Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Logo

I created a new logo for the project. That map doesn't seem to do very good at smaller sizes. The logo I created is here in SVG format. It uses shields/markers for SK, ON, QC and NS fanned out like cards behind the TCH marker that's in use for the portal graphic. Thoughts? (Note that several other province's markers are under crown copyright yet. In fact the TCH marker only fell out of copyright at the start of this year. These were chosen simply to have an array of provinces and to use graphics unencumbered by copyright.) Imzadi 1979 → 07:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks awesome! Great work. The only thing I can see (and it's about as minor as things come) is the little white corners on the Trans-Canada shield. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Userboxen

Just FYI, I went through and cleaned up the Provincial and Territorial user boxes and added them to the /Participants page under the main user box. They all feed into the same cat, except for ON, but ONs cat is a subcat of the main cat. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

BC 395 Merger proposal

See Talk:U.S. Route 395#BC 395 Merger --Admrboltz (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Scope

I guess mthe first thing to discuss, as has been brought up, is the scope / coverage of the project. Are we covering just numbered roads? Are city streets / arterials included? How about bridges which carry roads (eg Leaside Viaduct)? There's also the question of ferries and mountain passes.

Personally I believe that all but the last two are under our scope. Roads are roads, so city streets should be under our coverage. Unlike the US roads project, we have far fewer articles and no need to have a separate project dealing with them. Bridges with roads I beleive we should cover as well. They are rather ignored and they tie in with the history of the road extensively. There's no harm in both us and the bridges project covering them.

Because there wasn't much central organization until now, I've been tagging bridges and city streets in Ontario. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would spin city streets off to their related city or provincial project and not deal with them here. They're just a different kinds of roads with a different set of coverage requirements to meet the ideal of being comprehensive. They can be included, but honestly the differences lead me to the spin them off to projects that can cover them better. The streets are really part of a different system than highways with a different purpose.

Bridges are bridges. It doesn't matter if they carry a road, rails or a hiking trail. Those articles are going to focus on the engineering specs and design of the span. The road that uses the bridge should talking about the bridge anyway, in the context of how it relates to the history and route of the road. The highway article doesn't need to get into all of the engineering specs. The same goes for ferries. Mountain passes are similar. If they're notable enough to get a separate article, that article isn't really a under the standard expertise or scope of the project. They should be covered though as part of the article on the highway that uses the pass in any event. That's just my $0.02. Imzadi 1979 → 05:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying is undoubtedly true, but from my experience (with the editors in Ontario) editors will focus on highways and local major roads, and they're all "canada road transport articles". No harm in it being under the coverage of the roads AND the bridge project, right? For example, the Forth Bridge is tagged by the bridge project, Scotland project, trains project, and transport in scotland project. In the same way, I'd expect the Prince Edward Viaduct to be covered by the transit wikiproject, canada roads project, and bridges project. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And there's no reason to prevent individual editors with the interest and expertise to cover bridges properly from joining the Bridges project and collaborating there and coordinating with their project standards with respect to the bridges. Why duplicate the effort by covering bridges in the roads project just because they carry a road? Imzadi 1979 → 06:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Bot processes

I've set up WP:CRWP/RC, the Recognized content page, for the project. When the bot runs again, we'll have a listing generated of all the various goodies for the project similar to WP:USRD/RC. As soon as I figure it out, I plan to get Article Alerts running as well for the project. Imzadi 1979 → 12:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Canada Roads/Article alerts should be set up to received the alerts with the next bot run. Once the page is created, I'll insert the WP:CRWP/AA shortcut for it and tag the page. Imzadi 1979 → 12:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Class Review

The new version of the banner template supports an A-Class Review (ACR) forum. For those project members not aware, USRD runs WP:USRD/ACR which is the only way a B-Class or GA-Class article can be promoted to this status. Think of it as a FAC Light. Wiki-wide, A-Class requires a minimum of two editors to support the nomination without any significant opposes. (WP:ACLASS) Projects are free to amend the requirements for their use. (USRD requires four independent editors to support promotion, and usually the article is promoted once the fourth support is made.) I know that there is a discussion about nominating one article already that predates the conversion to a project-specific banner. Before that article can be nominated though, we'll need to set the project's criteria for running the process. The criteria can be adjusted at a later date (USRD has changes its ACR a few times) but it shouldn't be adjusted in the middle of a nomination. Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 12:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's go with two; I don't think we have four members yet. Because of the limited productivity available to us, I'd like to avoid editors sticking their start-class article (which they changed to B-class) into ACR and wasting time. Perhaps requiring articles pass GAN first? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As a practical matter, I can't remember if any B-Class article at USRD was ever run through ACR. Of course, B-Class requirements have tightened up a big in general, and USRD has a different set of assessment criteria that are a bit more stringent. In either case, just bumping something to B from Start and sending it to ACR would get tossed out it the B-Class rating weren't accurate. As for editor count, I was thinking of setting the bar at 3. There are enough interested USRD editors willing to pitch in from time to time with GANs and ACRs that I think we could sustain a 3-review requirement. Officially, in USRD, that's actually net supports, not gross supports. (An outright oppose that isn't removed would require an additional support to negate it. That hasn't happened in 2.5 years though.) Imzadi 1979 → 17:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

With the US editors we should be able to pull it off. Theres a few people up here I'd trust to review (alaney, svgalbertian, bearcat) if they are up to the task from time to time. I'm not sure how many (if any) of the individual provincial editors are aware that things are being revived. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well thats our job to let them know about the new goings on here at CRWP. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that CRWP needs to put out a newsletter issue. Now, whether or not it becomes a quarterly affair like the USRD newsletter is another matter, but if something smart is put together and sent out to everyone, plus related project talk pages, I think you can get the word out quickly. As for US editors, you have Adm and myself, Mitchazenia was and probably will be active with MB/SK again, and I know Dough4872 said he'd review stuff. Rschen might work on some CRWP stuff again as time and interest allow. I don't think you have to worry about editors. Just remember one thing though, ACR in USRD can move at a glacial pace sometimes. We should not expect 4 reviewers to show up and make comments in 14 days and send an article out. One last thing to remember is that you'll need an impartial editor to close the review. In MILHIST, they have elected coordinators. In USRD, we have people that actually refuse to review an article just so they can close it. At one time, we considered having an informal process coordinator just to handle the closures, unless that editor nominated an article. (Then someone else would be temporarily designated to the task.) Imzadi 1979 → 18:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Crazy, silly idea... but I don't see why we couldn't get an uninterested USRD/HWY editor to be the designed CRWP closer, if a CRWP/HWY editor is the designated ACR closer for USRD. In theory, the closer would need to be trusted to evaluate if an oppose is actionable, but otherwise a trained monkey can close a review if it knew which buttons to push and in what order to push them. Imzadi 1979 → 18:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to volunteer to do that at USRD. I'm not as qualified as a trained monkey, but I could get by :p

I like the newsletter(esque) idea. Would be a great way to gather everyone together. I'll try and come up with some stuff to start 'er off with. Could you find me a link to the first USRD newsletter? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:USRD/N is where all newsletter issues are located. I would be happy to help as well. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A start - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Article alerts bug

Resolved

 – Bug was resolved with 12/24 update to Article Alerts. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:AAlerts/BUGS#Pluses instead of underscores --Admrboltz (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Invite template

Does CRWP have an invite template, ala WP:HWY's? --Admrboltz (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

