User talk:Floydian/Archive/2022c
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thank you for the kind words
Thank you for the kind words at Dough4872's talk page. In the spirit of what you said there I was wondering if you think this is a good idea for a task to propose to the project: merging the various subpages of U.S. Route 19 (U.S. Route 19 in Virginia, U.S. Route 19 in Georgia, U.S. Route 19W etc) which aren't individually notable into the rather anemic central article hopefully resulting in a single GA quality article rather than a dozen mediocre/non-notable pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Well. Notability aside, it is not unheard of to do this, and we have done it before, with the understanding that if/when the size grows they get split back out. But you have to realize that articles get split by random editors and there is often not a lot we can do besides revert war or start yet another discussion. The US has a minimum standard that a route must go through 3 states before a split happens, but editors ignore that all the time. Sometimes we get revert warred out of our own articles enforcing basic standards. --Rschen7754 00:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not to put too fine a point on it but IMO most projects deal with that through AfD/merge. In crafting your notability trump card you've denied yourselves to some extent the ability to effectively use AfD/merge to enforce basic standards. As for "with the understanding that if/when the size grows they get split back out" that for me is just an incontrovertible fact of wikipedia, we can't predict the future and it would be foolish to even try. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- We don't craft guidelines to enforce, we craft them around what the precedent has been at AfD. Believe me, I've wished it were the other way around (see Category:Roads_in_Toronto. I literally split a Wikiproject in half because of that craphole) - Floydian τ ¢ 01:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- We craft them around whoever shows up for the discussion, which is in most cases the same half dozen people time after time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- We don't craft guidelines to enforce, we craft them around what the precedent has been at AfD. Believe me, I've wished it were the other way around (see Category:Roads_in_Toronto. I literally split a Wikiproject in half because of that craphole) - Floydian τ ¢ 01:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Not to put too fine a point on it but IMO most projects deal with that through AfD/merge. In crafting your notability trump card you've denied yourselves to some extent the ability to effectively use AfD/merge to enforce basic standards. As for "with the understanding that if/when the size grows they get split back out" that for me is just an incontrovertible fact of wikipedia, we can't predict the future and it would be foolish to even try. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't feel it's my place to jump in and dictate an area where others have far more expertise than I. What works in the case of Ontario Highway 40#Suffixed routes doesn't work in, say Ontario Highway 8#Suffixed routes or Ontario Highway 11#Business routes, and a lot of that is a case-by-case basis. I get that you have the best of intentions, but I'd like to think the highway editors do as well, so let's not jump to the easiest solution because it is quick. This discussion is best centralised at WT:HWY, or even WT:USRD since it concerns articles under the banner of that project specifically. Floydian τ ¢ 00:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I will note that I've been gentler with the roadfans than I was with the catholics or milhist buffs... I'm not interested in the quickest or easiest solution, that should be pretty obvious by now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I just wish that you would try to work with us instead of against us. Personally I would love to have all 30,000+ road articles at FA status, properly sourced with reliable maps, newspapers and books... but most of us have jobs and other hobbies and commitments, not to mention that I wouldn't know where to start even if I just went to the next state over, let alone a country where I don't speak the language. I hope that I have enough of a record of calling things out among my "own tribe" over my 15 years plus editing. I just don't think a revert war/AFD spree across 30,000 articles is going to benefit the site at all, and it's a gamble as to who is left unbanned at the end of it. --Rschen7754 01:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Would you accept 10,000 FA instead the current 30,000 articles (theoretical number, anything less than 30k really)? I'm willing to work with the project, but there can't be any further contradictions of basic policy. No voting "keep" for sources which don't pass GNG, Ok? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- And that's where we get into a problem. I just get the feeling that you've decided how the roads project should look and how policies are interpreted and that you won't take anything else for an answer. --Rschen7754 01:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thats not the case, perhaps tempers haven't cooled off enough. Lets say I avoid the area for now and we resume this discussion later? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- And that's where we get into a problem. I just get the feeling that you've decided how the roads project should look and how policies are interpreted and that you won't take anything else for an answer. --Rschen7754 01:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Would you accept 10,000 FA instead the current 30,000 articles (theoretical number, anything less than 30k really)? I'm willing to work with the project, but there can't be any further contradictions of basic policy. No voting "keep" for sources which don't pass GNG, Ok? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I just wish that you would try to work with us instead of against us. Personally I would love to have all 30,000+ road articles at FA status, properly sourced with reliable maps, newspapers and books... but most of us have jobs and other hobbies and commitments, not to mention that I wouldn't know where to start even if I just went to the next state over, let alone a country where I don't speak the language. I hope that I have enough of a record of calling things out among my "own tribe" over my 15 years plus editing. I just don't think a revert war/AFD spree across 30,000 articles is going to benefit the site at all, and it's a gamble as to who is left unbanned at the end of it. --Rschen7754 01:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- I will note that I've been gentler with the roadfans than I was with the catholics or milhist buffs... I'm not interested in the quickest or easiest solution, that should be pretty obvious by now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Excellent article
