Talk:Ontario Highway 406

Untitled
New Image appears to be used from Gribblenation.com. Was permission gained from Douglas Kerr (the copyright holder as stated on Gribblenation.com) for the image to be used here? If not, image should be immediately removed, as it is copyritten. --149.99.202.64 00:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Now listed on Copyright problems. Angela. 00:41, May 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Permission has been obtained from Doug to use the image in this article. Snickerdo 01:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Notice to Wikipedians: My website at www.thekingshighway.ca contains copyrighted material! You may not reproduce it without my permission. Thank-you. Cbevers 01:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Construction information can easily be obtained from any source, including my family who lives here in the region. It's not like someone copied your (and excellent, I might add) detailed history of 406 construction.  The only information that was included was the years it opened. Snickerdo 01:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems unlikely that even the average family member would know 40 year old highway information off the back of there hand. Such information needs to be sourced, always, whether from a family member or not.  Until information (and pictures) are sourced, they do not belong on pages.  --149.99.200.38 03:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So publicly available information is now considered copywritten?! Should we now go running around on a witch hunt removing all other publicly available information that is posted in these articles?  Also, I have permission from the person who took the picture (a friend of mine) to use it on this web page.  If you want a revet war, that's what you'll get. Snickerdo 10:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Information that isn't common knowledge has to be sourced. This irrelevant of where the information came from.  If you got the date information from old maps, then in your reference section you source them; If you got the information from old annual reports, then you source them; and if you got the information from thekingshighway.ca then you source that aswell.  Whether or not information is copyritten or not it still always needs to be sourced.  Properly referencing articles not only gives people reading articles more information, but also makes the article more credible.  For theses reasons, I just cannot understand why so much of the informaiton on this website isn't sourced, (unless authors are trying to hide something) it just seems like such a no-brainer. --149.99.202.161 13:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Copyright stuff.
I sourced The King's Highway just to make everyone happy. Claiming that construction information cannot be used on this page because it is copywritten is ridiculous. I could understand a direct copy-and-paste of Cameron’s excellent detailed construction history, but the dates that extensions were open could have been easily obtained from the MTO, the public library, or maps that people have laying around in their basement. Nonetheless, I have added a reference to the website to cover all angles.

As for the image, I have known Doug for many years, and a number of his images have even been taken with me driving him around the region. I have permission to use this image (as well as other images in the future), it sourced to him, has the correct copyright tag, and all that fun stuff. If someone has a problem with this, I recommend you contact Doug. I am weary about posting his email here due to spam, but I would be happy to personally provide it to anyone who doesn't already have it.

There, are we all happy now?

Snickerdo 11:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, also, you guys might like to take a look at the following line from the Copyrights article:


 * Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. (See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context.)

Snickerdo 11:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That quote is all well and good, but has nothing to do with the argument. That information is about not plagerizing text, it has nothing to do with referencing it.  --149.99.202.161 13:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thekingshighway.ca is a self-published source, and therefore not a reliable reference. All information in these articles are sourced to the original DHO/MTO reports obtained from the Archives of Ontario or Toronto Reference Library. The picture on thekingshighway TAKEN BY CAMERON BEVERS are copyright by him. All non-Postcard photos taken before December 31, 1961 are public domain - The king's highway watermarks on such images will be removed by our graphics labs, or I will find the original photo and retake it. All postcard photos taken in Ontario before January 1, 1946 are also public domain. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Lake Gibson
"The freeway crosses over Lake Gibson, infamous for its connection with the crimes of Paul Bernardo..."

Is this relevant, or even appropriate for an article about the highway? It's not even mentioned on the Lake Gibson article, so it seems like an especially peculiar line to include here. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Lake Gibson is a stub article, whereas this is a Good article. It should have a detailed section on the murders. The Paul Bernardo article has a fair deal of detail that could be used. -  Floydian  τ ¢  03:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But why would the Paul Bernardo case even be mentioned in an article about Highway 406? On Lake Gibson's article (if expanded beyond a mere stub), it would make sense.  But the Bernardo article states that one of the girls abducted was dropped off "on a deserted road near Lake Gibson."  Since Highway 406 is obviously not the "deserted road" in question, and the article is not about the lake nor Paul Bernardo, a passing mention of Paul Bernardo's heinous crimes seems completely out of place here. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Only highway with at-grade crossings
I've removed a quote stating that 406 was the only highway with at-grade crossings prior to January 2, 2015. I thought it odd to have such a specific date; I thought maybe that was the date that the last of the new interchanges opened, but that's not in the source, it just happens to be the date that someone went down there with a camera. And besides that, one might say that the roundabout in Welland is an at-grade crossing, and Highway 420 meets Stanley Street at-grade; although the designation ends there now it didn't always. I see elsewhere in the article the quote may refer to rail crossings, but it was not accurate as it was. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)