MOS:RJL question

See: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (road junction lists)#Dashes and or emphasis in RJL --Admrboltz (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

HELP! trying to understand the copyright situation for a BC turtle crossing image

I have an FAC right now, Painted turtle, which uses a turtle crossing sign photo from Vancouver, BC. Like the photo a lot as it is a good pic and hits a couple themes in the article (roadkill reduction, BC conservation), but there is a concern now that the physical sign is copyrighted. I have all the permissions for the photo. But then the concern is it is a photo of a sign that is perhaps copyrighted. Can you give me any guidance on wiki policy here? Want to save my image if possible, but of course will trash the image if not. I have been researching Fair use, Freedom of Panorama, the Canadian statutes, etc. But you guys must deal with this all the time. Please advise. ASAP.TCO (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately Canada's Freedom of Panorama does not include 2D objects, such as the street sign you have posted. Though it appears you obtained this image via an OTRS request from presumably the Habitat Acquisition Trust, who would own the copyright to the sign presumably. The only copyrightable section as far as US copyright law is concerned is the turtle, as text is not-copyrightable. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Admiral, can you explain that one more time? Do we need to cut the image? Just want to be clear. Thanks for restating.TCO (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Does the sign significantly contribute to the article? If it doesn't, I would say drop it and request it be deleted by speedy deletion on commons as failing FoP. If you feel it significantly contribute, then I would check with the Habitat Acquisition Trust to see if they hold the copyright for the image - if so then you are all set, as they would be the copyright holder, and they have given you OTRS permission to display the image. If they are not the copyright holder, then you will have to delete it. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, is it ever done (and what the response) to write to the province or town or company that makes the signs or whatever and get a permission? Would not help us near term, though.TCO (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Typically signs that are included in Canadian and US road articles are not the focus of the image, so they are acceptable. This image seems to focus on the sign, thus the concern regarding its copyright status. --Admrboltz (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The flip side is to find out if this turtle graphic is included in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada. The US MUTCD shows various animal warning signs here, but the turtle isn't one of them. I'm looking to see if I can find the Canadian version online, or a BC supplement. Such a document may provide, that like in the US, these signs aren't under copyright. Imzadi 1979 → 22:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've come across the Canadian manual before. LEt me hunt it down. Would have to see both if it cedes rights and if the image is in there. HAve seen that pdf for Canada before but not finding. On to googling...TCO (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, there is a template for Fair use for BC road signs. Any idea to find what places have that template on them? Might help me consider current situation. Template_talk:Non-free_British_Columbia_traffic_sign#how_do_I_find_what_pages_are_using_this_template.3F TCO (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I replied there, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Non-free_British_Columbia_traffic_sign lists the usages of the template, which is all for highway route markers (highway shields) not other signs. Those markers incorporate copyrighted elements. Imzadi 1979 → 22:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I see they are mostly numbered road signs. I'm not clear what differentiation point you are making to me though. The issue of concern is not the photo of the sign (I have that nailed down), but the underlying design that was copied when we took a photo of it. This would seem to be the same wiki-issue whether it is a numbered road or a W-57 road sign or whatever. By the way, I did get a copy of the manual on Canadian traffic signs. It does not list all the W signs (but of those listed there was no turtle). Also, within it, there did not seem to be any discussion saying the designs were public domain anyhow. So, am I screwed, or not?TCO (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The point that I was making with that template is that the route markers have a copyrighted design on them, so they have FURs so the images can appear at the top of that route's infobox, but that currently there are no BC-specific road sign photos that use it. There are two ways that the photo can stay. One is to double check with the organization that licensed the photo through the OTRS ticket to see if that organization claims ownership of the underlying sign design. If so, then you'd be safe because to license the photo, they'd have to license the underlying sign design too. The second option is to find a traffic sign manual for Canada or BC that states that signs are in the PD. (I'd argue that if the US MUTCD listed it, then the design was released into the PD for the US and worldwide, meaning that the design in Canada can't claim a copyright.) We're still digging, so don't give up hope yet. Imzadi 1979 → 23:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Capisce. Thanks for helping me. I'm now an expert on Panaroma law and traffic signage! TCO (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Turtle crossing sign, April 2010.jpg --Admrboltz (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons deletion notice

See Commons:Deletion requests/Diagrams of speed limit signs of Canada. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Provincial highway

The usage of Provincial highway is under discussion, see Talk:Provincial highway. 184.144.164.14 (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

streets that are also highways

I noticed that a some highway articles have moved to streets. Someone needs to go through the street wikiproject bannered articles and re-add CRWP banners to those streets that are also secondary highways. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

yobot

FYI, yobot (talk · contribs) is replacing {{CRWP}} with {{WikiProject Canada}} . 65.95.14.96 (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it is being replaced by {{Canada Roads WikiProject}}. But I still think its silly. --AdmrBoltz 18:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not according to this [1]. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's very silly. I thought bots were not supposed to make edits that didn't do anything to pages. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

SVGs of BC Highway shields

I have the vector version of the British Columbia highway shield design, obtained directly from the BC MoT. I've been reluctant to use it to post SVG shields of BC highways here on Wikipedia because the design is encumbered by copyright. Do you still wish for SVG versions of BC highway signs to be added to Wikipedia under the proper fair use claim? --  Denelson83  05:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

In this case, SVGs would be superior to PNGs. Once created and switched, the PNGs would be deleted. As a secondary project, if we could simplify the design to simplify/remove the elements that invoke the copyright, we could have a generic PD version of the shield. That version could then be used by {{jct}} for junction lists. It could also be used in the talk page banner on BC highway talk pages. The full-detail version would be used at the top of the infobox only. Looking at File:Bc15.png, we should just swap a plain Union Jack or the current BC flag into the shield and it would still be PD. Just some food for thought. Imzadi 1979 → 05:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What about a simple number and the "B.C." legend on the basic sign blank for use outside article space? Is the sign blank shape also encumbered by copyright? --  Denelson83  04:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's entirely the flag at the top that makes the shield copyrightable. If the sun and the waves were removed and replaced with a simple yellow circle sun and 3 squiggly blue lines for the waves, it would probably be too simple for copyright. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a shield form of the BC flag in the Wikimedia Commons. Maybe we can use that? --  Denelson83  04:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No, and neither is the actual provincial flag. It's not just outside of article space though. In the article for British Columbia Highway 15, BC-10's shield can't be displayed in the junction list. A simplified version that would be displayed at 20px could though. This simplified version as a blank without the number would be used for the project banner, future portals, etc. At 70px, a full version could be used with all of the detail under fair-use in the infobox for the specific article. So in short, I'd like to see both versions created for the two different, but similar, uses. To reply to Floydian's comment, the current marker uses a variation of the flag, but not the flag itself. A shield with the number and "B.C." with the provincial flag itself consists of common elements that would be PD. Imzadi 1979 → 04:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It can't be displayed in the junction list because it would have to be placed in the template space first. --  Denelson83  05:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, you're partially wrong. If the template itself does not display the image, it's not in template space. Look at Template:jct. That template does not display any graphics in template space. When parameters are passed to the template from an article, only then does it display any graphics, and it does so in whichever namespace is invoking the template. Second: you don't need to use a template to build a junction list in an article, obliviating the "template space" argument.

