Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 401/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 21:34, 3 March 2012 [1].

Ontario Highway 401

[edit]

Ontario Highway 401 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination restarted. (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on both opposes above - What coordinates are missing? What are "key features", and do you have a reliable source? Also note "no consensus" for use or non-use of coordinates at the recent RfC, as the closing admin stated: "The consensus of this RfC is section 9 to use shapefile software to illustrate the the area of highway mentioned in the article.", exactly what is accomplished through the KML. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The KML matter has no bearing on this one; and the inevitable lack of consensus at that lamentable RfC means that it's still down to editors to make decisions on a more local basis. I have an open mind as to which features are key; but it's implausible to suggest that none are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So in other words it's original research, since you can't offer any reliable source that singles out features on this road as "key features"? Thanks, but moving along... - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • How you leap from "open mind" to "original research" is a mystery I have neither the time nor inclination to resolve. And, please, use your edit summaries to summarise your edits, not make snide remarks which, as in this case, and as so often on others, are wrong. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you are not willing to list and source what "key features" are so that I can decide whether or not to tag them, and instead move aside to comment on how I arrived at original research (because you haven't presented a reliable source) or on my edit summaries (I'm perfectly happy with my snide remarks, thank you), then there is nothing I can do to address your vague, exasperating request, which borders on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. To repeat, the closing admin stated at the top of the closed RfC: "The consensus of this RfC is section 9 to use shapefile software to illustrate the the area of highway mentioned in the article.", so you are incorrect in stating "the inevitable lack of consensus at that lamentable RfC" (speaking of snide remarks). The KML file is a shapefile translated into XML format. No list of features that you feel are "key" + no source for those features being key + circuitous arguments = inactionable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I cannot speak for Highway 401, but for the UK articles for which you equally vociferously argue against coordinates using the same tired arguments, the reliable source for key features of roads are road atlases which devote whole pages to illustrating each motorway or major road junction - i.e. not only is the road junction featured in the main map; each road junction is then lifted out into a Road Junctions of the M1 type page. I'd be a little surprised if things were different for Canada. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I do have a book that not only lists each and every exit, but has various tours of local restaurants, villages and wineries, and well as historic landmarks in towns along the way. However, tagging every junction would break the template limit for a single article. Picking and choosing random points to tag gives undue weight. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Editors regularly and inevitably choose what to include or exclude from an article, without drama. But, for the sake of argument, and by way of example, we could start with coordinates for the extant service centres, in the table listing them - there are only about ten of those. Then, in the junction list, we could have coordinates for junctions with other highways - I count roughly 30 of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck This is my first time doing one of these, so please let me know if I did it wrong.

  • 20, 27, 32, 39, 60, 67, 73 good.
  • Hardcopy maps not checked; though there are no plagiarism concerns there.
  • Source 4 - I think it's good. "the busiest highway in North America" seems to be used by more than one source, I don't think that's a particularly distinctive phrase.
  • Source 6 - second cite - confused as to where you're getting the Santa Monica Freeway and the Houston references from. Third cite - "carrying 60 percent of vehicular trade between Canada and the US." versus "It carries 60 percent of all vehicular trade between Canada and the US."
  • Source 8 - don't think "busiest truck route in the world" is particularly distinctive either.
  • Source 14 - where is 2013 coming from? Third cite not supported. (My guess is that you got that info off the other pages in the site?)
  • Source 50 - not seeing the info for the first or third cite, maybe I'm missing it.
  • Source 79 - not sure where the "widening" part is coming from.

