what, three other editors have decided to the contrary; you continue to argue against consensus here and consensus still doesn't change.
- If an road is not notable enough to get its own article, it should NOT have a redlink in this list. I'm sure at a minimum, a writer like yourself could craft an article for each of these city roads that contains:
- An infobox with map
- A lead
- A route description of the named streets that comprise the road
- A history of the road in question, even if it's to state that before the change over, it was Victoria County Road #, or before 1998, it was Hwy #.
- A junction table of some sort.
- Look at M-212, a highway in Michigan that's less than a mile in length. It has a good article rating even though the highway is 0.732 miles (1.178 km) long. The presence or absence of the articles for the linked roads has no bearing on the quality of this list, but continuing to shoe-horn content into this list that best appears in a different article does. Consensus is still against you on this one. List of highways in Warren County, New York does not include such usage of an online mapping service. County routes listed there that are notable enough to have an article, like County Route 7 (Warren County, New York) exist, and a map if created, could be added to the infobox in the route article. If things like M-212 and the 1.06-mile (1.71 km) Interstate 375 (complete with its unsigned 884.2-foot (269.5 m) business spur) can receive article treatment, then some of the roads listed here deserve the same in the future. It's those articles that are the best location for a map of their routing, not this list. It is in that respect that I will continue to oppose the inclusion of the 49 separate links to Google or Bing when you already have a single paper map source used to calculate the lengths. The Warren County example doesn't even give lengths for county roads rather than calculate them off Google/Yahoo/Bing. The CR 7 article does use Yahoo Maps for its length reference, but that's in another article separate from the list.
- If an road is not notable enough to get its own article, it should NOT have a redlink in this list. I'm sure at a minimum, a writer like yourself could craft an article for each of these city roads that contains:
- I'm patient about this point, but if I didn't include it here, it would have been lost in the shuffle when I collapsed Review 1 and restarted in Review 2, or collapsed Review 2 and started Review 3.
- Looks good.
- It only needs to be linked once. It's fairly common enough of a word, and its plain meaning should be apparent by its usage.
- There's no reason to resort to code when plaintext will suffice. In other words, if some other editor came along, and {{WP:AGF|in good faith]] attempted to correct an error in your article, you'd have them potentially correcting template code that doesn't do anything except general plaintext. Your abbreviation argument doesn't hold because: 1) if you claim the advantage that the code is shorter than the output in cases without links and without shields, then it will be longer than the output if the template was changed to output abbreviations. Unlike {{convert}} which normally outputs only plain text, {{|tljcon}} in this usage only outputs the text as a non-default usage. Convert has the benefit of actually generating the converted value. {{inflation}} has the benefit of generating a value adjusted for inflation that's updated annually without further intervention by the writers. Your template in these instances takes text that looks like gibberish and outputs good looking text, when the desired output can be simply generated by entering the intended text in the first place.
- We're both partially correct here in different respects, but why type
{{jcon|KL|2|Simcoe Street|ot=yes}}which involves for another editor, dealing with the code in the edit window, a template that generate the same finished output asKawartha Lakes Road (Simcoe Street). Why take two steps figuratively (template + ot parameter) when one step (plain text) would suffice?
- We're both partially correct here in different respects, but why type
- Abbreviations: use them, embrace them, love them. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but if you notice at List of state highways in Marquette County, you can't find an explanation of what M-28 means. It is the sum total of that highway's number. In this case, as it is for all of Michigan, and this is a major misunderstanding with a lot of roadgeeks out there, the M- in Michigan state trunkline highway numbers doesn't actually stand for anything. In other words, there's nothing to explain. It was felt that the section on U.S. highways implicitly explained the abbreviation, but in retrospect, I've added the appropriate parenthetical notations. See the prose in the articles on M-28, M-35, US 41 for appropriate examples. Prose examples from FAs have been better guidance for me in my experience than prose examples from FLs. You've yet to state anything in this forum about why abbreviations would be a detriment to this article. I've given you a reason why they would be an enhancement. After about the 50th usage of an uncommon word/place/name, it begins to look misspelled. Fifty or more iterations of an abbreviation don't carry that effect because my brain intuitively knows that the abbreviation is valid. The repetition does not enhance the quality of the writing in this article.