I'm talking about two separate graphic options. Let's assume we have a SVG created for BC-15 using the vectors you obtained from BC MoT without further modification. We'll name those graphics File:BC-15 full.svg. That graphic, as a copyright-protected image, could only be used at the top of the infobox for British Columbia Highway 15 under a claim of fair use. If we have a second version of the graphics, with the shield shape, the number and "B.C." with or without the provincial flag, named File:BC-10.svg, it would be too simple to fall under copyright, and be {{PD simple}}. Then {{jct}} could be coded to call that graphic in the junction list on that article. File:BC-blank.svg could be called by the banner template in the talk namespace as well. That's what I want to do, create a version of the actual shields for the infobox to be displayed in the large size, and a simplified version for all other uses. Imzadi 1979 → 06:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

float

Here's my prototype. Does it look okay to be used in {{Jct}}? --  Denelson83  06:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it could use the inner blue outline as well, but looking good! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Do the actual shields have such a thick black line? If not, decrease the width of that. I would add in the other blue details. The last thing I would add is the BC flag in the upper portion. At 20 px, no one will really know it's not the right graphic element, but the flag isn't under copyright, and it can be used as an element here.You're on the right track though. Imzadi 1979 → 07:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Btw, we can have the bot on Commons create the whole list if you make a template of this for it. Imzadi 1979 → 07:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, after hashing some code out, I came up with {{BC Highway Shield}}. For three-character route numbers, it widens the backing shield so that all of the characters can fit into it. Observe:

{{BC Highway Shield|19}}{{BC Highway Shield|1A}}{{BC Highway Shield|97C}}

It still needs a little work, e.g., to make it properly work inline with text, but I think I'm getting close. I had to make the outer border of the shield as thick as it is so that it doesn't disappear into the surrounding white space at 20px.

--  Denelson83  08:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, I'm not seeing anything but shield blanks. If you can just help provide a template, we can have the bot create the full range of graphics, upload them, and set {{jct}} to use the new graphics in less than a day. If you include the blue line though, as it appears on the actual shield, the black line won't need to be that wide. In general, I oppose these tricks of superimposing text over a graphic. That used to be done with Manitoba, and now good looking graphics have been created. Part of my opposition is that road signs use a distinctive typeface, and text superimposed over a graphic would be rendered in the wrong font. If a user has their browser set to Times New Roman, then the shields would have a serif font. Imzadi 1979 → 09:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't trust a bot to do the job right. I am right now pounding my way through the full set of shields in Inkscape, and they will be uploaded later. --  Denelson83  17:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with a bot? This bot has handled many other highway shields. --Rschen7754 17:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A bot might get the positioning visibly wrong.

Anyway, here are the shields, ready for {{jct}} to recognize:

File:BC-3.svg

--  Denelson83  18:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Those shields look good, but the licensing is incorrect. They should be {{PD-shape}} --AdmrBoltz 18:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

And, the TCH shields don't need simplification... they passed into the PD last year. The original TCH design was published in 1959. The 50-year copyright term expired on December 31, 2009, making the correct design available on January 1, 2010. As for the bot, it does damn good work on positioning if you set up the template right. (The number field is set as text, not paths/outline, and that field is centered, etc.) The problem though is that the blue elements are missing, and you could still add the BC flag to the top. The full-detail shields have a variant of the flag that would be under copyright, but if you substitute the actual flag in that space, it's another element of "information that is common property and contains no original authorship", making it {{PD-ineligible}}. Can you please add in the blue elements and decrease the black outline? Imzadi 1979 → 19:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to add the flag element, download File:Flag of British Columbia.svg and scale it to fit in that notch in the top of the shield outline. Even File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg could be pasted there, and that design is definitely not in copyright, existing back to 1801 or so. Imzadi 1979 → 19:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why can't File:Blason ca Colombie-Britannique.svg be used? Its already on the commons. 117Avenue (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That would work, I dont think we realized it was there. You would need to keep consistant licensing then and make sure you notate that you are including that file as a derivative. --AdmrBoltz 20:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Denelson83 mentioned it above. There is actually two, he mentions the other one below. 117Avenue (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• As was mentioned several times, more detail can and should be added (the blue lines) and the flag should go in at the top. The black lines should also be far thinner (as they are simply an outline). As it stands, these shields are not suitable for use. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, I did not design these shield images to be used at the top of infoboxes--only in the {{jct}} template.

Also, File:Arms_of_British_Columbia.svg is available to be added to the full-size SVG shield images. --  Denelson83  21:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

They should still be as close to the actual design as is permissibly possible so that they look like actual small shields. The Ontario icons are the same in jct and infoboxes (right down to the word Ontario, which is invisible at jct sizes). Even though they wouldn't be used on the article in the infobox, there are many possibilities where they'd be displayed larger than jct size, for example in lists of highways. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

But wouldn't simply the arrangement of the elements on the shield—even if the individual elements are PD—fall under the BC Government's copyright? --  Denelson83  22:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and no. Part of the problem is that BC MoT has used only elements that are all PD. The flag itself was introduced on June 14, 1960, meaning that the flag has fallen into the PD on the first of this year. If we use the flag on top of an escutcheon (aka "shield-shape") with blue numbers and a blue outline, it's all PD elements at work, and too simple to be copyrightable. If we use that shield rendition of the flag off Commons, which is licensed as CC-BY-SA (3.0, 2.5, 2.0, 1.0) or GFDL, we have to license the resulting shields with either a CC-BY-SA or a GFDL license, and then {{jct}} could have to be modified. (That's debatable though. That shield may or may not be properly licensed, and it might be PD.) The reason I say it might need to be modified is that it sets its graphics to |alt=|link=, which is permitted for PD graphics, but I don't think it's permitted for CC graphics. (Part of the CC license is attribution, which Wikipedia does on the file description page, accessible only by the default link that is suppressed by the |link=.)

Personally, I'd prefer that the black outline be reduced to an actual outline with the correct blue outline inserted. The TCH variants can be deleted completely and replaced with the full, correct graphic. If they've already been created for other provinces, a simple switch in the jct template will call the right graphic for 1 and 16. Then I'd use the BC flag on top in that little "hat" at the top of the shield. This way we'd avoid any issues with other included graphics and licenses. Imzadi 1979 → 00:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well then, it's possible that by following the traceability chain of that shield image, it can become PD. I used File:Flag of British Columbia.svg and File:Flag of the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario.svg (both PD) to make File:Flag of the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia.svg, which I then licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0 and the GFDL. Then, User:Fry1989 isolated from that flag the File:Arms of British Columbia.svg image. All I have to do is make the BC L-G flag PD, then ask User:Fry1989 to put File:Arms of British Columbia.svg into PD, and we should be all set. --  Denelson83  00:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have the full "flagged" shields ready for upload to the Commons, if you want them. --  Denelson83  01:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Uploading now... --  Denelson83  03:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

These new ones look perfect! The difference (while obvious when observed) is subtle from the official shield; I think it works perfectly, both big and small. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note that even though I have the "Crowsnest", "Yellowhead" and "Nisga'a" graphics, I can't use those, as they are obviously copyrighted. --  Denelson83  04:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Uploads complete. --  Denelson83  04:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but when creating and uploading a set for the top of the infobox, using the 100% correct version, you can create them so they can be included in the infoboxes, but not used in {{jct}}. Imzadi 1979 → 05:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

So these images—BC-3 full.svg, BC-5 full.svg, and BC-113 full.svg—can be used on Wikipedia under fair use, and {{Infobox road}} will accept them? --  Denelson83  05:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We just have to edit the subtemplate for IR so that it calls that series of shields. Are you making the rest of the set? Imzadi 1979 → 05:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I think that's all we need. I think those versions I just uploaded to the Commons can also be used in {{Infobox road}}. I've already updated the IR sub-template to accept the new shields.--  Denelson83  05:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, given the size, I'd prefer to use the correct design, but that's purely a preference. Do we need to do anything for jct now? I've uploaded a blank and switched the banner to it. One province down, a few more to go... Imzadi 1979 → 06:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've already notified the maintainers of {{jct}} on that template's talk page that the shields are ready. --  Denelson83  06:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL... As it turns out, one of which is you. I didn't even consider that. >D --  Denelson83  07:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

New contest

User:Dough4872/GA by number, a contest encouraged to improve articles to GA quality. Dough4872 03:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

An RfC that could affect the project

WT:No original research#Are maps secondary sources? Imzadi 1979 → 16:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A Canadian WikiProject in the Signpost?

