Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario/archive2

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:17, 1 December 2009 [1].

List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario[edit]

Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel I have fixed every (real) problem that was brought up at the last nomination and over two peer reviews. The article is not perfect and I'm sure some cool things could still be done to it, but they would only be navigational aids and not anything new content wise. Let me know if the images need adjusting, as I can fix those pretty quickly. I feel the redlinks to county roads without articles should be left, as they encourage the creation of those articles. However, if the choice between pass or fail comes down to redlinks, then I will remove some of them. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with no votes placed
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment

  • "The city of Kawartha Lakes was formed on January 1, 2001, and was known as Victoria County before that." needs reference
  • There are some stray [[ and ]] in the Secondary highways section

—Chris!c/t 22:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed both... Not sure how the second came about. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My comments were satisfied, though I am not ready to support just yet because I haven't review the prose. I'll let someone more experienced look at this before supporting.—Chris!c/t 01:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, sentences in comment column shouldn't have periods because they aren't complete sentences.—Chris!c/t 01:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should I make it so there is no final periods at all? I was told consistency is the name of the game, and a few comments do indeed use full sentence. Should I just use periods in those cases, or none at all? I've removed them for now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a longstanding FLC convention to add sentence-ending punctuation only when the note is a complete sentence. It's the same principle as described by WP:MOS#Captions. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that none of the notes are true full sentences, just fragments without a subject. If I have two such fragments under one note, do I put a period between them, or should I use another punctuation mark, such as a semi-colon? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semicolon is fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready to support yet, even though my comments are resolved. If other's comments are resolved, I'll be back to support.—Chris!c/t 00:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The route number column should have text, not images. --NE2 23:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a requirement of the criteria. See both peer reviews where editors have repeatedly commented on the appeal of it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my opinion of the featured list process is already very low, so that's no surprise. Oppose. Also, the Trans-Canada shield doesn't belong; there's no way a valid non-free use rationale can be written for its inclusion. --NE2 23:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you delete it from the image... Leave the rationale and allow others to judge whether it is applicable to use the image. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it because it's obviously invalid: "this is a logo for List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario"? You're kidding, right? --NE2 23:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, even if it has fallen out of copyright, it's still an example of an image for the sake of adding images. What could be done once the copyright expires is to create an image that shows how it's marked - the TCH shield next to the provincial shield, with the name plate below (Southern Ontario Route? Is that what it's called?) --NE2 00:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats just the way the template works, it displays the article title in that place, which can sometimes be grammatically incorrect. Its use on the article conforms with the fair-use guidelines, and I verified that before I used it in the article. That issue was worked out in a previous peer review. It is an image to visually show what is being described. It is very simple to have the prose then indicate that "this sign is next to that sign on the same wooden post". Images are permitted for decorative AND visually-informative purposes, just like maps. It's Central Ontario Route for Highway 7, but the signs in Kawartha Lakes are blank. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." --NE2 00:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. A picture speaks a thousand words. The same rationale is made for its usage on Trans-Canada Highway. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're starting to get it. You see, on Trans-Canada Highway it is the topic. Here it's just a very minor part of the topic. --NE2 00:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand that. I know that fair use rationales normally only apply to the titular article, and that its rare to get exceptions for other articles. I was iffy about the use of that image, but it was suggested on the first peer review by another editor to give visual accompaniment. I have posted at the non-free content noticeboard asking about this issue, and if I'm told no, then I will happily remove it from the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the image from the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • The route number column in each table should have each route number in text, even if it's as simple as "Route X". The shield images would be fine to supplement the text, but should not be used in place of the text. This is for the benefit of users of screen readers and those whose browsers cannot download images. (See MOS:IMAGES, last bullet and subsection.) Using text in this column might also negate the need for alt text for each shield image.
    • In three places, it is noted that concurrencies are counted twice when reporting total mileage of a specific type of highway. If the only source of route data is mileage ascertained from Google Maps, it seems the concurrencies could be manually subtracted to give a true number.
    • Which leads me to a point about the referencing. The majority of this article and its route data are sourced solely from Google Maps. Is there some kind of route log or other source available that at least lists the highways? I kinda have to call into question using Google Maps as the sole source, given that they've switched map data sources recently which has introduced several errors in cartography (including, in some cases, reverting highway/street name changes that took place several years ago). Another published source used in conjunction with the online maps would help verification.
