Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 promoted by Dabomb87 22:47, 25 May 2010 [1].

List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes

edit

List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because the sixth time is the charm. I'm hoping no objections can be found in here. You may notice in the header rows to the two tables, that:

A) They have different columns (specifically the 'Name' column. This is because the King's Highways do not have any 'names'. Just "Highway X").
B) The references are heavier on the City Roads table. I want those weighing in on this to decide which is better (sourcing the other columns, or avoiding it when possible as on the King's Highways table).

Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the list has been renamed since the previous discussion, I will post the relevant links here:

Imzadi 1979 → 09:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
    • A question on termini... KL 7 terminates at "Hazel Street (Sturgeon Lake)", while KL 11 terminates at "Sturgeon Lake". I take this to mean that the eastern end of KL 11 is indeed just the lake, a dead end. But what is the eastern end of KL 7? An intersection with Hazel St right at the lake?
    • Why is Highway 35 linked in KL 15?
    • Should "Secondary" be capitalized in the intro?
    • IMO, the concurrencies should also be noted in the Notes column.
    • KL 48 redirects to Ontario Highway 48; the article's infobox has no mention of Kawartha Lakes, and it's only in a single line at the bottom that seems out of place compared to the rest of the article. Is this a correct redirect? I know this isn't about the KL 48 article per se, just making sure it redirects to the correct place.
    • Again, this is not to do with this article, but I removed the image from KL 8's article; please check that the template is resizing images correctly.
    • KL 46 redirects to ON 46, which is a past-tense article; if there is a present tense for KL 46, then it should go to an article that treats it as such. (In other words, it looks like ON 46 should be moved to KL 46, and changed to be present-tense, dealing with ON 46 was a previous name rather than KL 46 as the current name of a dead highway) Again, not specifically to do with this list, but since it is a list entry it needs to go to the right place.
  • I think that's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed essentially every error you pointed out, save one: KL 48 points to Highway 48 as the latter is notable and deems an article. The former was originally part of it, and thus logically should redirect to it since it has no article of its own at this point (maybe if I get to the Kawartha Lakes archives cottage this summer :p).
    • Ooh, I see, KL 48 used to be part of ON 48 (which explains why it's not in the infobox), but as it doesn't have its own article yet, this is the next best choice. I'll buy that. --Golbez (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from that, I've fixed the picture issue, requested the moving of Ontario Highway 46 to Kawartha Lakes Road 46 / updated the lead to match, removed the erroneous Highway 35 link, uncapitalized "Secondary", noted the concurrencies and noted the termini more clearly for routes 7/11.
  • Hope the rest is good :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My only real remaining concern is that the pictures of the roads - like most pictures of roads - are pretty boring. The one crossing Mitchell Lake has merit, as that is an interesting geography; the one of the signs perhaps as well. The one of Glenarm and KL 46 doesn't really seem to add anything to an understanding of the subject. It could literally be a road anywhere. Just taking a random highway article, U.S. Route 151, it has a picture of an bridge; a picture of a terminus; a picture of a famous locale; and a picture of some random offramp. The first three add to an understanding of the article; I'm not sure the offramp one does. --Golbez (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Makes sense. I was only using it to break the long text and I suppose to show the average drive along a Kawartha Lakes road. Perhaps I'll get some nice photos this summer to highlight the differences in geography between the granite north and limestone south. Until then–photo gone. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose for the following reasons:

  1. The first sentence (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.) is too convoluted and confusing. While not to write simply: "The total length of the numbered roads in the City of Kawartha Lakes, Ontario, Canada is 901.9 kilometres (560.4 mi)." Otherwise it is not clear if "Kawartha Lakes" and "the City of Kawartha Lakes" are the same entity.
  2. 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. This type of roads is mentioned, although there is no explanation as to why it is not included in the tables. (not numbered?) In addition it is not clear that "the single-tier municipality" is the same "City of Kawartha Lakes"; this should be stated directly.
  3. These were downloaded to Victoria County in 1998. Such language as "downloaded" should be avoided in the leading section. Reader are not supposed to know what it means. Please, rewrite.
  4. In the 'King's highways" subsection it is stated that the sum of lengths of Highways 7A and 115 is 27.1 km. However from the table I obtained 18.4+8.4=26.8. Why are these numbers different? These roads do not intersect.
  5. Can an image of "flowerpot-shaped sign" be included?
  6. The first table mentions two Highways that are not discussed anywhere in the article: 7B and 35B. I think some information about them should be added to 'King's Highways" subsection. These roads also are not showed on the map.
  7. As part of a province-wide downloading of highways to municipal governments, six were given new Victoria County designations However in the second table only four former Highways are mentioned: 121, 48, 36 and 35A?
  8. The responsibility for maintaining these roads was transferred to Victoria County as part of the province-wide downloading. This sentence duplicates the first sentence in 'Secondary Highways' subsection.