Pls see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#A Canadian WikiProject in the Signpost.Moxy (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Great River Road

Please see WT:USRD#The Great River Road for a proposal and comment there. Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 11:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to geotag all highway articles

There is currently a proposal to modify WT:RJL to allow geotagging of highway articles in the junction lists, at specified important points along the route. Your input is welcome. --Rschen7754 02:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

HWY A-class review

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#A-class review. Dough4872 02:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cambie_Street#The_Canada_Line_and_Cambie_Street

Can anyone assist in resolving this NPOV dispute? - RoyBoy 01:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Provincial Roads in northern Saskatchewan talk page

Moving a comment from the aforementioned article to here as Provincial Roads in northern Saskatchewan will be up for deletion...it was a llist type article for 900 series provincial roads, but only covered 903 and 904....now those articles Saskatchewan Highway 903 and Saskatchewan Highway 904 have their own page. The talk page introduced some good clusters.

• ALSO, should discuss if these 900 series roads/highways are Saskatchewan Highways or Provincial Roads, AND if anyone has an image of the shield used by Ministry of Highways, as permissions were proferred to use images of the highway shields by the Ministry of Highways and is on file at Wikimedia commons, but the 900 series is not photographed as a sample to make a template....Does anyone live or travel north? Subtopics which follow are the aforementioned talk page comments

SriMesh | talk 17:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

I wonder what the best way to organize these is. Are there official or unofficial regions of northern Saskatchewan, or is numerical order best?

Note that a few of the main routes, like Provincial Road 905, will have "main article" links like so:

Main article: Saskatchewan Provincial Road 905

--NE2 18:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Clusters

There are definitely clusters of routes, but I'm not sure if there are good names for the regions:

• Meadow Lake area: 903, 904, 919, 950, 951, 954, 965
• Big River area: 916, 917, 921, 922, 923, 924, 929, 939, 942, 943, 945, 946
• Timber Bay area and east: 911, 912, 913, 920, 926, 927, 928, 930, 931, 952, 953, 963, 967, 969
• La Ronge area: 910, 914, 915, 935, 936
• Beauval area and northwest: 908, 909, 918, 925, 955, 956
• Hudson Bay area: 980, 981, 982, 983, 984
• Northern areas: 905, 962, 968, 994, 995, 999

--NE2 19:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

By the Indian Reservation names:

• Big C, Birch Narrows, Buffalo River, English River: 908, 909, 914, 918, 925, 955, 956
• Canoe Lake, (Meadow Lake): 903, 904, 919, 941, 950, 951, 954, 965
• (far north): 905, 962, 964, 966, 968, 994, 995, 999
• (Hudson Bay): 980, 981, 982, 983, 984
• Lac la Ronge, Montreal Lake: 910, 915, 926, 930, 931, 935, 952, 953, 969, 970
• (Narrow Hills), Peter Ballantyne: 911, 912, 913, 920, 927, 928, 932, 933, 934, 963, 967
• Pelican Lake, (Selenite Point), (Smoothstone Lake): 916, 917, 921, 922, 923, 924, 929, 936, 937, 938, 939, 940, 942, 943, 945, 946

• (not used): 900, 901, 902, 906, 907, 944, 947, 948, 949, 957-961, 971-979, 985-993, 996-998

--NE2 13:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Former provincial highways

• 104: now 904 and part of 903
• 105: now 905
• 124: now 924
• 169: now 969

--NE2 14:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Recommend article deletion and separate road articles created

Presumably back in 2007 the intent was to create an overall article to cover the 900-series highways. However since then individual articles have been created for all of the 900-series roads, no matter how minor, with the exception of the 3 spotlighted in this article. I suggest deleting this article as redundant (no reflection on the original editors, of course) and separate articles be created for the individual highways in keeping with how all the other Saskatchewan Highway articles are being maintained. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Memorial highways in Canada

Request Memorial highways of Canada/Memorial roads of Canada.Moxy (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Any sources to inform us as to what these are. I've never heard of them, personally. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, but maybe from the sound of it, it should be a category? --Rschen7754 06:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Category is the first thing that crossed my mind as well. Hwy43 (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories often have a list article as their main article, that could be created as well. 117Avenue (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

But not all do. From the looks of it, I think this would only be useful as a category. --Rschen7754 20:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the name should be consistent with other Canadian categories, and they use the word Roads and not highways generally. In SK there would for sure be one to add Veteran's Memorial Highway a segment of Saskatchewan Highway 2. ....so the category is now created.SriMesh | talk 18:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Alberta Highway 36 added. Hwy43 (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC on coordinates in highway articles

There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rschen7754 01:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Saskatchewan Highways

Template:Saskatchewan Highways has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 07:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Logo contest

Calling all Canadian roadgeeks! I just boldly redesigned the main project page and created a navigation box based on what WP:HWY and WP:USRD have. Now, your job is to design a logo for the project. I used a generic TCH marker as a place holder (the other one has a transparent background and looked awful on the red background.) So, your challenge is to create a uniquely Canadian logo for the project. Imzadi 1979 → 01:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Although not a member of the project, I think the project should use a design similar to File:USRD logo.svg with File:TCH 1.svg, File:Quebec Autoroute 15.svg, and File:Saskatchewan Highway 2 (jct).svg. Dough4872 01:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I forgot, I had created File:CRWP logo.svg, but it needs a little cleanup work. (I need to substitute the updated NS marker graphic, for instance.) Imzadi 1979 → 06:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Active/inactive member assessment

I think it's time to reassess the "activeness" of members on the list by holding a 30 day assessment period. All the current users would be switched to "pending", and would be responsible for changing themselves to "active". After 30 days, the remainder would become "inactive". This will better reflect who can be looked to for assistance. Thoughts? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Hwy43 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've started the assessment. To make things simpler, I'll leave it open until February 29 (~40 days). An editnotice will hopefully help users, and I will post a message to all members talk pages with instructions for making their status active. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just a heads up: there are 10 days remaining. I'm assuming we more or less have a picture of the active project at this point. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• The assessment is now complete. We are 26 members less :(
  Inactive members are always welcome to restore their active status by changing the {{No}} template beside their username to {{Yes}}. Sometime soon I will go through and purge the list of editors that are banned, retired, or haven't made any edits in over a year. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam Research

There are still lots of open slots for qualified editors at WP:HighBeam. Note, you have to have an account that's at least a year of age with a minimum number of edits. I would encourage editors to pledge to help other project members so we can share this resource. I've already pledged, within reason, to share articles from the service with other project member if I'm accepted. We don't need every member of CRWP to have access. Imzadi 1979 → 21:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Highway twinning lobby website as an external link at Alberta Highway 63

