Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada Streets

This page 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

Canada Streets

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Canada Streets, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada's streets and arterial thoroughfares 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.Canada StreetsWikipedia:WikiProject Canada StreetsTemplate:WikiProject Canada StreetsCanadian street articles

U of T

copied from User_talk:Floydian - This is no longer in my hands. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User_talk:Floydian

No it doesn't. It shows there is a building, a road, and a forest between the two. Does Google Maps indicate whether that forest is part of the U of T property? No. Its original research. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The brown shading is the campus. This is getting childish. --Oakshade (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Stop using unreliable references and making terrible edits and you won't have editors hounding you to clean up your act. Google maps does not indicate property lines, its entirely assumed by the map makers at google or navteq. Find official property assessment rolls. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assumed by the map makers? Wow. Please point to any evidence that any school boundaries indicated in Googlemaps are "assumed by the map makers."--Oakshade (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely absurd. Can you show me the standards for the route description section which state that institutions must have a physical mailing address on the road they prominently occupy? I suppose a page about Keele Street should omit mention of York University, since most (none?) of their buildings have Keele addresses. Massey Hall is not on Yonge Street, should the reference be removed from that article as well? While Floydian is hacking away at articles according to undefined standards, I'm done contributing to street articles. I would be willing to work toward a STANDARD for *Canadian* *street* pages, *separate* from Ontario highways. Mappetop (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are no digital copies of the assessment rolls and Google Maps is digitally compiled. Regardless, its not a reliable reference for property lines. Start a discussion at WP:RSN and see if anybody endorses the use of Google Maps to point out where a property ends. Regardless, Canadian streets are being branched into their own project. Be sure to sign up so you can help forge the guidelines.

There is clear difference between York U, which is only related to Keele, and U of T which is more related to Ellesmere and Military Trail. Would we include Centenary Hospital because its property is nearby Morningside? Should we include Colonel Danforth Park, since you reach that by following a bike path off of Morningside through U of T? U of T has no connection to Morningside. Should we include the CN tower on John Street? The Rogers Centre on Spadina? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

York U Keele Campus is only related to Keele Street? I suppose Steeles Avenue is a mirage then? The Scarborough campus is less than 250 m from Morningside Avenue and is prominently visible from the street, and, NOTE, is the ONLY institution occupying the street for a long stretch. Have you ever been there? I suppose that "Be polite" admonition at the top of talk pages is just a platitude. WHERE is the standard for Route Description? Otherwise, this is just your opinion. Mappetop (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's on another road. Do we need to mention it on all three articles? WP:HWY should have the standards, though I'm not sure if they're up there yet. Don't worry, you guys will have your own project to make as many articles as you please. Unfortunately mappetop, you'll be the only person in it that actually cares about quality and not quantity. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm aware of civility. I don't have to be civil on my talk page, and I've reached a point of extraordinary frustration. So no, I'm not going to be friendly. Deal with it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:CIVIL applies to all Wikispace. And there already has been a discussion about maps as reliable sources. Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_36#Question_about_NOR_and_maps. They're reliable and not WP:OR. --Oakshade (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then take me to ANI and let everyone know that I'm being a dick on my talk page but following protocol elsewhere.

Maps are reliable for measuring distance and the route something takes. Nowhere in that discussion are property lines mentioned. Maps do not reliably indicate property lines unless they are a government issued map of property lines. Toporama, provided by Natural Resources Canada, has property assessment information on it. It is a reliable source for property lines. Google maps is not. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please point to the evidence ANYWHERE that any school boundaries indicated in Googlemaps are "assumed by the map makers."--Oakshade (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a reliable reference. It is better than Google Maps. Please leave me alone and just use it instead of arguing to use a source that anybody would argue is far less accurate. I will start a discussion since you can't be bothered. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're the only person I've ever encountered that claimed that content in google maps is "assumed by the map makers" yet now admits they have absolutely no evidence as such. Sorry, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not one editor's completely blind speculation of them. --Oakshade (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most map information is assumed by map makers. It's a career actually. Surveying and Cartography. Map makers independently go out and map things. They often put mistakes on their maps so that other publishers can't copy them. I made a thread at WP:RSN, so we will see what other people have to say. You obviously can't provide evidence to the contrary. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you have evidence that the boundaries of the University of Toronto Scarbourgh are in fact intentional errors so there's no googemap copyright violation or is this just your original research? --Oakshade (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't have evidence that Google knows where the property line is. There is no indication anywhere that they would. Any commercial map publication is the same. Why won't you just use Toporama? Its a better source! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

importance

I noticed that a lot of street articles got autotagged and autoassessed with the same importance grade as CRWP. Shouldn't the importances be different, atleast for some articles? 65.94.45.238 (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Most of the streets were tagged as low important. The project should decide on a method of rating the articles and have someone who can use AWB go through and change them all quickly. My efforts are very unwanted, so I won't interfere with anything besides setting up the backend. Feel free to set new standards, article structure, etc. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

highways

I noticed that a some highway articles have moved to streets. Someone needs to go through the wikiproject bannered articles and re-add CRWP banners to those streets that are also secondary highways. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any secondary highway shouldn't be in this project at all (just city streets). Just an accident of the transfer. If you happen to come across any, it generally just means undoing the last edit to the talk page - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in all honesty, Taschereau Boulevard would not be a CRWP article. Quebec Route 134 is, but Taschereau is just a section of that highway that is an urban street. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taschereau is almost the entire length of the highway. Some highways are entirely contained on city streets. This highway is contained on three streets, a bridge and a 2km limited access stretch. Though since you say that this is how HWY and ST WPPs are divided, I'll follow that. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to the format. City street articles are proposed to cover transit, shopping and community information that highway articles generally do not go in-depth into. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on coordinates in highway articles

There is currently a discussion taking place at WT:HWY regarding the potential use of coordinates in highway articles. Your input is welcomed. --Rs chen 7754 01:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding Ontario navboxes and categories

Please see this discussion regarding changes to the navbox template and the categorization system of all roads in Ontario. Commenting is appreciated before April 30, 2017. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]