There's 177 citations so I'm about half done, but I'm running on very few hours of sleep and thus the spotchecking is getting more and more painful. --Rschen7754 03:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do this the same way, and when one gets changed, I usually re-reference it in my next post as the current number. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 14:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, I'm just copying the format of several other spotchecks; look at some of the other current reviews for examples. --Rschen7754 18:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Floydian, do you plan to address these issues? --Rschen7754 20:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad, lost track of this among the pointless arguments. I've fixed everything up mentioned thus far; everything was already in the article but sometimes I've referenced the wrong thing. For ref 6, Shragge's online article mentions SMF, but I can't remember where Houston came from. It's not particularly important, so I removed it. I'm not sure how else to word that one particular sentence without making it grammatically incorrect or overly wordy. I backed up #14 for the 2013 date (the reference was for the routing). #50, the third is definitely there, but you are right about the first. I've switched that instance to the opening dates reference, which I use for the colour coded map. #79 I had to use my offline Shragge reference for (the newspaper reference just mentions that Highway 27 south of the 401 was part of the bypass, which other references earlier in the text had mentioned was a four-lane divided highway constructed in the 1950s. All fixed now though). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support This is a nice well written article that deserves FA status when the elephant in the room has been addressed. The Infobox has no provision for the addition of terminal, or median co-ordinates. You cannot have a geographical infobox that doesn't give you a location- that needs to be fixed. The infobox fails to mention which country we are discussing, and the location of Ontario within it, I am sure that is easily fixed. Not surprisingly for a North American article the terminology used is regionally specific, for instance the the article is about a road- but the word highway is used without explanation throughout.The article itself is totally lacking in coordinates- and while this could be said valid design decision the fact that this issue remains open precludes this lovely text from being considered for FA. It is worrying that a particularly acrimonious RfC, is cited as justification, for one extreme POV. This rather proves that the text is not jet ready for FA. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the correlation in your last point between using the outcome of an RfC that is directly relevant to this to justify not including something that I am not going to include (and that are NOT a requirement of a featured article. I can add the KML link into the infobox, but that is redundant when it appears directly above the infobox. There is absolutely no need to duplicate the information this KML contains with coordinates. If it can be done without displaying the degrees, minutes and seconds in the infobox, cluttering it with numbers that appear in the link provided, then I may reconsider. Until then, additional piling on will not change the situation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, stay on focus. The task in hand is getting this brilliant piece of writing past the FAC. The problem is the level of proof required- being brilliant isn't enough. The team trying to get this accepted has to get everyone on board- and there is this big elephant in the room.is a sparce guideline to the requirements of a featured article. Item 1a- the most important one talks about brilliant prose. This text is some of the best I have seen. Item 1b- is the sticking point comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; as the text, and for me the infobox is totally lacking, or deliberately neglects a category of major facts and deliberately fails to place the subject in the context that is required by specialist editors- and required to set your SATNAV- and required in secondary school exam syllabuses the world over. As such the text will fail 1.b. The task is thus how to introduce sufficient coordinates in a form that doesn't damage the flow of the prose, so the text can be said to be comprehensive. As I have stated changes to the infobox could be beneficial and an easy way forward, and then I suggest that adding some tags to the tables may sweep up the rest of the problem. The next task 1.c is about referencing and I assume that is watertight. But now we come to 1.d neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; which I am convinced the group has rigorously attempted to do but does it look that way to a random outsider, or does it look as the editing is ruthlessly protective of a particular style of editor to which many have been excluded- you have to be seen to be conciliatory and embracing. Finally 1.(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. Thankfully, other editors who have been commenting are too busy elsewhere to play tit-for-tat and to even start making simple edits to the substantive text- but as I intimated there has been a proxy edit war going on elsewhere. The RFC was vicious, and drawing it to outsiders attention is not wise. For FAC it matters not who won the RFC but that there was no conflict in the first place and that is not true. To progress this further it will be necessary to address 1 b, 1e and to a lesser extent 1d. I seriously suggest that the infobox is the place to start- as doing this correctly will open up every Ontario Road article to FAC, and I would seriously suggest that being acrimonious is detrimental to the task in hand here. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think all those can be solved by methods other than adding the degrees, minutes, and seconds to the article, and I look forward to compromising in that respect. I will not add obtrusive strings of numbers though, as they serve no purpose in this context. It is the link to geohack that is desired, not DMS coordinates. If {{coord}} had a method to suppress the DMS coords in the article, I would be happy to add them to the endpoints and Major junctions in the infobox and to the junction list. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you agree to hiding each of the junction numbers behind a link that says "junction"? Mileages behind a link that says "mileage"? I look forward to compromising in that respect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can relate to the horror of templates with 8 or more | chars, so though I normally set the output format of the {{coord}} to dms- I always input in dec. I have mocked up on in a sandbox one possible way of coding a bare minimum infobox, with two start/end coordinates that I pulled in using a bookmarklet I have set up. As you can see it is in Degrees and deci-degrees. If the aim is to keep the numbers to a minimum and suggesting that for a 16 lane highway an accuracy of +- 700m should be appropriate we arrive at 2 dec places as shown in the source code. I have <-smalled-> down the text and added the missing word Canada, and bolded the Highway name at the same time. In time this should be hardcoded into the template to enforce consistency- but this is just a mock up. In the article its self I can see merit in hiding the coords behind a graphic, so they only appear on a mouse roll-over (I did it once in raw javascript- but have never tried in Wikipedia to achieve the same effect-technical advice needed here). Enough for tonight.