Talk:New Brunswick Route 95

New Brunswick Route 95 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 24, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Canada Roads: New Brunswick Mid‑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

Mid

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

Topics:
/
	New Brunswick

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible.

This article has a KML file.

Canada: New Brunswick 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 New Brunswick.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in New Brunswick may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Untitled

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stale discussion, now at proper name per naming conventions in place. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

move

COMMENT There is no standard provincial highway naming scheme. It does and should go by province, and provinces name things differently. 132.205.44.43 20:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has a naming convention, which says that in certain circumstances titles shouldn't be capitalised. "New Brunswick Highway X" is probably incorrect, and "New Brunswick highway X" is an improvement, but I prefer "New Brunswick provincial highway X" because it is more spacific. AlbertR 21:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)`[reply]
  - Excepting capitalization, which is another issue, how does New Brunswick name their provincial highways? That should be the way the article is named. I seem to find "NB Arterial Highway xx", but I doubt that is correct.132.205.3.20 19:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Moved on the basis of the apparent naming convention expressed by Category:New Brunswick provincial highways. Dragons flight 23:30, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I know it's too late for this, but for what it's worth, New Brunswick's DOT tends to prefer "Route xx". Kirjtc2 06:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was Route 95's number before I-95 was designated? This 1951 map shows it as 5, but according to List of New Brunswick provincial highways there was a large renumbering in 1965. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 06:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was still 5 after 1965. The number switched around 1976. Kirjtc2 14:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After I think about it and after seeing some old maps, there's more that I need to mention. An entirely new alignment was built ca. 1976, and that became 95. The old 5 became 150 and later 555. Kirjtc2 19:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image copyright problem with Image:New Brunswick Route 2 (TCH).png

The image Image:New Brunswick Route 2 (TCH).png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the uploader, but I wasn't aware municipal highway signage was protected by copyright. I was always of the perception that works produced by government agencies were automatically public domain. For example: You don't need licencing from the US Government to air a sound bite from the President, only from whoever *produced* the footage. - EmiOfBrie (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:New Brunswick Route 95/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dough 48 72 01:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
An image of the road would be nice, but not required.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

After making some minor fixes, the article looks good and I will pass it. Dough 48 72 01:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]