--LJ (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response, for the first comment: can I not use alt text to make the images show to people with visual browsers, but to give a number to text browsers and screen readers? In response to the second, if doing those further calculations would not constitute WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, then I can provide that number. That brings me to the third, which is a question I've asked numerous times and never gotten a clear response on. The mileages are done using routine calculations from distances. I base where a numbered road begins and ends on both the Canadian Topological Maps database, as well as an up to date (now 2010) map book. I use google as the reference for two reasons. A - It allows the user to view the reference and see the road on a topographic map, and B - Google Maps can accurately describe distances over road pavement to the tenth of a kilometre. I could never achieve the same accuracy using maps and scales and rulers. Do I describe this in a footnote? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several points regarding the route number column. (1) The text should be provided and the images can be used to as a decorative supplement the text. As a decorative supplement in a table/list format, the shield images do not require alt text (at least, this is my understanding from a previous discussion at WT:USRD). (2) Images alone should not be used to convey information, as it takes additional comprehension by the reader to derive such information. This would be like using only flag images in the 'Names and flag' columns on List of Canadian provinces and territories by area (which is a featured list). (3) The lack of text for each entry makes it difficult to search the page text for a specific entry, because the image alone cannot be searched by the search function in most standard web browsers. (4) Having text adjacent to the image is the ideal place for an article link (or a future link if articles don't currently exist) if the reader wants to get additional information on the route. (5) Looking at the six other highway-related featured lists, none of them identify individual entries by shield image alone.
As to the sourcing. I'm not questioning the use of Google Maps as a source, I'm questioning its use as the *only* source. As I stated above, their cartographic data has been questionable lately. (One example: a major arterial in my hometown was renamed about four years ago. This was accurately reflected on Google Maps as recently as three months ago. Looking for something last week, after Google changed their map data source, that same arterial roadway currently only shows up on their maps under the old name.) Thus, I would be leery of using Google Maps as the *only* evidence that a numbered route exists. You say you've used an updated map book to determine end points. If this is an authoritative source (such as the public agency who maintains the roads), then why not reference this as well? This would give an additional point of reference to ensure the points measured on Google Maps are accurate (especially helpful since their route shields are not always correct, either). --LJ (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The map book is not by the local government (Most of our counties/provinces don't maintain publicly available straight line diagrams unfortunately), but up here every map is made by one locally-based company that has ties with the ministry of transportation (MapArt). I figure I should address thekingshighway.ca while we're here - It is run by an employee of the MTO. He (the admin) will be publishing a book later this year that is essentially a more in-depth version of that site, which I will set as the new reference once it is available. I am aware of the change on the google data, I noticed it too. In fact, a lot of the roads that previously had a shield to indicate they were a county road, no longer have the shields and are just named (and often incorrectly. Kawartha Lakes Road 6 is named District Road 6). As I mentioned, Google is only used to reference the route and length to a freely available map, but aside from distances it is not a "reference" to any information presented on the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Thumbnail sizes should not be defined. Users can define how large or small they want thumbnails to be in their preferences.
    • All King's Highways, with the exception of 7B, pass through the region from one boundary to the opposite boundary. Boundaries to where?
    • Is it necessary to say the routes fall in the range of 2-57?
    • Route shields in the list are purely for decoration and don't convey any information to the reader, much like flags showing what country an athlete is from. As such, they should specify |link=|alt= parameters so screen readers don't catch them. (See Wikipedia:ALT#Purely_decorative_images for more.) This is why you can't click on a shield using {{Jct}}.
    • There is no logical way to get to articles from the list. If I hadn't edited Road 8, I wouldn't know it's there from looking at just the list. Other FL-Class roads lists have a shield and a link to the accompanying article.