--ClemRutter (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've used your infobox. This is reasonable enough and doesn't stick coordinates in stupid places or for rediculous random points along the length of the highway. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is suggesting that we "duplicate the information this KML contains with coordinates"; since the KML does not explicitly identify the locations of key features. And, though it may surprise you, you are not the only editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This may surprise you, but I am the principal contributor to the article. So what are you suggesting? I don't care about anybody else: What the hell do you want? The KML explicitly identifies the endpoints of the highway, and the course it follows. Without a source, I do not know what a "key feature" is on this road. Do you? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is in such a state that its "principal contributor" [whatever that means] can't identify its key features, then perhaps we should abandon all attempts at FA until that situation is resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Principal contributor means that in a list of contributors, I have made the most edits... In fact, very close to as many edits as all other editor combined![2]
If you are not willing to list and source what "key features" (whatever that means) are so that I can decide whether or not to tag them, then there is nothing I can do to address your vague, exasperating request, which borders on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. To repeat, the closing admin stated at the top of the closed RfC: "The consensus of this RfC is section 9 to use shapefile software to illustrate the the area of highway mentioned in the article.". The KML file is a shapefile translated into XML format. No list of features that you feel are "key" + no source for those features being key + circuitous arguments = inactionable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
so "Principal contributor" has no special meaning on Wikipedia, nor does it endow special privileges, thanks for clearing that up. "Key features" similarly has no special or technical meaning, just the dictionary definition; "significant features" or "important features" will do. You don't need to do anything; like I said above, you're not the only editor; nor is there any need for you to decide anything. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, important points.[according to whom?] I don't know of any point on this highway that is any more important than any other point on this highway. Fortunately, wikipedia doesn't accept my subjective opinion. I am not going to do anything, but similarly, I am not going to allow others to add some arbitrary points that they have decided are "important" when they can't provide a single piece of verification for those "important" points. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you have been told previously, maps will verify the location of such points. If you believe that to be inadequate, raise an RfC to prohibt them. Oh, wait... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No map I have ever read indicated the key features on Highway 401, so if you have one please share it so that I can use it as a source and add the coordinates your desire so! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking at map which shows Highway 401, but none of its important features, get a better map. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is inactionable. The reviewer refuses to elaborate on what things they feel need to be tagged. They refuse to provide a reliable source for "key features" ("Key features" is not a cartographic term). I have over three dozen maps of southern Ontario, various municipalities in southern Ontario, and historical maps of Ontario from every year between 1949 and 1990. I have official maps, I have commercial maps, I have tourist maps. In fact, I even have a book that describes the surroundings of every exit along the highway! None of these texts use the term "Key feature". None of the maps label any special points along the highway. The only Point of Interest (now there is an actual cartographic term!) on the entire highway is the Basketweave, which has a coordinate in its article. I cannot provide information that does not exist, and I cannot act on an ambiguous command. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As is so often the case, Floydian chooses to misrepresent my position, rather than to address it. I have never "refused to elaborate on what things need to be tagged"; though I have stated that I have an open mind on that matter; not presuming to be the font of all knowledge. It is Floydian who refuses to engage on the subject, preferring instead to pretend that my position is one of advocating original research; and to continue treating the generic phrase "key feature" as an exact technical term, despite having already been told that it is not. Many editors manage to include coordinates for features on other, comparable linear features, without the problems he claims to see. I am unsure of how to engage meaningfully with an editor who suggests that including coordinate data without making it readable to our readers (in which case it suddenly becomes possible to find, we must presume) is a "compromise". Fortunately, though, we do not need him to provide such data; merely to acknowledge that it would improve the article, allow it to meet FAC requirement 1b, and to cease his practice of refusing to allow other editors to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After posting the above, I added the coordinates for the Basketweave to the nominated article. Floydian summarily removed them. QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, coordinates are not required whatsoever in a featured article. Please review WP:WIAFA. --Rschen7754 18:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, that's a fallacious approach, WP:WIAFA deals with all topics from minerals to colours to clouds to laws to hedgehogs to books to movies, of course is doesn't say in the guidelines explicitly that co-ordinates are required. However, I draw your attention to: "1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • And we have stated that coordinates are not the only way of presenting that information; it's done in the KML. Also, please read Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Coordinates, where both Karanacs and Ucucha (former and current FA delegates, respectively) have stated that the FA criteria should not be interpreted as you have done so above. --Rschen7754 18:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You know, that's just fine, but as I said below, a tiny map of some obscure place in Canada which presents me with no context whatsoever of what I'm about to read is hardly what I would expect from a featured article. Former and current FA delegates are welcome to their opinions just as I am mine. The infobox in the lead has no easily identifiable global context. This is English language Wikipedia, some of our readers may not recognise a very small map of a specific portion of a province of Canada. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The KML maps the full course of the Road. It does not explicitly indicate the location of key features; it is not a substitute for the use of coordinate templates in the article, for such points (nor did the section of the re3cent RfC which introduced it claim that it was). Individual FA delegate's views carry exactly the same weight as mine, or any other individual editor's, and no more than that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as a complete outsider who has merely commented on the content and not the rights and wrongs of KML files etc, I do find it odd that an infobox that opens an article about a geographical subject in an encyclopaedia lacks both global context and geographical detail. I'm not from Ontario, not from Canada, not from North America – from the infobox there's absolutely no geographical context for this road. I'm neither for nor against adding arbitrary waypoints (on one hand it would be useful to know the extents in the case of road like this, on the other hand, of course that couldn't be extended to roads such as ring roads) but it is a little strange (from my non-expert, naive perspective) that I can't tell where in the world this is easily, particularly in an article we are aiming to be one of our "finest examples". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the map in the infobox? --Rschen7754 18:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but as I mentioned, I'm not from Ontario, Canada or North America, how would I recognise the context of that map in any way at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either by clicking the link directly below the map that indicates it is a map of southern Ontario, or by reading the first sentence of the article: "King's Highway 401, also known by its official name as the Macdonald–Cartier Freeway and colloquially as the four-oh-one,[3] is a 400-series highway in the Canadian province of Ontario" - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean global geographical context. If I clicked "random article" and this came up, how would I know where in the world it was from its infobox? And what is the "link directly below the map"? I don't see it. I should be able to gain a contextual understanding from the graphics in the infobox, wouldn't you agree? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would not, and you would by reading more than the infobox, which is merely a summary. Picture books are for children; readers need to read to understand the topic they are reading about, and not rely solely upon pictures to tell them about the topic. The caption of the map is sufficient to provide the context: "Highway 401 (in red) within Southern Ontario", with that link taking you to an article that describes Southern Ontario. The map is appropriately scaled, as maps should be, to show the topic within ITS geographical context (and not within the context of the planet). If you want to know where Southern Ontario or Canada is, then read the articles on Southern Ontario or on Canada. I cannot provide basic geography lessons for people. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then I see no point at all in a map in the infobox. It provides information, it would seem, to only a handful of people who understand the context of the map, i.e. people from Ontario or north-east (?) Canada. I suggest removing it altogether or providing more context to a global audience. It's nothing to do with "basic" geography lessons, that map is effectively useless to everyone bar those who know where it is. In which case they don't need it because they know where it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what you want is a picture of the globe with a dot on it showing people - whom can't be bothered to make use of the interlinked encyclopedia we have built - where Ontario is in the world? Should I make the map a copy this map and stick a dot just north of Lake Ontario, since that will have more encyclopedic value than... well... absolutely nothing? I don't know what you expect, besides making a map for a person that probably wouldn't recognize the shape of North America either. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a clickable link in the infobox to take me a decent mapping application would be perfect because that way, it wouldn't matter who was looking at this article, at least they'd have a way of getting some immediate context. And reduced hostility in your response would be even better. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. Please be aware the hostility is directed solely at Andy, and that anything else is spill-over because this is getting old, fast. I have added the kml links to the infobox (a clickable link that offers you the choice between two decent mapping applications), even though I feel it replicates links that are less than an inch above the infobox on my screen. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far today, you've admitted that you're "perfectly happy" making my snide remarks to me; and now being hostile towards me. I suggest you go and brush up on WP:5P, particularly WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you answer the questions I have asked instead of beating around the bush so that your reasoning has a leg to stand on. You're going to quite the extreme to avoid actually showing me a list of "key features". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already answered that request; I said that "I have an open mind as to which features are key". You responded, albeit with an inane comment, so I know you saw it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same issue when I took a road article to FAC. The reviewer was satisfied when I added an inset map showing Iowa's location in the US. I created a mockup of what we could do here in a sandbox. It's a map of Canada with a box around the area of the current map? Also, I'm leaning towards darkening Canada a little bit in the inset map, so let me know if you agree. –Fredddie™ 18:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's close, but you'd still need idiot readers like me to be able to recognise the Eastern seaboard of North America.... (maybe look at some of the taxonomic articles which provide global context...) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the article says it is in Ontario, Canada, is it not safe to assume that a map of Canada suffices? I like the mockup, if that what's necessary (because editors either look at pictures or words, but never both), but I'd make the tan colour of Canada the same as the light green colour I use for land in the southern Ontario map. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See above. It would be useful to see a globally contextual map. The current map is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other quick issues beyond the map/co-ordinate issue, just in case:

  • "Quebec City – Windsor Corridor" our article has that unspaced, would resolve it here or there if I were you.