- As a side note, standards continue to evolve and change at FAC and FLC. As an editor that has contributed nominations to both forums, I follow future nominations that are similar to my own, if not actively review them, in order to keep up with any major or minor changes in standards and preferences since the passage of my last nominations. Then I can easily update the FAs and FL I've produced to keep them as current as possible. I will not speak for other project members, nor will I attest to their FLs, but if you check, I've made minor edits to the FL I nominated as comments and discussions have taken place here. In some cases, it's because I didn't know of something, like the utility of the {{ntsc}} template when that list was nominated, and now that I do, I can implement it.
- Sorting those columns is not beneficial. That sorting function was removed from the King's Highways table. The columns each contain two cardinal directions "Western/Southern" or "Eastern/Northern", meaning that you're mixing in separate concepts (western terminus, southern terminus) arbitrarily and sorting on that basis. Why not combine the other combination (western/northern, eastern/southern) for sorting purposes. Either way, the grouping is purely arbitrary. The sorting should be removed here as well.
- It won't cramp things if the names column and the comments column are merged. If you look at the sandbox, the References column is no wider than the title, the Names column is wider than the title, and wider than the References column.
- City roads table comments:
- Good
- Good
- Yes, but the sandboxed version says that same thing in shorter, more concise prose.
- Good
- References:
- As for Ref 2, {{cite web}} has the
at=parameter that works similar to thepage=parameter, but doesn't prepend the "p." From the documentation, "When the page prefix is unwanted. "at=Table 5" produces Table 5." You could use that parameter to reference the exact location inside of the reference, such asat=Part III, Section 26or even use the internal anchors and change the link directly to [14] if that is the section you are specifically using. (The first method would look better though.) - Ref 3: Newspaper articles no longer or never yet archived online don't have URLs. Books typically aren't cited using Google Books links (although they can be). This is a traditional publication that is sold by Publications Canada as well as freely available online. It is nice to point a reader to a copy of the source online, but in this case, the ISBN link in the reference does the same already.
- For Ref 3 the very least you could do is include volume and page numbers. Where in that link does it say that provincial highways generally have "generally have wider lanes, smoother curves with greater banking, and exceptionally well maintained pavement"? (The word "exceptional" here is POV if the source does not state it.) Where in the source does it discuss maintenance items like plowing, salting and repairs? If the referenced items are in separate volumes, consider breaking the reference into separate references by volume, and then linking directly to the PDF as appropriate. For instance, the Vol. 1 index PDF is available at [15]. Please note though, that MTO has established in OPS User Notes, April 2005 that the hard copy supersedes the online copy where there is a discrepancy, so maybe dropping the online link here would be a good idea as well?
- Ref 9 could be reformatted using {{cite report}} instead of cite web. (I know that the documentation on that template is atrocious, but it does have
page=andpages=parameters. It doesn't prepend the p./pp. though, so you'd have to add that manually if you switch over.) Where in all of that text is the information that specifically supports the claim: "The City of Kawartha Lakes was formed on January 1, 2001, and was known as Victoria County before that"? A page number, range of page numbers, etc. is needed. This could be in the form of "p. 1", "pp 2–4", or "pp. 2, 5–6" as needed, but whatever the situation, the pages numbers are necessary to complete this reference. Additionally, you now state here that this report ordered the creation of the merged municipality. It looks like the final draft of a study report into the feasibility of merging the county and it's constituent municipalities. Wouldn't there actually be an act of the provincial legislature that accomplished that task?