Greetings, an IP editor has been repeatedly adding Twin Highway 63 Now | The Highway of Death website as an external link at Alberta Highway 63. The website promotes lobbying the government to accelerate the twinning of Highway 63. I've removed the link twice, dropping the IP a message after the second time, as in my opinion inclusion of this link is for the purpose of promoting the website (see #4 under WP:ELNO). Despite the message, the IP has added it a third time. This persistance is likely due to the Fort McMurray community mourning last week's crash that claimed seven lives. As this is a sensitive issue, I request some assistance from this community to review this and confirm if the link should be removed or not. If it should be removed, assistance in communicating this to the IP would also be appreciated. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Imzadi. I've placed the slightly more appropriate advert1 warning on the IP's talk page. Hwy43 (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it for the immediate future. Maybe things will die down and fade away a bit. Imzadi 1979 → 02:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, and I will continue to do the same. Our team approach will be helpful in the event emotions get the better of the IP. I can empathize as the highway through the communities in which I was raised previously held the province's unofficial "highway of death" moniker until it was twinned. Hwy43 (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles for New Brunswick roads (and settlements)

Project participant User:Hogie75 is creating a staggering amount of unreferenced articles on New Brunswick roads and settlements. He's clearly done a great deal of research but unfortunately no source, not one, has made its way into his recent articles. The list of created articles is here. I've managed to tag about half of them, perhaps. I've raised this with him on this talk page as well, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Any online/dead paper official (provincial) road map would suffice to at least confirm the existence, length, communities encountered and end points of the roads in question. Unfortunately there are fewer regular editors in this project than there are provinces under its coverage, so Hogie may very well be the only road editor New Brunswick has seen or will see for a little while. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

GAR

There is a GAR at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Delaware Route 17/1 that could have ramifications on the articles in this project. Dough4872 00:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Map database

What do you think about starting a map database similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Resources/Map database? --Rschen7754 20:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and I'll enter my Alberta collection from 1927 to present (need to add 2011 and 2012). Hwy43 (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Bot work request for Ottawa River Parkway

On the 15 of this month in Ottawa the parkway called Ottawa River Parkway was renamed Sir John A. Macdonald Parkway would it be possible to get some sort of bot to fix (rename) all the redirects to the new name?Moxy (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Doubt anyone would program a bot for that few a number of redirects. I'll change them manually. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:HWY/TFA

I've created a new page at the above link to put down suggestions for TFA and coordinate nominations for WP:TFAR. --Rschen7754 05:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

USRD crosspost about ACR

A discussion is taking place at WT:USRD#ACR where we're discussing potential changes to the ACR process. Your input is welcomed. –Fredddie™ 00:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A-Class review proposed changes

There are proposed changes for the A-Class review for WP:HWY, to deal with situations where there are several opposes, and when the nominator has failed to respond to the comments. Your input is welcome at WT:HWY/ACR. --Rschen7754 05:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Road signs up for deletion

Several Ontario road signs are up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_April_8 -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox road proposal

There is a proposal to use Wikidata for displaying a map in Infobox road, only if both the map_custom= and map= field are blank. Your input is welcomed at Template talk:Infobox road. --Rschen7754 02:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Switching to Wikidata for maps

This is a notice that the |map= parameter in {{infobox road}} is soon becoming obsolete. The parameter will be supported by Wikidata projectwide in the near future. This has been tested and proven to work, but the parameter is only supported by Wikidata on articles pertaining to roads in Arizona, California, Delaware, North Dakota, and South Dakota, as of June 2.

This works by using the map property on Wikidata. To complete the example above, here is the item for CA 78 on Wikidata. Notice how in the "road map" property is File:California State Route 78.svg, which is the map that infobox road now links to, to use as the map in the infobox. If you have any questions, I'm willing to answer them. TCN7JM 06:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

revived name discussion on Douglas Road

Please see Talk:Douglas Road#New discussion.Skookum1 (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The King's Highway 11 Ontario (East).png

image:The King's Highway 11 Ontario (East).png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The King's Highway 11 Ontario (West).png

image:The King's Highway 11 Ontario (West).png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Holland Marsh 1946.png

image:Holland Marsh 1946.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#Key ordering

An unofficial request for comments has been started here to determine the ordering of the statements in the key at the bottom of the table. Your comments would be appreciated. TCN7JM 09:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

New templates

Hi all, I've created three new templates: {{traffic volume top}}, {{traffic volume row}}, and {{traffic volume bottom}}, that can be used for creating tables of traffic volume data, as seen in the new A-Class article Kwinana Freeway and relatively new GA Tonkin Highway (which were previously hardcoded). I've written the documentation and WP:TemplateData. These have been coded using parser functions, but I imagine the logic can be executed using a WP:Lua module (I haven't yet learned to code in Lua). - Evad37 (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Cross-posted to WikiProject Highways and other road wikiprojects. Please reply at WT:HWY#New_templates

WT:HWY#Sections

There is a discussion at the above page related to what additional sections (beyond the standard route description, history, junction list) can or must be included on a road article. --Rschen7754 05:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Photos up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 October 6 where many Ontario highway photos are up for deletion -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a shields request page on WP:HWY

There is a discussion on WT:HWY regarding a proposal for a shields request page on WP:HWY - Evad37 (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

User manually adding customary units

Sammalin (talk · contribs) is manually adding in customary units to BC road articles and others. I have asked them to stop, and it appears I'm not the only one who has. Just a heads up. --AdmrBoltz 16:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this what you had in mind? I did it for Sammalin on this article (only one I've seen on my watchlist thus far). One thing about using the template is it clutters the column with the "km" and "mi" abbreviations in each entry, which are unnecessary with the column heading. Is there a parameter to hide the units? Hwy43 (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like "|abbr=values" does the trick. I'll do that at Crowsnest Highway. Hwy43 (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Junction lists should be reformatted to use {{Jctint}} which does conversions automatically actually. You can find info at MOS:RJL. --AdmrBoltz 21:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The {{convert}} just needs to be used in prose. --AdmrBoltz 21:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll look into that. For the interim, I've added the parameter to the convert template. Hwy43 (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Concurrency article

The article concurrency (road) has been nominated for deletion. Your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concurrency (road) is welcome. Imzadi 1979 → 07:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Successful ACR

Hello. I am pleased to announce that Ontario Highway 402 has been promoted to A-Class. The discussion was here. Congratulations. TCN7JM 21:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

WT:HWY/ACR#ACR for lists

We are discussing how lists should be reviewed at our A-Class review before a featured list candidate nomination. Your input is welcome. --Rschen7754 06:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:HWY/CUP

Hello. Just a friendly reminder that the 2014 HWY Cup – a contest similar to the WikiCup, but within the scope of WP:HWY – starts on June 1. Please sign up at the linked page if you're interested. Thanks! TCN7JM 20:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Citing a map

Please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Citing a map for a discussion on possible updates to the format of map citations in Citation Style 1 using {{cite map}}. Imzadi 1979 → 16:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Canada Roads to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 03:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Canada Roads at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Layout consistency

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Layout consistency regarding the layout order of non-standard sections (ex Tolls, Services, unique top-level sections etc), which I have come to notice varies even between Featured Articles. Your input is appreciated. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Junction template

Per my comments at WT:CWNB, I have requested that Template:Jct be fixed so the Trans-Canada Highway shields linked are the proper shields (, with the correct province and highway number as applicable) rather than the self-created versions () used before the shield became public domain. The three remaining issues I have are:

• Ontario - Generally (or not at all) uses the Trans-Canada shield alone to mark the highways in Ontario, rather uses a blank one in parallel with the Standard highway shield. Should the template show:
  • Highway 417 as it does now, or
  • Highway 417
• Quebec - Same issue, should it be:
  • A-40 as it does now, or
  • A-40
• Newfoundland and Labrador Route 1 does not have a shield made, and is slightly different than the rest of Canada (see here).