  • Is it "E.C. Row Expressway " or "E. C. Row Expressway " or "E C Row Expressway "? be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia if possible.
  • Do you really think that "truck route" equates to "bypass"? Perhaps this is a US thing but I certainly don't equate the pair, although if I'm honest, I've never heard of a "truck route".
  • Should auto industry really be "automobile industry"?
  • Should changeable message be hyphenated (like the article)?
  • Yorkdale Mall appears to be called Yorkdale Shopping Centre....
  • Weird that West and East Don River both link to exactly the same article. Is there a sub-section you could link to in the article?
  • I'm not sure I see the point of linking all the Durham roads if they lead to the same article. Is there a sub-section you could link to in the article?
  • Is it St. Lawrence River or Saint Lawrence River? Consistency and avoid over linking is needed.
  • " Windsor Salt mine" our link is " Windsor Salt Mine" in its entirety.
  • What makes all those external links relevant? Some seem to be YouTube videos. What do they tell me? Are they relevant to a professional article?
  • Also, FWIW, a quote from Floydian (above): "This may surprise you, but I am the principal contributor to the article. So what are you suggesting? I don't care about anybody else: What the hell do you want?" doesn't encourage me to support this nomination at all, to the point of making an clear oppose. What a remarkable world we live in where we get to such aggression in an online project over a bunch of co-ordinates etc. I think, maybe, this kind of article has had it easy at FAC, many early supports, all of whom clearly miss basic problems, and sometimes fundamental questions need to be answered. Let's cut to the chase. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Familiarize yourself with the 8 month history of these two and the absolute unwillingness of Andy to compromise on ANYTHING and you will understand why there is such aggression. It's not just a case of it springing up out of nowhere: Andy and Tagishsimon have made a point to follow each other to every FAC held in the past several months to oppose on coordinates. Several FAC's have been promoted regardless. I am not putting coordinates in this article, no, nope, not, never, nay, non. You may choose to support or oppose accordingly. An oppose based on FAC conduct is offtopic. I will address the other comments tonight. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a new reviewer to this kind of thing, I try to bring new perspectives. I don't need to familiarise myself with your arguments. I haven't brought any external issues here, I've just brought up issues from this and the previous discussion at FAC. I've tried hard to remain objective, and yes, I'll oppose because this miniature map of nowhere with no context for the remainder of the world is inadequate. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but where does it end? The original map showed the highway within Southern Ontario, and now there's a map showing Ontario in Canada. Do you want a 'in-between' map showing Southern Ontario in Ontario? Do you want another map showing Canada in North America, and another showing North America on Earth? That's a lot of maps... If you're going that way you may as well show Earth's place in the Solar System and a Galaxy map showing our place in the known Universe. Haljackey (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A broader map would lack any EV that this map has. I have added links to google maps and bing maps directly below it so that those who are unfamiliar can zoom out and see what they are looking at. I cannot compromise precision. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To address the other points, in order:
  • This was a recent change in our dash conventions for article titles, fixed.
