Category talk:Ontario provincial highways

Canada: Ontario Category‑class

	Canada portal This category 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
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	Ontario portal This category is supported by WikiProject Ontario.

Canada Roads: Ontario Category‑class

This category 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

template[edit]

I asked elsewhere, is someone willing to make a template so we can put all the ontario highways into a series, as our amis in Quebec have done?? Bacl-presby 00:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category sorting[edit]

Soliciting outside comment: should articles without a number in their title, such as Queen Elizabeth Way, Main Street Tunnel, Thousand Islands Parkway, etc. be sorted on the actual title of the article, or on hidden highway numbers like "451" and "7146" that aren't in the title and usually have no meaning to anyone besides the Ministry of Transportation and about 50 roadgeek subscribers to the Yahoo ontroads list? Bearcat 18:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they should. And your question is misleading - 2S, 55 and 100 were signed; 58A is signed. The only one that you might have a point on is Main Street Tunnel, a 7xxx highway. All the others either have or had signed numbers, or, in the case of the QEW, fit naturally with the 400 series. --SPUI (T - C) 18:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort by article title. ~~There's a reason the articles are named differently.~~ --Usgnus 18:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No. --SPUI (T - C) 18:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This was posted precisely to solicit other people's opinions; it's completely inappropriate to respond to each individual opinion with a "no" just because you don't agree with it. What are you, five years old? Bearcat 18:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. --SPUI (T - C) 18:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for a road name, you don't go to a category of highway numbers. --SPUI (T - C) 18:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather tangential to the point. Bearcat 19:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category is about Ontario provincial highways, not Ontario provincial highway numbers. Mindmatrix 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Every highway is numbered. --SPUI (T - C) 19:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This category has nothing to do with that numbering. Mindmatrix 19:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bullshit. --SPUI (T - C) 19:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort by article title. Nobody other than the DOT and roadgeeks gives two hoots about hidden route numbers.^{[citation needed]} I'm not about to make an article about New Brunswick Route 96 anytime soon. Kirjtc2 19:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort by common name, as that's what an average Wikipedia user would expect. Few people looking for information about the QEW would think to look under 4 or 451. They'd expect to see it at Queen Elizabeth Way, the name by which they know it. Most certainly, nobody expects to see Townline Tunnel sorted between Highway 58 and Highway 60. Mind matrix 19:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Then I'll move it to Highway 58A. Bloody Jesus. --SPUI (T - C) 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is that the Townline Tunnel has more than just the highway. --Usgnus 19:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not my problem. If you insist that the number being sorted by is in the title for some unknown reason, it shall be moved. You gave me an option and I took it. Too late. --SPUI (T - C) 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I certainly didn't give that option - it's available to anybody that wants it by pressing the "move" button. I'm not going to validate the move in any way. Further, the article belongs at the title that is most appropriate for its content - if you don't like it, that's your problem. Your page moves are more or less designed to prove a point, or so it appears to me. Mind matrix 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        My page moves were done to keep them where they should be in order, since there's "consensus" to be idiots. --SPUI (T - C) 19:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        That's right, everybody but you is an idiot - the penultimate resort of everyone that's losing an argument. Mind matrix 19:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Everyone who has your view is an idiot - big difference. --SPUI (T - C) 19:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Eveyone here, you excepted, shares my view. Ergo, there's no difference. Mind matrix 19:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You're all being idiots here. Duh. --SPUI (T - C) 19:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:5P #4. --Usgnus 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Common sense - something you all lack. --SPUI (T - C) 19:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        "Common sense" does not mean "my way or else"; there's nothing particularly "common sense" about your position here. Other than that, I can only remind you that you've been warned on more than one occasion to tone down the rhetoric and be civil. So watch it. Bearcat 20:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Sort titles based on what's visible in the title" is not "some unknown reason"; it's simple common sense. For instance, even though Ernie Coombs was Mr. Dressup, if the article is titled Ernie Coombs, you sort it under C, not M. Bearcat 20:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category for current and former King's Highways, all of which are or were numbered.
The highways are sorted by number.
Therefore they should all be sorted by number, even those which happen to be named differently.