Other stuff aside I wanted to compliment you on Ontario Highway 35, you've done a great job finding local sources and fleshing out that article. Its a real credit to you. The History section in particular is excellent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest, it was my second GA from 2010, and I'm trying to bring it up to speed. Ontario Highway 8 is a good example of my current expectations for all Ontario highways, but it's a work in progress. I know I'm being a dick with my responses, but you're challenging uncontentious items instead of important stuff (like notes in the junction table, which I've always felt managed to skip past the looking glass). - Floydian τ ¢ 04:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Seriously, we may quibble about routes and interchanges but you write excellent history sections. I've been looking though Canadian highway articles and they are just stacked full of really nice history sections of which you seem to be the main author. They're not just good by the standards of roads, I don't think theres a wikiproject out there which wouldn't be thrilled to have you turning out history sections in their topic area. TBH I don't expect niceness, I don't think I'd be nice to me if the tables were turned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- That is one heck of a history section on Ontario Highway 8, you basically wrote another article on the history! Thanks for trusting me enough to tell me about a page you're proud of without worrying that I'l go bull in a China shop on it BTW. Not going to betray that trust. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like your opinion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 8/archive1 HEB - Floydian τ ¢ 15:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- You know my opinion on using maps (especially google maps) as you do there... I'd rather not rain on your parade, the Original Analysis in the Route description (for example "Portions of the highway through Goderich, Clinton, Seaforth, Mitchell and Stratford are locally-maintained under a Connecting Link Agreement with the provincial government.") has absolutely no place in a FA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Citation 106 covers the Connecting Links, in the junction table. Google maps is used almost entirely as an online accompaniment to offline atlases that would be almost impossible to obtain outside of Ontario. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Its currently cited to source 1 not source 106. Those atlases better have large text sections which describe the maps... And if they can stand on their own there is no reason to link to a non-RS like google maps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sure there is, extra verification and convenient global access for all readers. Ref 1 also mentions the connecting links ("START OF NA", NA being "Not assumed"). No need for text to describe the maps, there is a legend and I still maintain that map reading is as basic a skill as word reading, or captioning a photograph - We'll have to agree to disagree though. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- How are you getting from "START OF NA" to "Portions of the highway through Goderich, Clinton, Seaforth, Mitchell and Stratford are locally-maintained under a Connecting Link Agreement with the provincial government." without WP:OR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- The AADT tables define the start and end of non-provincial (aka local) segments of the highway. Granted it should be coupled with ref 106, which lays out connecting links by municipality. If I can't read a book in German, does that make the book invalid, or my lack of knowledge? - Floydian τ ¢ 15:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- and how does the the start and end of non-provincial (aka local) segments of the highway get you to "Portions of the highway through Goderich, Clinton, Seaforth, Mitchell and Stratford are locally-maintained under a Connecting Link Agreement with the provincial government." without WP:OR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Because those same tables can be cross-referenced to a map, because they often list the town (i.e. "CLINTON E LTS‐RANSFORD ST ‐ START OF NA" followed by "FORMER CLINTON W LTS ‐ END OF NA"), as well as the Connecting links list at this link which indicate the municipality, highway, road name and length of them. I'm not sure where the OR you're trying to find is, but as I said, not knowing how to read German doesn't make German books wrong. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- That falls under our OR policy. You can't cross reference one source with another to come up with something that neither says on their own. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- It does say it. You just can't understand it. Again, which part is the original research? Is it "Portions of the highway", is it "through Goderich, Clinton, Seaforth, Mitchell and Stratford", or is it "are locally-maintained under a Connecting Link Agreement with the provincial government." - Floydian τ ¢ 19:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Its the statement in its entirety, the source simply does not say that. You agree that it doesn't say it if you're arguing that it says it only when cross referenced to another source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- When I said cross-referencing, I mean they all backup the same information, not that I am taking one bit from source A ("abc") and one bit from source B ("def") and synthesizing facts ("adf"). Source A and B both say "abcdef" in different presentations. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, so if it can all be sourced to that original source you can easily provide where in that source it says that "Portions of the highway through Goderich, Clinton, Seaforth, Mitchell and Stratford are locally-maintained under a Connecting Link Agreement with the provincial government." I can't find the Connecting Link Agreement mentioned anywhere in it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- See the PDF I linked above. Page 13 contains the entries for Highway 8, page 1 describes what connecting links are. The AADT tables place them within the context of the highway overall for the purposes of the junction list. You're really digging deep into semantics at this point. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- It wasn't sourced to that PDF. Where does it say Connecting Link Agreement in the source which was cited? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- It is now though. Mistakes happen and the reference was in the article, just without an inline citation at that point. That is the point of peer review forums such as FAC (since WP:PR has gone the way of the Dodo these days) - Floydian τ ¢ 20:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- So source A and B do not both say "abcdef"? Just source B? Would it have been so hard to just say "You're right, it is not directly supported by the source given. I'l find a source which does directly support it" instead of this absurd dog and cat game? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Because your approach to the issue has been a zoo, and you come off as confrontational (as do I admittedly) rather than someone seeking to improve articles. Also source A does say it, you just don't know how to analyze it (which is completely understandable since it is a bunch of numbers and abbreviations that took me years to understand) - Floydian τ ¢ 20:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- We aren't allowed to analyze sources... Original analysis is covered under WP:OR. Thats what I've been trying to communicate this whole time, my understanding of our community standards is excellent and based on years of close reading and discussions on our central noticeboards (I was once called a "high wizard among wikilawyers" or something to that effect by a now permabanned editor). You only see whats right in front of your nose, but theres nothing unique about what I've been doing in the roads topic area y'all are just a bit more stubborn, tenured, and organized than the rest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I suppose I should have said "you just don't know how to read it". There is no opinion being formed, nor conclusions, nor anything original. It's what the source says. Once again, back to my German example (or, to use yet another animal metaphor, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink). At this point I consider the matter settled; your mileage may vary. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, see you around. Just FYI this horse get decent mileage as long as you feed them high octane ethanol and hippy grass but the amount of shorseshit produced will increase proportional to those inputs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I suppose I should have said "you just don't know how to read it". There is no opinion being formed, nor conclusions, nor anything original. It's what the source says. Once again, back to my German example (or, to use yet another animal metaphor, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink). At this point I consider the matter settled; your mileage may vary. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- We aren't allowed to analyze sources... Original analysis is covered under WP:OR. Thats what I've been trying to communicate this whole time, my understanding of our community standards is excellent and based on years of close reading and discussions on our central noticeboards (I was once called a "high wizard among wikilawyers" or something to that effect by a now permabanned editor). You only see whats right in front of your nose, but theres nothing unique about what I've been doing in the roads topic area y'all are just a bit more stubborn, tenured, and organized than the rest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Because your approach to the issue has been a zoo, and you come off as confrontational (as do I admittedly) rather than someone seeking to improve articles. Also source A does say it, you just don't know how to analyze it (which is completely understandable since it is a bunch of numbers and abbreviations that took me years to understand) - Floydian τ ¢ 20:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- So source A and B do not both say "abcdef"? Just source B? Would it have been so hard to just say "You're right, it is not directly supported by the source given. I'l find a source which does directly support it" instead of this absurd dog and cat game? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- It is now though. Mistakes happen and the reference was in the article, just without an inline citation at that point. That is the point of peer review forums such as FAC (since WP:PR has gone the way of the Dodo these days) - Floydian τ ¢ 20:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- It wasn't sourced to that PDF. Where does it say Connecting Link Agreement in the source which was cited? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- See the PDF I linked above. Page 13 contains the entries for Highway 8, page 1 describes what connecting links are. The AADT tables place them within the context of the highway overall for the purposes of the junction list. You're really digging deep into semantics at this point. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, so if it can all be sourced to that original source you can easily provide where in that source it says that "Portions of the highway through Goderich, Clinton, Seaforth, Mitchell and Stratford are locally-maintained under a Connecting Link Agreement with the provincial government." I can't find the Connecting Link Agreement mentioned anywhere in it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- When I said cross-referencing, I mean they all backup the same information, not that I am taking one bit from source A ("abc") and one bit from source B ("def") and synthesizing facts ("adf"). Source A and B both say "abcdef" in different presentations. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Its the statement in its entirety, the source simply does not say that. You agree that it doesn't say it if you're arguing that it says it only when cross referenced to another source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- It does say it. You just can't understand it. Again, which part is the original research? Is it "Portions of the highway", is it "through Goderich, Clinton, Seaforth, Mitchell and Stratford", or is it "are locally-maintained under a Connecting Link Agreement with the provincial government." - Floydian τ ¢ 19:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- That falls under our OR policy. You can't cross reference one source with another to come up with something that neither says on their own. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Because those same tables can be cross-referenced to a map, because they often list the town (i.e. "CLINTON E LTS‐RANSFORD ST ‐ START OF NA" followed by "FORMER CLINTON W LTS ‐ END OF NA"), as well as the Connecting links list at this link which indicate the municipality, highway, road name and length of them. I'm not sure where the OR you're trying to find is, but as I said, not knowing how to read German doesn't make German books wrong. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- and how does the the start and end of non-provincial (aka local) segments of the highway get you to "Portions of the highway through Goderich, Clinton, Seaforth, Mitchell and Stratford are locally-maintained under a Connecting Link Agreement with the provincial government." without WP:OR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- The AADT tables define the start and end of non-provincial (aka local) segments of the highway. Granted it should be coupled with ref 106, which lays out connecting links by municipality. If I can't read a book in German, does that make the book invalid, or my lack of knowledge? - Floydian τ ¢ 15:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- How are you getting from "START OF NA" to "Portions of the highway through Goderich, Clinton, Seaforth, Mitchell and Stratford are locally-maintained under a Connecting Link Agreement with the provincial government." without WP:OR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sure there is, extra verification and convenient global access for all readers. Ref 1 also mentions the connecting links ("START OF NA", NA being "Not assumed"). No need for text to describe the maps, there is a legend and I still maintain that map reading is as basic a skill as word reading, or captioning a photograph - We'll have to agree to disagree though. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Its currently cited to source 1 not source 106. Those atlases better have large text sections which describe the maps... And if they can stand on their own there is no reason to link to a non-RS like google maps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Citation 106 covers the Connecting Links, in the junction table. Google maps is used almost entirely as an online accompaniment to offline atlases that would be almost impossible to obtain outside of Ontario. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- You know my opinion on using maps (especially google maps) as you do there... I'd rather not rain on your parade, the Original Analysis in the Route description (for example "Portions of the highway through Goderich, Clinton, Seaforth, Mitchell and Stratford are locally-maintained under a Connecting Link Agreement with the provincial government.") has absolutely no place in a FA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like your opinion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ontario Highway 8/archive1 HEB - Floydian τ ¢ 15:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Waterloo Region roads
Hi there Floydian! Recently, I've been trying to improve articles related to the Region of Waterloo, especially Waterloo, Ontario. I stumbled across List of numbered roads in Waterloo Region, which needed trimming. Would you be willing to help / give advice for this article, since it is your specialty? Do you know where I can find references for it? Just thought I would reach out. Thanks! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- mostly needs a lot of the comments summarized into some actual prose. The tables are standard practise. See List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes as a rather dated example of a featured list. I can help out as well with digging up some more/more recent sourced. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- I used the Kawartha Lakes ones as a reference :). There used to be more prose but I removed almost all of it ([1]). It felt redundant to have route descriptions on regional roads, but only cherrypicking some of them, and having indiscriminate listings like "Major intersections including University Avenue". Although, I don't know what's the precedent, so maybe the removal was incorrect? The Toronto roads articles (1, 2) seem to make much better use of prose than the Waterloo article ever did, so I'm thinking my WP:TNT was probably a good thing. Thanks — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah that's the case for most of them. Most of the regional roads were redirected to the list article rather than trying to pursue individual AfDs for each of them (which imploded when I tried it with Toronto), and so that text was likely merged from them. The prose part of the article should be concerned with the network as a whole, it's history (I need to add the dates for each counties creating a numbered road network in the early-1900s), and with any luck, some statistics on it's maintenance, extent, etc. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ahh, makes sense. Thanks for the info! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah that's the case for most of them. Most of the regional roads were redirected to the list article rather than trying to pursue individual AfDs for each of them (which imploded when I tried it with Toronto), and so that text was likely merged from them. The prose part of the article should be concerned with the network as a whole, it's history (I need to add the dates for each counties creating a numbered road network in the early-1900s), and with any luck, some statistics on it's maintenance, extent, etc. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- I used the Kawartha Lakes ones as a reference :). There used to be more prose but I removed almost all of it ([1]). It felt redundant to have route descriptions on regional roads, but only cherrypicking some of them, and having indiscriminate listings like "Major intersections including University Avenue". Although, I don't know what's the precedent, so maybe the removal was incorrect? The Toronto roads articles (1, 2) seem to make much better use of prose than the Waterloo article ever did, so I'm thinking my WP:TNT was probably a good thing. Thanks — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thekingshighway.ca
Hi Floydian, before I go scorched earth on thekingshighway.ca I just wanted to check that its not your site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- No its not mine, and although the publisher of it probably meets the definition of expert (plenty of historical newspaper columns, engineering reports, etc. reference him), he was rather dickish about "facts on his site are copyright", so to me it's a self-published source that shouldn't even get a place in the External links section. Let me know where you find it because I have been pretty meticulous about eliminating it. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. Its not a lot, I think there are a little over 20. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ontario Highway 802
The article Ontario Highway 802 you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Ontario Highway 802 for comments about the article, and Talk:Ontario Highway 802/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
King Street
This redirect, and its talk, have been deleted. You may proceed. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
GA reviews
You have an extraordinary number of articles awaiting GA reviews. Might I suggest that reviewing other people's articles might encourage them to review your own? Personally I try to review at least as many as I have gotten reviewed. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose you're right. Reviewing is not my greatest forte, and the topic that I know about is under heavy scrutiny from a couple editors for "in-house" GAN reviews.
- I understand, but stretch yourself a little. Sometimes even knowing just a little bit about a topic can allow you to identify things that the editor needs to explain better for readers unfamiliar with the topic. You don't need to be a subject-matter expert on a topic to review how well it's written, etc. You could also read through other people's reviews to see how they've done things. I read through GARs on music and TV articles to see what they saw as important.
- As for the extra scrutiny, screw 'em. People naturally prefer to review articles on stuff that they know about and there's nothing wrong with that. The bulk of the articles that I've reviewed are in my own fields and I just do the best that I can. Be sure to call out them if they're criticizing you for missing things or holding you to a standard in excess of the GA criteria, which aren't actually very strict on the completeness of an article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Since you removed the PROD tag on this article, would you mind taking some time and put the coverage from PEI DOTI into the article as a source? The unreferenced tag has been staying there for over a decade, and removing it will lessen the workload of WikiProject Unreferenced articles by one article. Thanks! Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's not how it works, see WP:DEADLINE. However, since I've finished Ontario, I might take on PEI (also have lots of maps from my Grandparents). I'll see what I can find (and several others are on the case as well) - Floydian τ ¢ 23:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
KML file help for Bradford Bypass area
Hey, sorry if I do this wrong I'm not a very experienced wikipedia user and I made an account to facilitate this. I am trying to create a project on iNaturalist to document everything within the rough boundaries of the new highway's proposed routes (413 and BB). Someone has already created the area for the 413, but there isn't one for the Bradford Bypass. The KML file included in the article is great but I need to create something with polygons rather than just a line for iNaturalist to accept it/be useful. I have never done this before and have very cursory coding ability as I think writing it would be more accurate/cleaner than trying to draw all the polygons by hand in google maps, but before I started I wanted to see if the source themselves could perhaps help out. I don't even know if you're the one who created the map (couldn't parse the edit history page) but if you could either assist or point me in the direction of the map's creator in hopes they may be able to help, that would be great. Thanks for your time! Mycomagus (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I did create the map, but I also traced it using the preferred design map as an overlay in Google Earth. Best I can say is to go to Template:Attached_KML/Bradford Bypass, copy the code, make a text file on your computer and save that code in it, then change it from *.txt to *.kml
- You'll be able to open the Bradford Bypass map in Google Earth and create your rough boundary with that line. The right of way is 75m to either side of that centreline if I recall correctly (for the highway, not the transitway that may never be built on the south side), and then each interchange has a ~400m radius of impact from its centre point. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)