  • Not even sure why that's linked
  • Probably... fixed
  • Yep, fixed
  • That's probably the official name, but locally it's just Yorkdale Mall (signs on the highway also refer to it as such)
  • They were once separate I think, but in either case both branches are notable for eventual separate articles
  • Good point. Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • These satisfy the requirements of WP:EL. The videos are essentially a virtual tour of some sections of the highway. They're standards on most Ontario freeway articles, including Don Valley Parkway
-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the infobox map. Let me know if this is what you were looking for. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the absolute unwillingness of Andy to compromise on ANYTHING"; "Andy and Tagishsimon have made a point to follow each other to every FAC held in the past several months to oppose on coordinates" Why are you telling lies, Floydian? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I am not putting coordinates in this article" Again, you are not the only editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Coordinates are optional and shouldn't impede this Featured Article nomination. Can we move on, please? Haljackey (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're too busy to read the above debate, so allow me to summarise. FAs are required to meet the criterion: "1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Being an FA is optional, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
I believe that this article meets all Featured Article criteria and that's why I have given it my Support. Sure Featured Articles are 'optional', but there are requirements that have to be met. A coordinate system is not one of them. Drop it and move on to more constructive things. Thanks. Haljackey (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have failed to read what I wrote: FAs are required to meet the criterion: "1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". This is expanded upon by other editors as well as me, above. An instruction to "drop it" is not a compelling counter-argument. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're argument fails to challenge the criterion you quoted as the article already complies with everything stated in the criterion. While it's fine that we have a difference in opinion in the matter, I would prefer that this discussion not take place in this nomination page as it contributes to clutter. That is what I meant by 'dropping it'. Having said that, I will no longer discuss the matter on this page. Haljackey (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the article does not adequately define the location of any of the individual features of the highway discussed, as giving those features' coordinates would. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say that the above argument for coordinates should be disregarded by the FA delegates. Coordinates aren't normally added for the locations of things in articles that cover wide geographic areas, and adding them would clutter the article for little benefit. Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that "Coordinates aren't normally added for the locations of things in articles that cover wide geographic areas" is false; as is your claim of "little benefit". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- I was contacted by a reviewer here regarding the continuing discussion re. coordinates. Obviously this was hashed over a few months ago at WT:FAC and based on that and what I've observed of this and similar articles I can't see myself holding up this nom on the subject of coordinates -- a couple of which the nominator appears to have just added to the infobox anyway, despite initial reluctance. Since the spotcheck I requested earlier has been done (tks Rschen) I just have a few more checks of my own to make, which may give ClemRutter and other reviewers a chance to respond to that recent change. In any case, I think the process has gone on long enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expressing your view; but where do you see consensus to proceed without coordinates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although WP:FORUMSHOPPING doesn't directly answer the question here, because this isn't a "noticeboard" and we're not asking multiple admins, I think the general question is relevant, that is, whether it helps or hurts FAC when people use this forum as a do-over for arguments that have already been won, lost or drawn elsewhere. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. Which argument has been "won, lost or drawn"? Come to think of it, which Wikipedia policy allows for an argument to be "won, lost or drawn"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All things must come to an end. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may be a moot point since it was subsequently removed, but this edit added coordinates to the prose of the article. That in itself I'm not arguing against. According to WP:MOSICON, we cannot put icons in body of an article, but in tables, icons are fine. Thus, we are forbidden from saying "...is a 400-series highway in the  Canadian province of  Ontario..." Why would "East of Highway 400 is The Basketweave (43°43′03″N 79°30′11″W / 43.717613°N 79.502950°W / 43.717613; -79.502950), ..." be any different? Both have icons that interrupt the text. –Fredddie™ 22:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such concerns should be raised on the template's talk page; or the relevant MoS talk page, and are immaterial to this FAC nomination. (Anyone contemplating the current consensus should note the many thousands of instances of {{Coord}} already in article prose; and that - unlike the flag icons - the globe is functional.