Fredddie™ 23:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first comment is partially true. They should be manually defined when the default sizes are far to small to accurately convey the picture. As such, I've removed the defined size for the second of the two images (As well as a third I am adding now). The map size needs to be defined as it is meaningless at any size under 200px. For the second, the boundaries of the region. To the third, no... Just came from another article that used that, but it can be removed. The fourth is debateable. Wouldn't placing the route number under the alt parameter make the route number "visible" for screen readers and text browsers. The link code does need to be added for sure however. The fifth is certainly true. I was thinking of making the Names column contain the links to the articles. Thoughts? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. I can accept that for the map. 2. Boundaries to which regions? 3. OK. 4.|link=|alt= hides the shield from screen readers/text browsers, which is why it's optimal for decorations. If you chose to use alt text, the route number is not sufficient. The description of the KL shield you've written in the prose would work for alt text. 5. Kawartha Lakes Road 8. That's basically what I'm looking for in the Route column. 5b.Only the top row of the list tables should be bold (I can't find the guideline). The column that has the shields starts with a !. --Fredddie™ 02:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I believe I've addressed all of the above. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments? Any support or opposition? I know the reference question remains, but I still need an answer from someone better acquainted with the ins and outs of WP:RS about what I should do to say "All road routes are based on x source, with links to google provided for user convenience? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to reviewers Please revisit this FLC and a) clearly restate the remaining issues, if necessary, and b) if possible, make a succinct declaration (i.e., support, oppose, or neutral). Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, The list, as it is, has too many redlinks. --Fredddie™ 06:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would lean more towards support if the current list format is scrapped for a format similar to List of highways in Hamilton County, New York. --Fredddie™ 04:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Golbez
  • Oppose; several issues.
    • The 'table of contents' in the City roads section is not useful at all. The sorting makes it irrelevant, and with only 50 or so entries, the list is hardly unwieldy to scroll through.
    • Not just too many redlinks, but every Kawartha Lakes Road is a redlink. Not only that, but one of the five King's Highways is a redlink. While the list may be quality, I really suggest the Kawartha Lakes Roads get some work done. Wait a second... Oh, I see: The table is wrong. The links in the table are to "Kawartha Lakes KL Road ##", when the article is at "Kawartha Lakes Road ##". Fix please. Please check that all links go to the proper places. --Golbez (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Redlinks is certainly not in the featured list criteria. Its a list, a navigational aid, and removing the links, even if to articles not yet written, destroys that purpose. There is no harm in redlinks, and they are not a requirement.
      If a list is entirely made of redlinks then yes, it disqualifies the list from being featured. This one was entirely redlinks save four; now it is entirely redlinks save 12. Out of, what, 60? 1/5? I'm not saying the list is bad; I'm saying, perhaps it shouldn't be featured until it has more to, well, list. I never said blacklink them; I said create articles.
      I'm creating several of them, but with a population of 80,000 there are not many roads that are notable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      If they aren't notable then they should be blacklinks. Personally I think they're notable. --Golbez (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      If all numbered county roads are inherently notable then I will happily make articles for all of them as I have the first few. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      As for the bad links, thats because of some template modifications I've been doing. Give me a few minutes to fix that one up. Fixed
      I also don't see how having a list of 50 entries means the table of contents or sorting is harmful. The sorting is there to sort by number or by length. I will not fix either of those, as they add functionality to the list that I'll take over a little star in the top right corner. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The sorting is there for whatever reason the user decides to use it for; if the other columns are not intended to be sortable, then no-sort them. --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly! While I personally would only sort by number or by length, I could see users wanting to sort the termini by route number (a feature I'll be adding shortly), or by the name of the roads. I'm merely providing that option for use. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      No one was arguing the utility of sorting; I said sorting ruins the utility of the table of contents. --Golbez (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The route shield images are pretty huge. Looking at similar FLs, they all use smaller shields. That way, they can fit 20 entries on a screen instead of the 9 this list manages. Having them so big doesn't add anything to the understanding of the list, but it does inflate the size of the table and add whitespace.
  • For the termini, you should include the KL # when dealing with a Kawartha Lakes road. Otherwise the links appear to be surprise links. --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be converting the whole table over to a template that will fix this as well as fill in a bit of the whitespace. The images cannot be too much smaller before they lose their visibility. At 24px they are surprisingly unreadable. I don't mind shrinking them a bit, but in my mind for 99.5% of our readers who are not visually-impaired or using ancient software, the images provide a visual break to monotonous lines of text as well as providing a much darker and clearer number. Those signs are also what most people familiarize with; not the names, which can be spoken differently from person to person (for one person it could be Durham 23, another its Rural Route 23, another is Durham County 23, and another is Durham Regional Road 23). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The King'ss Highways shields are easily visible at 24px. The KL shield less so, but it's legible at 36px. Unfortunately, that makes for an ugly situation with "Kawartha" being on one line, and "Lakes Road ##" being an extra step below. However, you're slightly wrong here I think; it's not about signs vs names, it's signs vs numbers. Even if the sign is tiny, the number - which in your very example is what people are familiar with, not the sign itself - is still easily visible and is the central point of the entry. --Golbez (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be beneficial to create a set of trapezoid shields with just the number, not unlike the county road shields that don't show the county name? (e.g. ) These could be used across Ontario or wherever else trapezoids are used. --Fredddie™ 23:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These would just be used in junction lists, not infoboxes. --Fredddie™ 00:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a plan of action. It may even be possible to have a blank trapezoid and use a template to place the number over the image. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try this: {{Roadlink/KL|8}}. It's shorthand for a superimpose template. The only other parameter which can be changed is the left-right justification {{{x}}}. --Fredddie™ 05:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. I've made the changes. The issue with display was quickly fixed with an adjustment to the column width and template. I've also changed over all of the links in the tables so as not to be "trick links". The table of contents is also vanquished. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I like the way you've used to find their lengths, and it's a good reference for their routes, it may be leading to some false precision. Google Maps' resolution is .1km, but you specifically say KL 3 is 900 meters; perhaps this should say .9km, because 900 meters seems falsely precise. Or say 'about'. That's the only entry with such a note, though.