I have done a fair bit of work showing it at User:Kelapstick/Trans-Canada Highway, for now I have only asked that all the provinces except ON, QC, and NL be fixed, but thought that there should be more discussion regarding Ontario and Quebec to decide what (if anything) should change on those. Regardless the parameter TCH in the template needs to work with something, either the stand alone provincial shield, or both of them together. It should also be the same regardless of if Hwy or TCH are used (in Ontario) or A and TCH are used (in Quebec), for consistency (unless there are sections of the highways which are not part of the TCH system). As for Newfoundland and Labrador, a shield simply needs to be made up. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

urban blight interchanges?

We seem to be missing articles on Cogswell Interchange , Pine-Park Interchange (des Pins-du Parc Interchange), two interchanges located in the middle of cities in the downtown, but not connected to highways -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what the notability requirements are for interchange articles. Hopefully some of the other watchers on this page can comment. Hwy43 (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd advise following the requirements of the general notability guideline: is there "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to warrant the creation and retention of an article on those individual subjects? If not, the past practice in the US is to cover information on the interchanges as a part of the articles on the intersecting highways. Imzadi 1979 → 14:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

As noted, these are not connected to highways. Yes, there's been significant coverage, because they were controversial when built, controversial for demolishing of neighbourhoods, remained controversial as eyesores, and hazards to navigation, and targets for redevelopment. The former is located in Halifax, the latter in Montreal. They are results of failed highway projects rebuilding the downtown cores as a spaghetti of highways. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made a start on a Cogswell Interchange article, contribution welcome! I will continue to expand it when I have more time. Citobun (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed changes to ACR

Please see WT:HWY#Change of outlook at ACR for a discussion on a proposed change to how ACR works. Rschen7754 (delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC))

M Creek disaster of 1981, Sea to Sky Highway

Please see Talk:British_Columbia_Highway_99#M_Creek_article_created.Skookum1 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Windsor Suburban Roads

Category:Windsor Suburban Roads, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

BC numbered roads again...

Re recent adjustments to Minto City and other articles about that region, British Columbia Road 40 aka the Lillooet-Pioneer Highway has for a very long time needed an article; I haven't been able to find info on the BC Govt sites, or haven't had time to dig into it (the Ministry of Forests library should have something on it, and things like the Forest Service Roads system (FSRs) and things like the Omineca Resource Road (400 km long and a 'gravel superhighway')...... I guess I could cite it with news copy mentions, maybe, and it would include sections on its historical subsections the Moha Road and Bridge River Road, spurs like the Mission Mountain Road and the Gold Bridge-Bralorne Road which is its final sections; all government roads and all historically notable and still in use. Anyone who might have tips on where to find official sites for provincial numbered roads and other non-highways system roads, please advise.Skookum1 (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The best stuff is usually from the newspapers - if you can get access to a database of old articles, that would help. Though government documents are typically needed for the major intersections table and for an "official" length. (Maybe try looking at other BC articles to see if they have anything?) --Rschen7754 04:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There's regular press mentions in the Lillooet paper and lots of books I know of; but I have no direct govt citation for the road-numbering or technical figures on the road(s). It's sometimes mentioned in teh Vancouver papers and in various guidebooks, I suppose they may suffice as WP:RS, but there are those out there who extremely anal about page-cites and often dispute the quality of non-government/official sources. I'll maybe write the Dept of Highways and see what t hey may be able to direct me to on the vast' British Columbia government site(s).Skookum1 (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll go with the Lillooet-Pioneer Highway title as it's current and make British Columbia provincial road 40 a redirect, along with the redlinked section/spur routes above.Skookum1 (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed highways like the Sasquatch Highway (from Pemberton to Chehalis and Mission) I'm not sure what to do with; maybe "prohibited" because of WP:CRYSTALLBALL?Skookum1 (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It depends, are there reliable sources written about it? --Rschen7754 02:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In the Pemberton, Squamish and Whistler papers, certainly, but their contents aren't online, not on googlenews anyways; it's a popular name with "bigfoot theorists" and is indeed the "core region" of Sasquatch stories in BC and there's quite a bit of not-RS googles using it (though some of those might be "sasquatch hunter manuals" and commercially published so may be RS in a fringe-y kind of way).

The route has been discussed in local meetings, sometimes reported in those papers, about a "back door" for Whistler; it would seriously cut travel time between Seattle and Whistler and then-mayor Shirley Henry of Pemberton had fielded the idea of finishing the route in the wake of the M Creek disaster of the early '80s. The upper stretch from the head of Harrison Lake to Pemberton is historically known as the Douglas Road (and by other names), parts of the original remain intact though much has been razed for logging road expansion; the route is driveable between Port Douglas and the head of logging road networks in the Chehalis River basin, though only just barely and only for the brave of heart. I don't know if the Mission papers have ever covered it. If a politician has ever mentioned it in the House, it would be in Hansard but probably not by that name. I just checked the JT Fyles Natural Resources Library of the BC govt, (formerly the Ministry of Forests Library), nothing there, but again I only searched for the name. I'm sure there's consultancy studies about it out there; and the SLRD and FVRD surely have studied it...but not published; likewise the First Nations along the route. We'll leave it for now though I'll throw this by some Pemby/Whister folks and maybe one of the 'zines there has covered it or they know of studies or writeups about it, though not by that name. I'll work up the Road 40 thing first, and have lots going on that........never mind.....Skookum1 (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

KML announcement

Just an FYI: I went ahead and added KML files to the seven GAs in this project that didn't yet have one, so now all CRWP GAs have a KML file. There are still, as of this writing, 33 B-Class articles missing a KML file. I will try to knock those out tomorrow. TCN7JM 07:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal

See discussion at Talk:Manitoba Provincial Road 235. Mitch32^{(I have seen great intolerance shown in support of tolerance)} 22:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Glossary of road terms

I started Draft:Glossary of road transport terms. Feel free to fill in where you see fit. –Fredddie™ 17:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata maps

Category:Infobox road maps for Wikidata migration I created this category yesterday so we know how many maps need to be migrated over to Wikidata. Ideally, there should be a bot that can do this for us, right? –Fredddie™ 22:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Bots migrate images to commons on a regular basis... why not wikidata? May have to ask at WP:VPT to see if it is technically possible to be fully automated or if it requires some human input. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Any progress on this? Imzadi 1979 → 04:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata maps

Category:Infobox road maps for Wikidata migration I created this category yesterday so we know how many maps need to be migrated over to Wikidata. Ideally, there should be a bot that can do this for us, right? –Fredddie™ 22:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Bots migrate images to commons on a regular basis... why not wikidata? May have to ask at WP:VPT to see if it is technically possible to be fully automated or if it requires some human input. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Any progress on this? Imzadi 1979 → 04:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 48 GAN