- As for Ref 2, {{cite web}} has the
Some final comments:
- You still have overlinking in the table. Each community does not need a link in either table. As it stands now, if I resort the King's Highway table by length, in increasing order, Lindsay is not linked until the third entry in which it appears. Reaboro isn't linked at all. Just simplify things and remove all the linking.
- You've actually unlinked on the KLR 6 entry the text "Simcoe County Road 52". That should remain linked because SCR 52 is not an entry line in the table, unlike the other KLR references in the termini columns
- The lead sentence needs work. I've been putting this off until the very end.
- The bolding is wrong.
- Option 1: Unbold everything except "numbered roads". Wikilink Kawartha Lakes, since that is the VERY first mention of the term in the entire article.
- Option 2: Leave the bolding as is, but find the next reference to the City of Kawartha Lakes in some form, say "municipality" and wikilink there to the article on Kawartha Lakes, piping the text to fit the sentence. (This is the option used at List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan.)
- The sentence doesn't offer that Kawartha Lakes is a city. That fact isn't included until the History section below, but it's a big omission for the lead.
- The mess about concurrencies needs to be cleaned up. Try rewording it like the following:
- The bolding is wrong.
- Sample lead
The numbered roads of Kawartha Lakes account for 901.9 kilometres (560.4 mi) of roads in the City of Kawartha Lakes in the Canadian province of Ontario.[note 1][1] These roads[note 2][2] include King's Highways that are signed and maintained by the province, as well as the Kawartha Lakes Roads under the jurisdiction of the city. The third type of existing roadway in the single-tier municipality is that of locally-maintained roads that are also called concession roads and sidelines. A fourth category of roads, Secondary highways, existed prior to 1998, but no longer exist within Kawartha Lakes.
The 49 numbered highways provide year-round access to the mostly rural municipality. The longest of these roads is Highway 35, which stretches 86.7 kilometres (53.9 mi) across the municipality from the south to the north. The shortest numbered road is Kawartha Lakes Road 3, Hartley Road, a causeway just less than a kilometre long crossing Mitchell Lake.
Before 1998, several additional King's Highways and Secondary highways were located in what was then known as Victoria County. These were downloaded to Victoria County in 1998. All Victoria County Roads, including the former provincial highways, were renamed when Victoria County was abolished in 2001 and replaced with the City of Kawartha Lakes.
- Note: I'd rewrite the other two explanatory footnotes as [note 3][note 4] if not combine them all as [note 5]. If you use the <ref group="note" name='' "></ref> these shorts of noes are reusable, like reference footnotes.
- Notes
- ^ The total length of the city roads and Kings Highways only counts the 11.6 kilometres (7.2 mi) of concurrent roadway once.
- ^ In Ontario, all roads are legally known as highways. However, road is the more prevalent term for common use. The Ontario Municipal Act defines a highway as any road, street or bridge that is not a Provincial Highway.
- ^ The total length of the Kings Highways only counts the 7.6 kilometres (4.7 mi) of concurrent roadway once.
- ^ The total length of the Kawartha Lakes Roads only counts the 4.0 kilometres (2.5 mi) of concurrent roadway once.
- ^ The total lengths of roads in Kawartha Lakes Roads only counts concurrent roadways once.
- References
This sample lead flows better, has all the important stuff linked, and it summarized the whole article better
You'll notice that I substituted a different map for the lead. I'd move the existing map down to the top of the first section, "Types of roads", left-aligned. I've just realized that the King's Highway photo is left-aligned under a third-level heading, which is a violation of the MOS. You could add a brief into paragraph about the types of roads, link to the MTO and explain that they maintain and sign the provincial highways, explain who maintains and signs the city roads (CKL Dept. of Public Works?) and then move the photo to right. The second photo should be moved down into the City roads section, because that what classification of roadway is shown in the photo.
I hope this helps. Imzadi1979 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Replies
- If you are saying that every road is notable so long as there is verifiable information concerning it, then I have no problem creating the remaining road articles and taking out the google references. My concern is not that they cannot be notable, but that an article I could create with the information I have would not. I have no historical information regarding these roads.