Ruslik_Zero 11:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies
Most of these are simple fixes. Some of them are genuine accidents though.
  1. I changed this to "The numbered roads of Kawartha Lakes account for 907.3 kilometres (563.8 mi) of roads in the Canadian province of Ontario." – not sure why the second instance of "Kawartha Lakes" was there.
  2. It did at one point mention that they are beyond the coverage of the article. There are thousands of them, and they are mostly macadam roads that are totally unworthy of mention. I felt it would be uncomprehensive to not mention what all those extra roads criss-crossing the place are, but also unencyclopedic to explain that to the user (at least in a way I can think of). Any suggestions here? For now I added "which are beyond the scope of this article"
  3. Makes sense. Transferred seems to be a better word to use. I've also explained that the two terms are synonymous in the first use past the lead.
  4. Conflicting sources on 7B and 35B. I've cleaned this up and cascaded it throughout the article.
  5. It was. Other felt it was redundant since 45 of them are in the City Roads table.
  6. 7B is, it's not labelled because it is tiny. I am honestly unsure on this road, as several sources conflict one-another. I am adding a blurb on them to the History section.
  7. Added a sentence that lists all six. The other two are 35B and 48. Also discovered 36B hidden in tiny letters on my 1997 map, so I've added it into the article.
  8. Fixed
Should be all of them. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is good. However you forgot to address the issue related to "the single-tier municipality" (2 above). I also want to point your attention to the newly added note 3—the first sentence in it is incomprehensible. Ruslik_Zero 17:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, half awake today. Both have been fixed (though I'm not sure how note 3 got that way; must have deleted a line by accident). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mm40 (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
  • First caption: should be "King's Highways", not "King's highways" (I think)
  • Nowhere in the article is there a link to Kawartha Lakes
  • Note 2: Why is "Road" capitalized in the second sentence?
  • Reference is needed for "mostly rural municipality"
  • Last paragraph of the lead is a bit confusing; were the roads in Victoria county but not maintained by the county?
  • "with an shield shaped sign topped" → "with a shield-shaped sign topped"
  • In the second paragraph of King's Highways, you're missing a space before "Highway 7, which is"
  • "they are generally one lane" how about "usually" or something similar in place of "generally" to get rid of the repetition in the paragraph's first two sentences
  • "city roads in Kawartha Lakes.[8] Kawartha Lakes city roads" sounds a bit odd
  • First sentence of History: "city of Kawartha Lakes" → "City of Kawartha Lakes"
  • "following the prior provincial designations" does this mean that the new designations were given after the old ones? If so, this part is redundant
  • "The exception is" → "The exception's are"
  • "Highway 48 near Victoria Road, to Highway 503 in Uphill" drop the comma
  • "list of provincially-maintained highways" no hyphens after -ly
  • Please give a reference for "Also known as Main Street"
  • You can get rid of the "City Roads" title-thing above the city roads table
  • Can you change "Towns are ordered" into "Communities are ordered"?
  • In the city roads table: if a community is linked once, it should be linked at every mention in the table because it's sortable
  • Why are Corsons and Bexley redlinked if other communities aren't?
  • "by both the city of Kawartha Lakes" capitalize "city" again
  • The comments for Kawartha Lakes Road 6 should begin with a capital
  • Kawartha Lakes Road 17: in the comments, the note should go after the semi-colon
  • In Road 18's comments, you can take out the "City Road 18" at the beginning
  • Road 36 is missing a semi-colon in its comments
  • Reference 1 should have a page number (i.e., what page is the map on?)
  • Is the Thompson reference (currently 3) a book? Of so, the title should be italicized
  • What is reference number 6? A press release (if it is, you can use {{Cite press release}}?
  • In reference 9: there's no "pp." before the page numbers, and there's an extra space after the title
  • In reference 13, I think "department" should be capitalized. Mm40 (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed most of the issues you've brought to light, but have a few replies to some:
First off, wrt the last paragraph of the lead, the idea is that the highways that were transfered to Victoria County in 1998 were mostly NOT renumbered, but just changed from Highway X to Victoria County Road X. The exception being Highway 35A (became part of County Road 8) and Highway 36B (became the western extension of County Road 17). The maintenance switched as well. In 2001, they were renamed Kawartha Lakes Road X. In all cases, names changed, numbers didn't, with those exceptions. Hope this clears up what is honestly a really confusing reorganization of ownership and maintenance.