Ontario Highway 48 is currently at GAN and is on hold for mostly minor issues. However, the nominator has been inactive for the past two months, and it would help if other editors would be willing to step in and fix the issues. The review is at Talk:Ontario Highway 48/GA1. Dough4872 01:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Naming conventions and article structure

Floydian, can you advise where the content on naming conventions and article structure from March 2012 went after the August 2012 reorganization? I was trying to refer to it but couldn't find it. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks as though it didn't make it through. I'm not seeing it on any subpages of the project, so feel free to add it if you'd like (perhaps at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/Naming). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Floydian, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/Naming and Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/Structure are now in place. On a related note, please see WP:CANTALK#Street names if you haven't seen it already. Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/Naming covers highways only and not streets at this point. Your input would be appreciated. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 401A listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ontario Highway 401A. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Want to create a map

Is there any map tutorial for your WikiProject like over on the U.S. Roads WikiProject? Thanks, Philroc^{My contribs} 12:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The procedure for creating a map is similar. The challenge is finding the GIS data, but if you look around many provinces have it (search for "<province name> ministry of transportation" or "<province name> gis data" and it should be accessible). --Rschen7754 17:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

For Ontario, I use Land Information Ontario, a division of the Ministry of Natural Resources. I imagine all provinces have a similar database. They aren't always easy to find, but a simple request to the appropriate provincial or federal department for natural resources or geomatics/cartography should get you the info within a few days weeks months. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Signpost WikiProject Report

Hi! Would any members of this project be interested in talking about your work for the Signpost? I'd like to hear some personal reflections and what you think are the most pressing concerns facing the project. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Potential changes at FAC

There is a proposal at WT:FAC#FAC nom preparedness to potentially require a Peer Review or A-Class Review before nomination. The idea is that would the change streamline the reviews at FAC to push articles through there faster by requiring more of the advance prep work to be done before an FAC was initiated. Such a change would mean revitalizing and using WP:HWY/ACR more in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 20:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:ONRD regarding use of colour in junction tables to represent concurrencies

I've started a discussion at the Ontario Roads talk page regarding the use of colour to represent the start/end points of concurrencies in junction list tables. Your input is appreciated. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiConference North America 2016

Those attending WikiConference North America this year may be interested in a talk I've proposed discussing OpenStreetMap: "Be bold and edit the map". I'm looking forward to hopefully meeting some of the folks behind this WikiProject at WikiConference. (I'm hoping to attend regardless of whether my talk is accepted, but that's up to logistics at this point.) – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 15:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of Alberta provincial highways subcats

You are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 12#Alberta provincial highway subcats. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Canada Roads/Archive 2 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Ontario navboxes and categories

Please see this discussion regarding changes to the navbox template and the categorization system of all roads in Ontario. Commenting is appreciated before April 30, 2017. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads/Archive 2/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Canada Roads.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Canada Roads, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Prince Edward Island road stubs has been nominated for discussion

Category:Prince Edward Island road stubs, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Proposed A-Class Review rule changes

There have been some proposed changes to the A-Class review process at the discussion above. --Rschen7754 20:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Red Squirrel Road

I came across the article Red Squirrel Road as it is tagged with {{coord missing}} and so listed at Category:Ontario articles missing geocoordinate data. I have added the {{Infobox road}} with a few parameters, but am unsure how to add geographic coordinates. I would also appreciate an experienced editor on the topic of roads reviewing my addition of the Infobox to ensure it is correctly implemented. Many thanks. --papageno (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The short answer, Qui1che, is that we don't put coordinate data like that in road articles because they're linear features. Instead, we add link to a KML file through {{attached KML}}, and that draws the line on a map. You still can add individual coordinate pairs into a road article manually, but there are arguments against trying to determine which point is representative of an entire road. Is it the western/southern terminus? Is it the midpoint? How about the eastern/northern terminus? Some other spot? I cleaned up some unneeded parameters in that inbox (although Floydian would want to take a look) and removed the {{coord missing}} as coordinates just aren't needed/wanted on road articles. Imzadi 1979 → 05:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Imzadi 1979 →. That resolves the matter.  Done --papageno (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Split Alberta Highway 734 or leave as is but rename to Forestry Trunk Road

Please review Talk:Alberta Highway 734#Split Highway 734 & Forestry Trunk Road and provide you comments there. Hwy43 (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18#Non-free road signs used in list article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18#Non-free road signs used in list article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yellowhead shields

Hello,

I'm not familiar with all the legalities and intricacies of copyright, so please forgive that lack of links to Wikipedia copyright articles and layman's terminology. :)

Basically, I'm wondering if its at all possible for a Yellowhead Highway vector to be produced that could be used for Template:Jct (specifically for British Columbia Highway 5), while still being compliant with copyright? Presently File:British Columbia Highway 5.svg, File:Alberta Yellowhead Highway.png, File:Yellowhead Highway (Saskatchewan).svg, and File:Manitoba Highway 16 (Yellowhead).svg all protected as WP:NFC as they are copyrighted by their respective provincial governments. Vectors of provincial highway shields have been reproduced which allow for use in Template:Jct, even though some are also copyrighted by their respective provincial governments. Presently File:YellowheadShield.jpg is used in Template:Jct to accompany the TCH 16 listings, while Highway 5 is represented with BC's standard provincial highway shield, which is inaccurate. Previous discussions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Archive 2#SVGs of BC Highway shields. Cheers! -- MuzikMachine (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge Saskatchewan Highway 49 & Manitoba Highway 49 and Saskatchewan Highway 57 & Manitoba Highway 57 respectively

Proposed mergers for short highway articles along the Saskatchewan-Manitoba border:

• Talk:Saskatchewan Highway 49#Merger discussion for Saskatchewan Highway 49 and Manitoba Highway 49
• Talk:Saskatchewan Highway 57#Merger discussion for Saskatchewan Highway 57 and Manitoba Highway 57

-- MuzikMachine (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Split Suffixed routes of British Columbia Highway 97

Proposed split to British Columbia Highway 97A, British Columbia Highway 97B, and British Columbia Highway 97D; discussion is here. -- MuzikMachine (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18#Non-free road signs used in list article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 18#Non-free road signs used in list article. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Junction listing templates fail accessibility

Per MOS:COLOUR, tables should use something other than cell shading to convey information. I was just reading through Ontario Highway 401 (a featured article) and noticing that the colourful exit list fails this guideline, as it uses only background shading to indicate exits which are incomplete, permanently closed, etc. I was about to correct that article when I realized that the underlying templates are the real problem. Since the shading is coded into the template according to the "type" of exit, I suggest that the coding be changed to add a superscript symbol next to the exit number when these various "types" are set in the template call, for example a dagger ({{dagger}} = †, {{double-dagger}} = ‡, probably need others but I don't know where to find them). But I don't know exactly which templates need to be edited or how to do it reliably without a lot of guesswork. Suggestions? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

This would be better addressed at WT:RJL; however, the information is also indicated in the notes column (or at least, is supposed to be). --Rschen7754 18:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It doesn't seem to be a Canada-specific problem, for example Interstate 80 in Nebraska has the similar, as does Albany Highway in Western Australia. I did a check of a few of the UK Motorways, and while they have one shading for incomplete access, they are all labeled as no access, which is not as problematic. This may be something which needs to raised on the Roads Project as a whole, not just Canada. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kelapstick: I've taken a look at the two articles you linked, and while the phrase in the legend may not be repeated verbatim in the notes column, the information is there. --Rschen7754 00:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested name change of your portal