- Understood
- Cool
- Fixed
- Yes but consistency is key here, especially when there are well over 100 instances of road names. I know a plaintext link simplifies things on the editors end, but it also opens up a greater possibility of a mess being made and inconsistencies propping up. What it comes down to, however, is that it doesn't affect the appearance of the article. Many users use templates to simplify highly repetitive tasks, and this is one of those cases for me. As a side note, there should not be any changes made by other users to the table as it already has every road correctly entered, unless the city changes routings.
- My main issue stemming from abbreviations is that there are no documents that use abbreviations. Its always either Kawartha Lakes City Road X, or City Road X. There is no KLR-X or cKL-X. Otherstuffexists goes both ways in this case. I'd rather trim out the term 'Kawartha Lakes' where possible, than to change it to an abbreviation anywhere.
- I removed sorting from the Kings Highways list because there were only 5 entries, and every entry was different. In the city table, 3/4–7/8 of the routes end at another route. Sorting works and is not detrimental here, so why does it matter?
- Perhaps just merging the names into the comments column? The refs at this point are solely in regards to the comments.
- City Roads table: I'll take a look at road 6. I did reword mine as well yesterday, but I'm guessing you've already taken a look at it.
- References
- Fixed
- Fixed. I removed the url, added that it was in volume 1, and changed the sentence it supports. Exceptional is a rather subjective word. In this case I meant it in a comparison sense; the construction of King's Highways is superior to that of the city or local roads. However, I've reworded it as to not make any sort of... exceptional... claim.
- Fixed. The kitchen report essentially orders the creation, but I'm certain that another piece of legislature would have actually authorized it / made it official.
- Final comments:
- Each community should be linked only once in the tables. An odd one here or there may be also linked in the prose, and I'm trying to spot them out right now.
- I did that with every case of "continues Xward into nieghboring county as foo road X", as none of those road articles exist. I found it unappealing in appearance, but will insert those links when the articles exist.
- With regards to the lead, I chose option 2 (it makes no sense to bold only 'numbered roads' since the article title indicates it's the numbered roads of Kawartha Lakes. I haven't mentioned that it is "a city" because I can't confirm that it is. There is no concrete evidence as to whether Kawartha Lakes is a city, or if its a municipality named "City of Kawartha Lakes". The Kitchen report definitely suggests the latter of the two, but aside from that all the sources indicate the former. I have made use of your sample lead, but have two points on it:
- You cannot nest references using your standard <ref name="" group=""> tag. This is why one note uses a tag template.
- I personally find the new image placement cramps things in, and doesn't look as nice. I placed the images where they fit in the best, and where they interfered the least with the section edit links. I can move the shields up to the second level header if that's a MOS breach, but the map fits so much better at the top (plus one can generally assume someone knows where Kawartha Lakes is before they are interested in the roads in it. If not, they can click on the Kawartha Lakes link and see it in that article.
- Now get this! I removed all the google maps from the City Maps table. At this point I ask that it be permitted to keep them for the King's Highways. Why are they an exception? Because there will never ever be an article titled "Highway 7 in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario". The King's Highways have their own articles with maps of the complete route, but would become rather disorderly if they had maps of the route through each jurisdiction. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Review by Rschen7754
- Oppose solely on
alt text, andGoogle maps citations. I'm sure there's other stuff that needs to be changed, but I refuse to look further at the article until those two issues are resolved. [16] is the tool - it indicates there is no alt text. --Rschen7754 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I still hold that there is nothing wrong with the Google Maps citations, as they do not cite anything, and are only there to help the reader in visualizing everything. The alt text is definitely there, regardless of what the tool says. The map at the top has the following code:
[[File:KL Road Map.svg|thumb|200px|alt = "A map of the entire city of Kawartha Lakes. The lakes, rivers, and roads are shown, each represented by coloured lines, except lakes which are coloured shapes. Lakes and rivers are light-blue; roads are either black, representing numbered city roads, or dark-blue, representing highways maintained by the province of Ontario. The outline of the city is a much thicker, partially transparent grey line."|A map of Kawartha Lakes. Highway 115 crosses to the lower right, King's highways are deep-blue, city roads are black.]]