Second, King's Highway was a term used in law up until recently to refer to these highways. They are provincial highways now, but the former term is certainly far more familiar to the average person.
Third, I've removed the Highway 35 note, as I can't find a source.
Fourth, linking every community every time was a major issue for other in the last nominations, as it is a serious case of overlinking. It is limited now to the first mention of them in the order the table loads initially.
Fifth, the errors in reference 9 seem to be from the template itself. I've fixed the issues.
Besides what I noted, all the other changes have been made. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments late in the day, but hopefully still useful.
  • "existed prior to 1998, but no longer exist" why not "have not existed since 1998"?
  • "...Victoria County. These were transferred to Victoria County in 1998. All Victoria County Roads, including the former provincial highways, were renamed when Victoria County ..." Victoria County x 4. Very repetitive reading.
  • I have to say that even I find that map inaccessible. As for those who are colour blind, I'm sure they'll find it even more difficult...
  • "[3][1]" can you list these numerically?
  • "reassurance markers.[4]Highway 7" space missing.
  • I thought WP:MOS#Images said to avoid "squashing text" between images.
  • I also think the MOS frowns upon the use of # as number - see MOS:HASH
  • Terminus cols in the first table don't sort but they do in the second. Any reason?
  • I'm not sure how Western/Southern Terminus sorts. Sorting arrow up, I get "Highway 35, Highway 7" then four Highway 7s, then two Highway 7As, then 7 Highway 35s...
  • Bullet point on the external link.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes made. I'm viewing wikipedia at small resolution on my laptop monitor, and the only place I get overlap is the first line of the City roads section. I moved the pic down slightly to address this. The terminii don't sort in the first table because almost every one of them is a different class of road, and many are simply boundary lines that lie on concession roads (e.g. Hayes Line). These roads aren't numbered and sorting them would be rather fruitless. The second table is far larger and more in need of being sortable. As for the second point on them, KL Road 15 ends at the junction of Highway 35 and Highway 7, so both are listed. I wasn't sure where this fell in order, but made it first. Following that is the numerical order of highways then city roads.
As for the map, is there anything in particular that you find makes it unreadable? It doesn't have to be 100% legible within the article, that's why you can click on it for a full version. I'm guessing that you're referring to the green lines on a green background though? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response. I'm still getting squashed text between the lead map and the 7and35shields image, but that's not a major deal-breaker. As for the map, I guess I'm referring mainly to WP:ACCESS which talks about not denoting particular properties with colour alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most (and the actually) important information isn't conveyed by colour alone, but colours add additional information for the keen reader (eg. the background green changes to pink in urban areas. For a roadgeek, its informative. For an average reader, unimportant and probably unnoticed). The King's Highways are all labelled (and 115 has two lines to show it as a divided expressway), the city roads are just lines. The thickness of the lines also indicated the type of road. I can see some concern over the lakes vs the land, but I think these sort of problems are endemic to maps in general - They are a visual aid. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're right, and maybe we should use some alt-text in these cases to explicitly describe what the maps are trying to show. I know it's no longer part of the MOS but I'm concerned that we allow these images through featured reviews when a considerable number of people probably can't get the most out of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I've shortened the caption on the map. Hopefully that will remove the pinch (unless you're viewing at 800x600). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'd love to make it so even fully blind readers can get a rough idea as to the shape of the region and the location of the major routes. I'll rewrite the alt to be less descriptive of the legend, and more descriptive of the map. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. Let me know when you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm not the best with alts, but I think the change is for the better. It's very hard to describe a map with words. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_numbered_roads_in_Kawartha_Lakes/archive1&oldid=1085530831"