      Done - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note: "Like King's Highways, these signs are sometimes referred to as shields, or reassurance markers." This made me laugh, because I'd never heard that last term, but it fits; several times while driving in the US, just after an interchange, I've been wanting to see a sign for reassurance I'm going the right way. :P --Golbez (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd actually never heard the term before myself. Its used in several articles on Southern Ontario highways, so I figured it wouldn't hurt to mention the term if some people are familiar with it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still not ready to support. Too many unresolved comments.—Chris!c/t 06:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which of those comments are personally keeping you from supporting? So far the only unresolved comment seems to be the redlinks, and perhaps the image size (though I made the requested adjustments). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok. I support if the comments are resolved as you said.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not certain they are, but I believe they are. You'll have to use your judgement or see what the posters say. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This list has too many major issues:
  1. There are not supposed to be citations in the lead unless that information is unique.
  2. There are large areas of uncited information in the prose portion of the list.
  3. The article has too many redlinks.
  4. Reference #4 appears to be a personal website and is probably not reliable.
  5. The article relies too heavily on Google Maps as a source. ---Dough4872 00:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) That is a choice, not a policy. Refs shouldn't be in the lead, but can be.
I haven't actually checked this article, but note that according to WP:LEADCITE, the lead can either be uncited or cited, as long as the convention is consistent (i.e. do not cite half the lead and leave the other half uncited). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No citation in the lead was unique, so I've removed them. This lack of desire for citations in the lead directly contradicts the requirement for a sourced statement in the lead for DYK. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2) What is in the prose that you find controversial and in need of a source?
3) Not part of the criteria, should be forbidden as a reason for opposition, but I am fixing this atm.
4) Looks can be deceiving. That website is run by a member of the MTO and is the only reliable source on the subject. They will be releasing a book within the next several months which I will source upon its release.
5) As stated before, google maps is for user convenience. Official MTO roadmaps are used for highways, and local maps used for county roads. I had an idea for fixing this which I will implement later tonight. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main sticking point for my oppose is the lack of citations in the prose. Every piece of information needs to contain a citation. For example, "Although they are generally one lane in either direction, several short sections with two lanes in one direction as a passing lane exist along the highways. The municipality's lone freeway, Highway 115, is two lanes in either direction for its entire length." needs to have a reliable source stating the number of lanes on the road and this statement can easily be challenged without a citation. ---Dough4872 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:When_to_cite, not everything needs sources. Only information that is controversial or that may be challenged needs sourcing. Unlike the US, Canada does not have straight-line diagrams describing highways mile for mile, nor do many counties provide more than a simple diagram or list of their county roads. However, information such as how many lanes a highway has can be discovered on a variety of maps and by looking at satellite imagery. It may be slightly outdated at times, but that does not mean it can't verify the validity of the information. I feel I have sourced all of the information that could incur a genuine challenge, so if you'd like to point out specifics that you don't believe to be true, or information that you'd contest the validity of (without being a beaurocrat and contesting each and every sentence without a citation at the end), I'll try and find the most reliable source available on the information, otherwise you are effectively prohibiting all Canadian (or at least Ontario) roads from ever having the possibility of being a featured article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could all reviewers please note the new set-up for referencing. All the Google Maps references are separated, and are exclusively used for the 1/10th of a kilometre accuracy for route lengths (whilst being supplemented by a reliable up-to-date 2010 paper atlas that I've measured using the scale and a digital caliper ruler). I have also updated many other refs (Such as the continuations into other regions) to the 2010 atlas. I also expect to make at least another 4 roads (4, 7, 9, 18) into articles within the next day or so. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have collapsed my earlier comments; I am going on a trip soon so may not be able to address responses, so I didn't want my oppose to weigh upon the deliberations. Switching to neutral for now. I still think the tables need smaller shields, but the work on fleshing out the redlinks is moving along. Also, at current, one of the refs is broken, giving a big red error at the bottom. --Golbez (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have now changed the way the shields are displayed in the left column. This should take care of the whitespace issue. Where once I could see a max of 8 at a time, I can now see up to 14. In addition, I've added {{nths}} to the two terminus columns, so that they now sort the highways and roads with numbered designations into order. The redlinks are also several magnitudes better than before. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Looks okay, but needs substantial work.