- The causeway image is as follows:
[[File:Hartley Road causeway.jpg|thumb|alt = "a dirt road crosses the centre of a lake on a clear day."|Hartley Road (Kawartha Lakes Road 3) crossing [[Mitchell Lake (Ontario)|Mitchell Lake]] by [[causeway]].]]
- Perhaps the space is making a difference. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have images turned off on Wikipedia sites, and I can't see the alt text. Alt text does no good if it doesn't work. --Rschen7754 22:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- This is true, but its hard to fix when the reason it isn't working isn't apparent. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe it's the quotation marks. The examples at WP:ALT don't use quotes. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think I fixed it. I believe it was the spaces before and after the = . - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- That seems to have fixed the ALT text issue with regards to the tool page. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think I fixed it. I believe it was the spaces before and after the = . - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have images turned off on Wikipedia sites, and I can't see the alt text. Alt text does no good if it doesn't work. --Rschen7754 22:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps the space is making a difference. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
If I renamed the Route maps section to External links, would that be satisfactory? There is a citation (to the paper map) at the top of the Length column that is the actual reference to the length of each road. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, that's still too many (now redundant) external links. --Rschen7754 07:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- So basically the idea is that I cannot have this useful functionality for readers because of some policy (which I'd like to see come to think of it), and that I may scrap it for A) a redundant list of external links that's really the same thing with a different section header name, or B) a redundant single link to google maps which shows a satellite photo with outdated information. This stinks of WP:IAR. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, first of all a) is incorrect. That would not be acceptable either. Secondly, it's not necessarily a matter of policy - if the consensus is that the Google Map links are clutter, then they need to go. WP:CONSENSUS. So far three people have been telling you they need to go. Nobody else has said otherwise. So far, that's consensus. --Rschen7754 08:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Really? Because I only count you, who is opposing solely on the basis of this. Dough and Imzadi both said to avoid using it as a source, and to clean it up. However, you are the only one making a big deal about it. I'm sorry, but I am not going to remove the maps. They are useful to the reader, and thats what matters. I will accept your oppose and focus on the other editors who are picking at important details with regard to content and sourcing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, actually, I originally said that they should be combined together. So count me in the same camp as Rschen on this one. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- The way FAC and FLC work is that you have to resolve *all* actionable opposes in order for the article to pass. This is an actionable oppose, meaning you can do something about it. --Rschen7754 20:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Then the article fails. I'm not removing information that is helpful to the readers because a few editors dislike the appearance. No policy against it, no change. I said that from the get go. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Really? Because I only count you, who is opposing solely on the basis of this. Dough and Imzadi both said to avoid using it as a source, and to clean it up. However, you are the only one making a big deal about it. I'm sorry, but I am not going to remove the maps. They are useful to the reader, and thats what matters. I will accept your oppose and focus on the other editors who are picking at important details with regard to content and sourcing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, first of all a) is incorrect. That would not be acceptable either. Secondly, it's not necessarily a matter of policy - if the consensus is that the Google Map links are clutter, then they need to go. WP:CONSENSUS. So far three people have been telling you they need to go. Nobody else has said otherwise. So far, that's consensus. --Rschen7754 08:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- So basically the idea is that I cannot have this useful functionality for readers because of some policy (which I'd like to see come to think of it), and that I may scrap it for A) a redundant list of external links that's really the same thing with a different section header name, or B) a redundant single link to google maps which shows a satellite photo with outdated information. This stinks of WP:IAR. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, lets give it a go and see where it heads. The Google Maps references are almost 100% gone (save a last few from the King's Highway table that I mention in the review with imzadi above). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Review by Dough4872
- Oppose - The article still has issues that have not been addressed since the last FLC, such as
uncited information in proseand the overuse of Google as a source. There clearly needs to be more sources than Google that discuss these routes. ---Dough4872 01:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Google is a convenience link. Most of the information is sourced to my 2010 Ontario Back Roads Atlas. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Still, is there a different source that can be used for the mileage other than Google? ---Dough4872 04:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I honestly wish there was. I would certainly use it if it existed, but as I mention, the Ontario government doesn't keep track of things, and the Kawartha Lakes website has next to no information, besides a snow plowing schedule that lists out every road in sections. Ontario road atlases show the kilometres between certain points (a major intersection or a town) on the King's Highways, but there is nothing that just lists the routes and the length of them, as NJDOT or MDOT do. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- My oppose still stands with the issue of uncited information. ---Dough4872 04:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Could you point out which information you contest? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- My oppose still stands with the issue of uncited information. ---Dough4872 04:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I honestly wish there was. I would certainly use it if it existed, but as I mention, the Ontario government doesn't keep track of things, and the Kawartha Lakes website has next to no information, besides a snow plowing schedule that lists out every road in sections. Ontario road atlases show the kilometres between certain points (a major intersection or a town) on the King's Highways, but there is nothing that just lists the routes and the length of them, as NJDOT or MDOT do. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Still, is there a different source that can be used for the mileage other than Google? ---Dough4872 04:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Google is a convenience link. Most of the information is sourced to my 2010 Ontario Back Roads Atlas. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The following excerpts need citations:
- "These signs are sometimes referred to as shields, or reassurance markers. Highway 7, which is part of the Trans-Canada Highway, is also marked with a green maple leaf shield. Highways 7 and 35 together measure 140.0 km (87.0 mi) and account for 83.8% of the length of numbered roads. The remaining 27.1 km (16.8 mi) comprises Highway 115, a RIRO freeway in the southern corner of the city; and Highway 7A, an alternate route to Highway 7 around the Lindsay area."
- "Although they are generally one lane in either direction, several short sections with two lanes in one direction as a passing lane exist along the highways. The municipality's lone freeway, Highway 115, is two lanes in either direction for its entire length."
- "The road number appears in the centre of the sign, with the word KAWARTHA above and the word LAKES below. Like King's Highways, these signs are sometimes referred to as shields, or reassurance markers."
- "Most city roads are two lanes wide (one lane in either direction), though a select few contain sections with four lanes (two lanes in either direction), and several have no centre line at all. Most city roads are paved, though some remain as dirt or gravel roads."
- The comments and note in the King's Highways table.
Here are some other issues I noticed:
- In the comments for Kawartha Lakes Road 3, there is a wikilink that needs to be fixed.