There is a Requsted move discussion on your portal talk page which is now discussing not only the lower-casing of "roads" but a portal name change. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Alberta shields

For those interested, I found [2] which has PDFs of all the shields used in Alberta. –Fredddie™ 01:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Clarification on licencing (BC again)

I noticed that the File:British Columbia Yellowhead Highway 16 3.png on Wikimedia Commons has an OTRS licence, even though it's similar to File:British Columbia Highway 5.svg and File:British Columbia Highway 16.svg. If I'm interpreting the licence correctly, I could substitute a '5' for the existing '16' and create a similar file and save it under the same licence. Does that mean I could use it on {{Template:Jct}} (replacing the use of File:BC-5.svg)? If so I can go ahead and set that up. --MuzikMachine (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to redirect all Canadian project related talk pages

Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Proposal to redirect all Canadian project related talk pages...--Moxy 🍁 22:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

PEI highway icons

I'm looking for help creating new PEI highway icons for roads that don't have them, especially the new Prince Edward Island Route 27, but also 252, 258, and 269, which don't have articles but appear in lists. I would do it myself but don't have an svg editor handy. Thanks! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: You can ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Route markers. --Rschen7754 20:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I will! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright update sweep

It is probably about time to go through all our fair use photos to look for images that have expired crown copyrights. It has been several years since I went through, but any photo made by the provincial or federal government released before December 31, 1969 is now public domain. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 418

As of now, Ontario Highway 418 is C-class. 400-series highways is a Good Topic, but Highway 418 has been open since December 9th, so the grace period should end on March 9th, which is 10 days from now. I have already rewrote some parts and replaced some refs but I still don't think it is there yet. I would like some suggestions on how to improve this article to make it at least Good Article quality. Thanks! Username6892 (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Floydian: --Rschen7754 19:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 418 is currently in peer review, please discuss here. Thanks! Username⁶⁸⁹² 20:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Length citations in road infoboxes

See discussion above. --Rschen7754 04:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Is there anybody... Out there?

Just checking to see if anybody is actively involved here. As I am quickly clearing the last remnants of crap for Ontario, I figured I'd offer my services to anyone interested in improving a topic (ex. Trans-Canada Highway articles), province, or specific route. I have full access to ProQuest and Newspapers.com. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

TCH and related shields generated by jct template

Apologies if this has been addressed before, but is it by design that the {{jct}} template generates shields at a smaller size than otherwise when TCH is passed as the route type? As an example, {{jct|state=QC|A|20}} yields A-20, while {{jct|state=QC|TCH|20}} yields A-20 (TCH). This is an aesthetics issue more than anything, but it does seem odd in infoboxes and junction lists where there are multiple routes at a junction but the TCH/associated route shields are ironically less prominent than a provincial route's (e.g., A-40 (TCH) to R-335 from the A-15 exit list). --Kinu ^t/_c 21:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Coming back to this after several months, it appears that the issue has been resolved. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Communication tools

(cross-posted to all HWY subprojects)

The road projects have faced some challenges over recent weeks. While we remain separate projects, I believe we need to be able to work together during this time. Thus, I wanted to highight three recent changes to the methods of communication and collaboration that we have available to us.

1. Template:HWY Announcements - this template lists important discussions as well as certain cleanup categories used across all the road projects/
2. WP:HWY/AAA - this is an Article Alerts page that will be updated with every AFD, GAN, FAC, etc. in every road project. Please consider watchlisting this to stay on top of important discussions.
3. Discord - When Wikimedia IRC on Freenode was shut down, we chose not to migrate to the Libera IRC server. We use the #wpengineering channel on Discord, a more modern chat platform. (It is possible to read the channel history so that you do not miss out on conversations when not logged in, unlike IRC. But for that reason, please consider anything you say there to be public).

Regards, Rschen7754 20:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Inactive subproject talk pages

Hi, I've noticed that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Saskatchewan and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Roads/Ontario go mostly unused these days. Perhaps it is time to redirect those pages here, similar to how WT:USRD functions, in order to centralize discussions? Rschen7754 04:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Floydian and Masterhatch: --Rschen7754 04:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Anything on the talk pages now would be archived and those archives would be linked in the talk page banner above –Fredddie™ 04:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like I'm the only one working on SK roads lately. I have no problem if it gets redirected. Masterhatch (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No issues here. Most of the discussions for Ontario take place on the article talk pages these days. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This is being done now, but the header will need some editing. --Rschen7754 04:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Saskatchewan municipal roads

In reviewing List of Saskatchewan provincial highways and Roads in Saskatchewan it seems that the 600-799 routes are not really state highways but maintained by local municipalities. Given that the standard for WP:GEOROAD is that only state highways are by default noteworthy for their own article, and that these are a fairly low class of road (where it is often harder to find sources) - I propose merging these articles into List of Saskatchewan municipal roads (600–699) and List of Saskatchewan municipal roads (700–799). Of course, any of these roads meeting WP:GNG can still have a separate article. Thoughts? This is similar to how county routes in the US are handled, like California county routes in zone A. --Rschen7754 01:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Masterhatch: as the active SK editor. --Rschen7754 00:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

First off, I just want to say that I am no road expert. I do not work for any road or highway company nor have I ever (except for a part-time summer job 30 years ago when I was a flagger). I was just cleaning up Saskatchewan highways from one end to the other. As for their notability, I never thought about whether they passed or not. I saw that years ago there was an afd for a bunch of the 700 series roads and it passed as keep. Example: Talk:Saskatchewan Highway 707. Here are two websites that might help: Naming of Saskatchewan Roads and A Guide to Saskatchewan Weight and Dimension Regulations. Masterhatch (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Understood. I'm not sure if you have been following the discussions at WT:HWY and elsewhere but there has been increasing criticism from outside the road projects regarding notability, among other things. While much of their claims are invalid, I am checking to make sure that we are not keeping around batches of articles that clearly follow below our guidelines. Thanks for the AFD, in reading it, it seems NE2 came to the same conclusion that I did.

@Mitchazenia: as the author of some of those articles. --Rschen7754 17:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The two websites I linked to both called the 600 and 700 highways municipal. If the wiki community decided municipal highways are not notable, I guess they're not. My two bits is that wikpedia is not paper and I think there's value in keeping them. Masterhatch (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not that they would be outright deleted, but there would still be a few paragraphs about each route in the new article. Perhaps a better example is List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas (1800–1899). --Rschen7754 19:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I totally support doing that with the 6 and 700 series roads in Sask. Masterhatch (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I started with SK 600 just now. I've added the rest to the end of my todo list but anyone can continue doing the mergers. I'm planning to leave the GA as is for as long as it is a GA. (For anyone doing the mergers, remember to link to the article being merged away in the edit summary, for CC-BY-SA compliance). --Rschen7754 01:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! I'll start tackling roads as I get time too. Masterhatch (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rschen7754 15:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources. --Rschen7754 03:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Questions on notability have been added to the RFC. --Rschen7754 06:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The Center Line: Fall 2023

Volume 10, Issue 1 • Fall 2023 • About the Newsletter

Features

• A New Future for Road Articles Online

Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi 1979 → on 19:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Notice

A merge proposal has been posted at Talk:Pan-American Highway#Merge proposal. - wolf 09:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Saskatchewan Highway 16

Saskatchewan Highway 16 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)