Your inability to understand this is not my problem. --SPUI (T - C) 04:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying that since all apples are fruits, and all bananas are fruits, all apples should be listed as bananas. The name of the category is "Ontario provincial highways", not necessarily King's Highways. Not only are there more than just King's Highways for numbered routes in Ontario, you can have a highway without a number - I doubt anyone will disagree that the Gardiner Expressway is a highway (though not necessarily "provincial"). And besides, what sense does it make to list them under numbers that haven't even been used internally, let alone signed, in 40 years? Kirjtc2 04:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- This category deals specifically with the King's Highways; "Ontario provincial highways" means exactly the same thing in this context. (It was presumably an attempt by someone for needless standardization.) If the category were at Category:King's Highways of Ontario or something similar, would you object to sorting by number? --SPUI (T - C) 06:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we understand your position just fine. We just disagree with it, which doesn't even come close to making any of us idiots. You want to talk "common sense"? All right; a person with common sense would not sort a category based on a hidden criterion that requires significant background knowledge to understand, when the whole point of the category is to help people who know nothing about the topic, and hence don't have the background knowledge to understand why you're sorting it that way. Common sense means putting yourself in the average user's shoes and structuring it the way they would find most genuinely helpful. It does not mean "you're an idiot if you disagree with me". Bearcat 05:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of this category is to contain the numbered King's Highways of Ontario. --SPUI (T - C) 06:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of this category is to organize all articles relating to the provincial highway system in Ontario, whether they're numbered roads or not, in a format that is readily understandable to readers regardless of their knowledge level. Nobody ever said the point was to reflect numbered highways only; not all King's Highways in Ontario are numbered roads. Bearcat 08:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which King's Highways are not numbered roads? And don't say QEW - that has a "hidden" number as well as the signed "number" QEW. --SPUI (T - C) 08:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the last fucking time, hidden internal inventory numbers are irrelevant. You do NOT title or sort an article with a name that nobody reading the article recognizes. And at any rate: the Thousand Islands Parkway is a non-numbered road. The Long Sault Parkway is a non-numbered road. And given that a hidden internal inventory number that has never, ever been publicly posted on said highway is irrelevant to Wikipedia titling conventions, the Queen Elizabeth Way is indeed a non-numbered road. Bearcat 08:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Thousand Islands Parkway is not a King's Highway. --SPUI (T - C) 09:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a part of the provincial highway system. Bearcat 09:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? Either way, that doesn't refute my statement that every King's Highway is numbered. --SPUI (T - C) 09:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make your statement relevant to the matter, either. Bearcat 09:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does - all King's Highways are numbered, so let's sort them by those numbers. --SPUI (T - C) 09:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort them by the numbers if the number is in the proper and correct title of the article. If the number isn't in the title, sort by what is in the title. This really isn't hard to understand. Bearcat 09:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how arbitrary the title is - there is no "proper and correct title" when deciding whether to use the number or name. --SPUI (T - C) 09:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is; when a highway has a public, common name and a number that's known only to insiders and was abandoned thirty years ago or has never been publicly posted on the highway, then the name is the proper and correct title; Wikipedia has a rule that in any case where a specific naming policy for that class of articles hasn't already been set forth, the "most common name" prevails. Bearcat 17:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and what about Highway 137? Should that be sorted under H because it's no longer signed? --SPUI (T - C) 09:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False comparison; Highway 137 doesn't have any other possible title besides its highway number. Bearcat 09:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards in any case on the chronology of Highway 137, the road *was* unsigned (or signed as "To Interstate 81" until about a year ago, when the signage on the 401 and the Parkway was changed to replace "I-81 Hill Island USA" with "137 Hill Island, Ontario" and the I-81 indicators moved to secondary signposts as seemingly an afterthought. --carlb 14:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for any personal attacks here. I'm still convinced you're all wrong, but I'll stay out of this for now. --SPUI (T - C) 20:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort by common name. There are many instances of articles being titled by the name used in the common lexicon, for example the Leslie Street Spit actually has the official name Outer Harbour East Headland but nobody calls it that. Articles should be referred to by their common designations rather than some obscure technical title. It makes Wikipedia more human. --Atrian 04:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another proposal to rename this category[edit]

As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Man-made objects, by country categories of such things are named "in country". I believe the same convention should be applied to Provinces of Canada and therefore, the sub-categories of Provincial highways in Canada should be renamed in the style Provincial highways in <province>, and this category should be renamed Provincial highways in Ontario. RayGates 15:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]