Most of the Kawartha Lakes Road articles redirect back to this list, making the links unnecessary. ---Dough4872 16:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Now is it really necessary to provide a source for the third one? I'm describing a sign for which we have a picture. A source for "these signs are sometimes referred to as shields, or reassurance markers," maybe... but for a description of a sign is overkill for the sake of making a point. Alos, which part of the first one is necessary to source? Most of it is a written out version of the information, which is sourced, that is provided in the King's Highways table. The rest I will delete, as there are no sources besides a satellite map or going there that could verify the information (Though I've never understood what the difference is between citing an obscure book that isn't available anywhere, and citing a physical location that can be verified by just going to it (which anybody can do). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- It would help if there was a non-primary reliable source that discusses the signs. In the first part, "Highways 7 and 35 together measure 140.0 km (87.0 mi) and account for 83.8% of the length of numbered roads. The remaining 27.1 km (16.8 mi) comprises Highway 115, a RIRO freeway in the southern corner of the city; and Highway 7A, an alternate route to Highway 7 around the Lindsay are." needs to be sourced to verify the statistics concerning the numbered routes. ---Dough4872 01:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- It would. It would also be nice if there was any type of source regarding the current state of the system, or an article anywhere that mentions the passing lanes that are there. Can a satellite shot not serve as a reference to any of those statements though (without regard what-so-ever to the other Google maps references)? I added a legitimate reference for the statement regarding the lengths. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- You could use a sattelite shot to reference the lengths, but I would prefer if another source could be found. However, a sattelite image would work in the absence of another source. ---Dough4872 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I meant to show that passing lanes exist, but otherwise the highways are generally two lanes, and that Highway 115 is a four lane dual-carriage freeway. The distances I can (and have already) source to a proper hardcopy atlas. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- You could use a sattelite shot to reference the lengths, but I would prefer if another source could be found. However, a sattelite image would work in the absence of another source. ---Dough4872 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- It would. It would also be nice if there was any type of source regarding the current state of the system, or an article anywhere that mentions the passing lanes that are there. Can a satellite shot not serve as a reference to any of those statements though (without regard what-so-ever to the other Google maps references)? I added a legitimate reference for the statement regarding the lengths. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- It would help if there was a non-primary reliable source that discusses the signs. In the first part, "Highways 7 and 35 together measure 140.0 km (87.0 mi) and account for 83.8% of the length of numbered roads. The remaining 27.1 km (16.8 mi) comprises Highway 115, a RIRO freeway in the southern corner of the city; and Highway 7A, an alternate route to Highway 7 around the Lindsay are." needs to be sourced to verify the statistics concerning the numbered routes. ---Dough4872 01:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Now is it really necessary to provide a source for the third one? I'm describing a sign for which we have a picture. A source for "these signs are sometimes referred to as shields, or reassurance markers," maybe... but for a description of a sign is overkill for the sake of making a point. Alos, which part of the first one is necessary to source? Most of it is a written out version of the information, which is sourced, that is provided in the King's Highways table. The rest I will delete, as there are no sources besides a satellite map or going there that could verify the information (Though I've never understood what the difference is between citing an obscure book that isn't available anywhere, and citing a physical location that can be verified by just going to it (which anybody can do). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
All of the information you mentioned above now has a source, or has been removed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- The only caveats I have now is the overuse of Google links and the removal of redlinks in the list. ---Dough4872 18:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- With regards to the redlinks, WP:RED and WP:Build the web cover things. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, what about the Google links? ---Dough4872 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think a compromise should be reached on that. As it stands, I have three editors now objecting almost solely on that, for aesthetics. I feel I at least offer a valid rationale in that they offer a lot of information that simply cannot be contained within the article, and would like to find some way of still providing that information to readers in the simple way that I have. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, what about the Google links? ---Dough4872 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- With regards to the redlinks, WP:RED and WP:Build the web cover things. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have removed the google references. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Additional comments
- Comment I am considering closing this FLC soon. I had asked at the previous FLC for this not to be re-nominated until the major disputes had been resolved and a director notified. I see no evidence of a director being notified, and not surprisingly, the disputes have not been resolved. I might keep this open until the weekend, but no longer if there is not a sea change at this FLC, which has already become one of the longest on the nomination page despite being only four days old. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've fixed 95% of the problems at this point, and it seems to be down to only having the complaint over the Google Maps at the bottom (pending responses. Most of the disputes have been fixed, and only the lone issue remains, which as you can see above your comment, I am looking to come to a compromise about. I apologize for not contacting a director. If you had mentioned it to me, I have since forgotten over the course of the past month and change. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I understand. It's a bit hard to see what and what has not been done by simply looking at this mass of text; could the reviewers please strike/cap their resolved comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've fixed 95% of the problems at this point, and it seems to be down to only having the complaint over the Google Maps at the bottom (pending responses. Most of the disputes have been fixed, and only the lone issue remains, which as you can see above your comment, I am looking to come to a compromise about. I apologize for not contacting a director. If you had mentioned it to me, I have since forgotten over the course of the past month and change. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.