Talk:Alberta Highway 772

Canada: Alberta Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.

Canada Roads: Alberta Low‑importance

This article is part of the Canada Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in Canadian provinces, territories and counties. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Canada RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject Canada RoadsTemplate:WikiProject Canada RoadsCanada road transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics:
/
	Alberta

This article has a KML file.

Potential move or split

Through the last series of edits it has become evident that the majority of the route within the recently revised scope of this article is named Symons Valley Road (by both the City of Calgary and Rocky View County) of which 31 km of its 39 km length is designated Highway 772. Its predecessor route, Beddington Trail, is 6 km in length in comparison. If a move request for this article is initiated, there is likely a case to rename it to Symons Valley Road with Alberta Highway 772 redirecting to it. There may also be a case to redirect Beddington Trail to this article, though it may be more worthwhile to split the article so that Beddington Trail can be its own article. Hwy43 (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwy43: My position is that the volume/notability matters far more than the length. Beddington is 50,000+ vehicles per day at Deerfoot, and a major road known by probably 99% of people in Calgary and/or anyone who has ever driven on Deerfoot. Probably the only people who know 772 is those who live in Madden or the north part of Evanston/Sage Hill, and it's 2,000 vehicles per day... pretty much a back alley in comparison. My stance therefore is that Beddington should be the article, and what ever can be said for the extremely uninteresting 30+ km of 772 should just be a tack on the end. Even as detailed as I could possibly write a route description, I don't see a scenario where there would be enough to create more than one substantive article about the entire road from Deerfoot to Madden. -- Acefitt 13:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beddington Trail and Highway 772 are separate roads, and should not have the same article, maybe they should even have separate articles. One is a major road in Calgary, and one is a provincial designation outside city limits. 117Avenue (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with 117Avenue. I'm going to do some historical research and return with some more comments, hopefully within 24 hours. Hwy43 (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By this logic, the section of Glenmore from Deerfoot to Stoney should have a separate article... and that route description I wrote for the entire route is already unnecessarily detailed in the effort to create enough content. I don't disagree that they're "separate" roads under different jurisdiction, but at the same time this is not an Alberta Transportation field manual and technicalities like this should be ignored. I maintain my stance that any effort to cut down the number of stubs should be considered, and a combined article here would be an easy way to accomplish that. Clearly I've been outvoted, but as I look into the stubs of these lesser roads it's becoming increasingly apparent that the problem is insurmountable by any practical standard. -- Acefitt 09:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glenmore Trail from Stoney eastward could and should have its own separate article, just like Whitemud Drive. Although there are some similarities, Glenmore Trail is not the same situation as this. While the Highway 8 provincial designation ends at the Calgary boundary, the municipally maintained Glenmore Trail from the city boundary to Deerfoot Trail is shown as Highway 8 in the Calgary inset of the 1-216 series progress chart, just like Highways 2 and 14 for Whitemud in Edmonton. Symons Valley Road and Beddington Trail are not shown in the Calgary inset and no Highway 772 numbering is applied on AT's mapping within Calgary. The splitting of Glenmore Trail from Alberta Highway 8 is now very timely with construction advancing on the remaining leg of Stoney Trail. Stoney Trail is going to split the roadway into two segments – Highway 8 westward from just inside the city boundary and Glenmore Trail eastward from Sarcee Trail – and it remains to be seen if Stoney in between these two locations is going to be co-named Glenmore Trail.