  • Title is purely descriptive, and thus the boldfont in the first sentence should be killed.
  • The shortest numbered road is Kawartha Lakes Road 3, Hartley Road, a causeway just less than a kilometre long crossing Mitchell Lake. - Why link to Road 3 if it redirects to the same page...?
  • The city of Kawartha Lakes was formed on January 1, 2001, and was known as Victoria County before that. - Out of place and quite off-topic for this article.
  • The shields in the Secondary highways segment are so small that they contribute no additional value to the text; I suggest removing them, to be honest.
  • Almost all of the citations are inconsistently formatted/need more info.
  • The "Route Maps" thing is bizarre. Just cite Google Maps collectively and remove the dozens of ugly footnotes.
  • Misplaced punctuation all over.

–Juliancolton | Talk 04:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the first two. The part regarding the Victoria County bit is important (on top of the fact of it being historical), as the article makes many references to the past roads, or to Victoria County roads that were replaced. As for the shields in the secondary highway section, they are the same size as in a junction list, and were mostly there to show the difference in their appearance, but I have removed them. I will not replacing the end footnotes to Google Maps, as each one is a link to a map of that route, and I hardly see that as an inconvenience or detrimental aspect. The punctuation and inconsistent citations I shall take a look at, but are there any places in particular that you feel need attention? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary to cite an almost identical Google Maps source dozens of different times when you could simply list one neat and concise general source? As it is, the large block of Google Maps links isn't really visually appealing. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every entry is unique, and shows the route of the road in question. Citations are never visually appealing, so I don't understand why its detrimental to have them. Yes I could list google maps and say "This is a source... Except its not sourcing anything... But you can use it to see the various routes and the directions they take... oh, but you'll have to find them yourself because Google just removed an information source and is 15 years out of date", but it would be absolutely and completely useless and unhelpful to readers. Information always trumps appearance in my books.
My point is that by condensing all 50 Google Maps footnotes into a single general citation, you don't lose any additional information. And visual appeal is indeed a valid objection per FL criteria #5a; "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and it has a minimal proportion of red links." –Juliancolton | Talk 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Into a single reference to maps.google.ca? How absolutely useless would that be (its ok to go over 100% for this one)? I'd lose all of the information! Point noted, but disregarded. Those references will all be remaining, because I absolutely refuse to remove hordes of valuable information on the grounds that one editor finds it visually displeasing, probably based on dissimilar articles. They provide a visual accompaniment to what is otherwise a distance. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite honest, I'm going to restart this candidacy when it expires. Two of the opposes were from editors involved in a quarrel with me elsewhere on the project, and they have made a point of not returning to counter those votes despite me making the improvements they requested. Not to mention that the point of FLC's is back and forth communication. I'm aware the pending holidays play a role in this. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, but as an FLC director, I respectfully ask you not to re-nominate, at least not immediately. The disagreements that have surfaced here don't seem to be resolving themselves. I will be archiving this FLC tomorrow, as there is clearly not a consensus to promote. Re-submitting will not be helpful or fair to the other FLCs (this one has been up for about six weeks). FLC is not the place for dispute resolution, nor is it where articles should be overhauled (that's why we have peer review). I suggest that you and the other involved take a break from the article for a few days to cool down and have time to regain focus. Then, start a centralized discussion somewhere (article talk page, WikiProject talk page, or peer review) and try to work out your disagreements. When significant progress has been made in that front, please consult me or another FL director, and we will be glad to let you re-nominate the list. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not planning to until after new years. There are no disputes on this article right now, they were regarding a completely separate issue. I simply feel their anger towards that brought them here to oppose this. Dough and JC have made legitimate comments that I can improve the article with in the mean time. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_numbered_roads_in_Kawartha_Lakes,_Ontario/archive2&oldid=1141920826"