Template:Did you know nominations/Ontario Highway 96
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by PumpkinSky talk 10:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Ontario Highway 95, Ontario Highway 96[edit]
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that Highway 95 and Highway 96 were the only King's Highways in Ontario not connected to the rest of the network by a fixed link?
- Comment: Unfortunately there will never be a reliable ref that says the hook verbatim. I have used the 1997 official road map (the last before these two highways ceased to exist) as proof, as examining it one can see that every other highway is interconnected except these two.
Created/expanded by Floydian (talk). Self nom at 16:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- New and long enough. Sourcing seems fine - I assume a map is an acceptable source in itself (AGF as offline source), but perhaps you could make use of this Wolfe Island Transportation Study Bridge Conceptual Engineering Report Rev. I1 – March, 2011 plainly saying there's no other way to get to the island except by ferry?.
AGF on offline source - confirmed by the report and other sources placing the two highways on the island - good to go.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the argument "examining it one can see" is, effectively, a case of original research, and against the Wikipedia policies of verifiability and secondary sourcing. The study offered up by Tomobe03, if cited in the two Highway articles, would allow for a hook that said something like "were not connected to the rest Ontario's King's Highways by a fixed link", which is still an interesting claim. As it stands now, the hook is problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- There is no original research in these articles, but I'd challenge you to provide any evidence otherwise. What I merely said is that one needs to be able to look over the entire map to observe that every other highway is interconnected, which is certainly not original research if a map clearly draws it out. You've misread my comment. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 10:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I think we need someone better versed with the intricacies of DYK to rule on this. You're making an examination of a map and translating what it shows into words, yes? There is no written source that says all the other highways directly link/intersect with at least one other highway, just that map? My understanding is that such a map is a primary source, not a secondary one. WP:RS says: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." I'll be the first to admit that my understanding might be flawed in this, but if it isn't, the hook requires a reliable secondary source that specifically states that all the other highways are interconnected by fixed links. Otherwise, I believe the best you can do is to say that these two highways on the island aren't connected by a fixed link. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- A map is a secondary source, as they compile the multitude of GIS and engineering data received from processes including photogrammetry, GIS, and surveying, among others, and make interpretive decisions about which roads to show or not show, how to label them, etc. Maps are used extensively in highway articles to verify points of interest, junctions, and geography. The 1997 map makes it very clear which roads connect and which do not, and a casual scan over the map will reveal that the only highways that aren't interconnected into the web of other highways (which are clearly labelled a different colour than local roads or county roads), are these two, which connect to the mainline via an also labelled ferry service. That verifies the hook that there were no other highways in Ontario, aside from these two, that were segregated. I can provide the 1999 map as a source to verify that 1997 was the peak of the highway network prior to the disestablishment of many routes, and I can provide every map between 1934 and 1997 to verify that these are the only two King's highways that existed on an island without a fixed link (I can also scan any published up to 1961 onto Wikipedia as public domain). I would like another opinion from an editor who is more familiar with the use of maps as a secondary source. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- New and long enough. Sourcing seems fine - I assume a map is an acceptable source in itself (AGF as offline source), but perhaps you could make use of this Wolfe Island Transportation Study Bridge Conceptual Engineering Report Rev. I1 – March, 2011 plainly saying there's no other way to get to the island except by ferry?.
Maps are secondary sources: their primary sources are the satellite or aerial photography, survey measurements and GIS data. The cartographers that create the map have to interpret these data sources to produce a map suited to the purpose. Once interpreted into the form of a map, no specialist knowledge is needed for an average reader to scan a map and verify the contents of the article. The knowledge needed is standard instruction in secondary schools. For more information, see the essay, WP:Using maps and similar sources in wikipedia articles which states in its nutshell: "It is not Original Research to extract information from a map or line chart using standard techniques, particularly if those techniques are common to two or more disciplines." Imzadi 1979 → 21:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies, and thanks to you both for your patience in explaining matters on maps as secondary sources. Reiterating the original tick by Tomobe03 on the hook as it stands, and I imagine it will soon be picked up. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)