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I look forward to the discussion at WT:MOSICON. –Fredddie™ 23:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've reverted a few of the edits made today to this article. The "lane counts" table was completely unsourced, and seems to be extraneous detail. The AADT table seems that way too, but I didn't remove that. Also, the random coordinate added by Andy I removed as well, as being irrelevant, and covered by the related article. I've also restored the KML links to the title area; Andy's replacing those with the coordinate links flies in the face of the outcome of the HWY RFC we held earlier this year. --Rschen7754 00:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add any random" coordinates, I added the coordinates for what the nominator earlier referred to "The only Point of Interest[sic]… on the entire highway". And I didn't "replace [KML links] with the coordinate links", I merely removed the former as they overlay other text in the same area; as I noted in my edit summary. Why are you posting false statements? Your reference to the RfC is a complete red herring; I have done nothing in contravention of its result. Note, though, that the RfC found no consensus for proposals to remove coordinates form articles about highways. You've also neglected to mention that at the same time, you removed accessible list markup from the article's infobox, thereby restoring deprecated <br>-separated lists, in contravention of the MoS. In fact, what you did was to revert all changes since Floydian's last version. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are [sic]'ing there... Just because it's the only Point of Interest referred to on any of map does not mean it is a significant point on the highway. A great example of how this is [[WP:OR|original research] and undue weight on your part. "I didn't "replace [KML links] with the coordinate links", I merely removed the former" - why are you removing useful information for irrelevant information? The overlapping text only shows up to registered opt-in users, and will be resolved once this nomination is complete; a title coordinate would suffer from the same problem - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm [sic]-ing your claim that there is only one point of interest. Your claims of OR remain as bogus as they ever were. I removed no information, useful or otherwise, I removed links which already exist elsewhere in the article for reasons I have already given twice; and I added no information, much less irrelevant information, in their place. please feel free to demonstrate otherwise. We should not feature an article with overlapping text, even if "only"[sic] for registered opt-in users, so that's an additional objection on my part. Your comment about a title coordinate is a red herring, since the article has none. Your argument that the Breadbasket, which is notable enough to have its own article, is not a significant point on the highway is utterly fatuous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sic is for transcribing spelling mistakes ("thus it was written"), not an equivalent to citation needed or something...
The overlapping text will be resolved when the FAC is completed, as the text at the top will be truncated. You earlier opposed (before the reset) based on the lack of a title coordinate; it would have the same overlap. It's not a red herring, it's pointing out an obvious mediawiki flaw that needs to be addressed - not on the article level though, as it potentially effects all articles in a narrow enough window.
If you log out, all that appears is "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". If you have not opted-in to the "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article." gadget, all that appears is "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". This is not a content issue, and I will not address it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for attempting to teach me to suck eggs regarding the use of sic; but I'll stick to using it as I did, since my usage was correct. I didn't request a citation, since there cannot be one valid for your false assertion. Noted that you refuse to address my valid objection; however, whether or not the article gets featured is, fortunately, not your call. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What false assertion has been made? Fortunately it isn't your call either; it's the call of the delegates who you continue to pick arguments with. Good luck with that one. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The one referred to above. Unlike you; I've never refereed to what I will or will not "allow"" on the nominated article. And funnily enough, I always thought Wikipedia worked by consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lane table, Floydian gave me the green light to put it in as it shows the reader the girth of the roadway without diving into the text and piece together where the highway expands and contracts. All the data was collected from referenced text in the article, including the lengths which was acquired from the exit list. Normally I would agree that this would be unnecessary for a highway article, but the fact that the 401 varies so greatly in lane count warrants this list. It also shows just how long the widest sections are, which are normally short for most freeways. Haljackey (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can put the sources right in the table, it might work out. --Rschen7754 04:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, even if they're repeat sources found elsewhere in the article? Should the volumes table have these references too? Haljackey (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and yes. You can just aggregate them using <ref name="ref" />. --Rschen7754 04:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the references for lane count, but the Kingston widening references are pending until they can be dug up. Haljackey (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's still under construction until July.[3] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from these photos, the widening is complete. Looks like it was completed ahead of the mid-2012 deadline indicated in that contract. [4]. Now we just need to find some sources that state this, perhaps Kingston media. Haljackey (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning support (for delegates closing this). I made a huge number of picky technical points, all of which were dealt with. I asked one or two more fundamental questions about the whole co-ordinate thing,and as an outsider, I'm reasonably satisfied that my non-expert requirements have now been met. I don't want to get involved with the lengthy ongoing issues, so I just wanted to clarify my position in case there was any misunderstanding from the archived FAC. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support. I don't have the time to read the article thoroughly, but from what I've found, it seems good. Spotcheck found no major issues; a few mismatched facts to citations, but nothing serious. --Rschen7754 08:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ontario_Highway_401/archive2&oldid=1085530043"