Wikipedia encourages the creation of articles on topics where notability is present. A stub article on a notable topic is better than no article on that topic. There is nothing wrong with creating a stub article, but stub status is not grounds for deletion or merging on its own and it takes only a little bit of effort to advance these articles to start status. I would suggest that most Alberta highway articles are one short "Route description" section away from achieving start status. Hwy43 (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not Glenmore from Stoney eastward, given that Stoney doesn't exist. I'm saying the section of Glenmore from Deerfoot to highway 560 that is not signed as highway 8. The majority and busiest section of Glenmore is signed as highway 8, so a separate article for Glenmore and highway 8 would therefore have a massive amount of overlap as there's very little to say about 8 in Rocky View. I strongly disagree with the 772/Beddington verdict, but 2 stubs is preferable to 2 basically duplicated articles. There's got to be at least a little bit of common sense applied to this. As for the relatively little effort required to hack away at this mountain of stubs, I've started on it and it is in fact a massive effort. I must be doing it wrong. -- Acefitt 23:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick clarification. I was referring to the west leg of Stoney that is under construction and will exist, not the east leg of Stoney well east of Deerfoot. The solution is quit simple. Alberta Highway 8 for the portion west of the west leg of Stoney; actually, even better, west of the city boundary as that is the portion that carries the official provincial highway designation. Alberta Highway 560 for the portion east of the east leg of Stoney or better yet east of the city boundary that carries the official provincial highway designation. Glenmore Trail for the municipal roadway between within the city's boundaries. the two legs of Stoney at minimum, with a brief overlap at the east end of the city, east of Stoney's east leg, and maybe an even more brief overlap at the west end of the city west of Stoney's future west leg. Hwy43 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That solution is the exact situation I'm describing as undesirable. There's little to say about 8 in Rocky View. I only see a need to cross that bridge if AB Trans decides to be dumb and not sign 8 as concurrent with 201 for the brief bit of Glenmore that forms part of the ring, then you're pretty much forced into doing that. -- Acefitt 02:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been that all provincial highways in Alberta within the 1-216 series are notable. Thus they are entitled to their own articles. The fact that Highway 8 and others are short is not justification for exceptions to this convention. Of course there will be less to write about because it is shorter, but a complete article for that short highway is possible by including route description, history and junction list sections. Start status is attainable by having a junction list and one of the two other sections. It is that simple. A short article is not taboo. Hwy43 (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing against a Highway 8 article. I have not at any point argued against a 1-216 highway article. All I said was that splitting Glenmore from it would create overlap. Seems pretty simple. -- Acefitt 03:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not overlap if the Highway 8 article ends at Calgary's western city boundary and the Glenmore Trail article starts at the western city boundary. Hwy43 (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but by that logic would we exclude the Deerfoot summary in the Highway 2 article? -- Acefitt 04:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And interrupt a continuously numbered highway that has provincially numbered highway exit system? Deerfoot Trail is appropriately a child article of Alberta Highway 2. Hwy43 (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Highway 8 extends to Deerfoot Trail, the ending its article at the western limit is an inconsistent application of the rule. -- Acefitt 22:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated assertions of other situations with some similarities yet are different is growing tiresome. I'm not going to repeat myself about Highway 2/Deerfoot as this is the second time it has been raised. The only other situation I'm aware of in Alberta that is nearly exactly the same situation as Highway 8 → Glenmore Trail → Highway 560 is Highway 628 → Whitemud Drive → Highway 628. The only differences are the official and unofficial provincial highway designations at either end and within (8 → 560 vs. 628 → 2 → 14 → 628).

Look at the RJL for Hwy 628. It greys out the undesignated portion known as the Whitemud from city limit to city limit providing internal junctions for only the major ones – AHD and Calgary Trail/Gateway Blvd. The greater detail of all exits is more appropriately presented in the Whitemud Drive article. The exact same approach should be applied to Highway 8. Two junctions at either end – Highway 22 and city limit/101 St SW. Then, greyed out, four junctions would follow – future Stoney west leg (north), Sarcee Trail/future Stoney west leg (south), Macleod Trail/former Highway 2 and Deerfoot Trail/Highway 2. Then for Highway 560, it would start with greyed out junctions in the negative for Deerfoot Trail/Highway 2 and the Stoney east leg followed by the normal counting up of highway junctions (from city limit/former 84 St SE to Hwy 797). Finally, Glenmore would have the detailed RJL, just like for Whitemud, from city limit to city limit.

This discussion has gone off tangent for long enough as far as I am concerned. We are no longer talking about Hwy 772. If this is to go further, much of this should be pasted to Talk:Glenmore Trail and then continued there. I'd also rather be editing articles or creating maps in what little spare time I have than festering on ad nauseum on this. Hwy43 (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify/repeat my position; provincial designations warrant an article. Since 772 is separate from what's in Calgary limits, it gets a separate article. That doesn't mean you can't talk about the extension, similar to 628. 117Avenue (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So one article? That works for me. It's all I wanted in the first place. Beddington can remain pointing here. -- Acefitt 06:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel Beddington is a notable Calgary road, make a separate article. Otherwise, only talk about it as an extension of 772. 117Avenue (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beddington is a more notable road by any objective measure, that's not a matter of opinion. Given that, I see no reason to constantly reiterate the fact that it is an extension of 772 aside from the fact that the content will be here therefore it is necessary. -- Acefitt 21:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]