Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:47, 25 May 2010.

List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes

 * Nominator(s):  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  02:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the sixth time is the charm. I'm hoping no objections can be found in here. You may notice in the header rows to the two tables, that:
 * A) They have different columns (specifically the 'Name' column. This is because the King's Highways do not have any 'names'. Just "Highway X").
 * B) The references are heavier on the City Roads table. I want those weighing in on this to decide which is better (sourcing the other columns, or avoiding it when possible as on the King's Highways table).

Cheers,  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  02:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the list has been renamed since the previous discussion, I will post the relevant links here:  Imzadi  1979   →   09:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Featured list candidates/List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario/archive1
 * Featured list candidates/List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario/archive2
 * Featured list candidates/List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario/archive3


 * Comments:
 * A question on termini... KL 7 terminates at "Hazel Street (Sturgeon Lake)", while KL 11 terminates at "Sturgeon Lake". I take this to mean that the eastern end of KL 11 is indeed just the lake, a dead end. But what is the eastern end of KL 7? An intersection with Hazel St right at the lake?
 * Why is Highway 35 linked in KL 15?
 * Should "Secondary" be capitalized in the intro?
 * IMO, the concurrencies should also be noted in the Notes column.
 * KL 48 redirects to Ontario Highway 48; the article's infobox has no mention of Kawartha Lakes, and it's only in a single line at the bottom that seems out of place compared to the rest of the article. Is this a correct redirect? I know this isn't about the KL 48 article per se, just making sure it redirects to the correct place.
 * Again, this is not to do with this article, but I removed the image from KL 8's article; please check that the template is resizing images correctly.
 * KL 46 redirects to ON 46, which is a past-tense article; if there is a present tense for KL 46, then it should go to an article that treats it as such. (In other words, it looks like ON 46 should be moved to KL 46, and changed to be present-tense, dealing with ON 46 was a previous name rather than KL 46 as the current name of a dead highway) Again, not specifically to do with this list, but since it is a list entry it needs to go to the right place.
 * I think that's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've fixed essentially every error you pointed out, save one: KL 48 points to Highway 48 as the latter is notable and deems an article. The former was originally part of it, and thus logically should redirect to it since it has no article of its own at this point (maybe if I get to the Kawartha Lakes archives cottage this summer :p).
 * Ooh, I see, KL 48 used to be part of ON 48 (which explains why it's not in the infobox), but as it doesn't have its own article yet, this is the next best choice. I'll buy that. --Golbez (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside from that, I've fixed the picture issue, requested the moving of Ontario Highway 46 to Kawartha Lakes Road 46 / updated the lead to match, removed the erroneous Highway 35 link, uncapitalized "Secondary", noted the concurrencies and noted the termini more clearly for routes 7/11.
 * Request filled. ;) --Golbez (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope the rest is good :) -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  07:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My only real remaining concern is that the pictures of the roads - like most pictures of roads - are pretty boring. The one crossing Mitchell Lake has merit, as that is an interesting geography; the one of the signs perhaps as well. The one of Glenarm and KL 46 doesn't really seem to add anything to an understanding of the subject. It could literally be a road anywhere. Just taking a random highway article, U.S. Route 151, it has a picture of an bridge; a picture of a terminus; a picture of a famous locale; and a picture of some random offramp. The first three add to an understanding of the article; I'm not sure the offramp one does. --Golbez (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I was only using it to break the long text and I suppose to show the average drive along a Kawartha Lakes road. Perhaps I'll get some nice photos this summer to highlight the differences in geography between the granite north and limestone south. Until then–photo gone. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  08:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. --Golbez (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Oppose for the following reasons: Ruslik_ Zero 11:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The first sentence (The numbered roads of Kawartha Lakes account for 901.9 kilometres (560.4 mi) of roads in the City of Kawartha Lakes in the Canadian province of Ontario.) is too convoluted and confusing. While not to write simply: "The total length of the numbered roads in the City of Kawartha Lakes, Ontario, Canada is 901.9 kilometres (560.4 mi)." Otherwise it is not clear if "Kawartha Lakes" and "the City of Kawartha Lakes" are the same entity.
 * 2) The third type of existing roadway in the single-tier municipality is that of locally-maintained roads that are also called concession roads and sidelines. This type of roads is mentioned, although there is no explanation as to why it is not included in the tables. (not numbered?) In addition it is not clear that "the single-tier municipality" is the same "City of Kawartha Lakes"; this should be stated directly.
 * 3) These were downloaded to Victoria County in 1998. Such language as "downloaded" should be avoided in the leading section. Reader are not supposed to know what it means. Please, rewrite.
 * 4) In the 'King's highways" subsection it is stated that the sum of lengths of Highways 7A and 115 is 27.1 km. However from the table I obtained 18.4+8.4=26.8. Why are these numbers different? These roads do not intersect.
 * 5) Can an image of "flowerpot-shaped sign" be included?
 * 6) The first table mentions two Highways that are not discussed anywhere in the article: 7B and 35B. I think some information about them should be added to 'King's Highways" subsection. These roads also are not showed on the map.
 * 7) As part of a province-wide downloading of highways to municipal governments, six were given new Victoria County designations However in the second table only four former Highways are mentioned: 121, 48, 36 and 35A?
 * 8) The responsibility for maintaining these roads was transferred to Victoria County as part of the province-wide downloading. This sentence duplicates the first sentence in 'Secondary Highways' subsection.


 * Replies
 * Most of these are simple fixes. Some of them are genuine accidents though.
 * I changed this to "The numbered roads of Kawartha Lakes account for 907.3 kilometres (563.8 mi) of roads in the Canadian province of Ontario." – not sure why the second instance of "Kawartha Lakes" was there.
 * It did at one point mention that they are beyond the coverage of the article. There are thousands of them, and they are mostly macadam roads that are totally unworthy of mention. I felt it would be uncomprehensive to not mention what all those extra roads criss-crossing the place are, but also unencyclopedic to explain that to the user (at least in a way I can think of). Any suggestions here? For now I added "which are beyond the scope of this article"
 * Makes sense. Transferred seems to be a better word to use. I've also explained that the two terms are synonymous in the first use past the lead.
 * Conflicting sources on 7B and 35B. I've cleaned this up and cascaded it throughout the article.
 * It was. Other felt it was redundant since 45 of them are in the City Roads table.
 * 7B is, it's not labelled because it is tiny. I am honestly unsure on this road, as several sources conflict one-another. I am adding a blurb on them to the History section.
 * Added a sentence that lists all six. The other two are 35B and 48. Also discovered 36B hidden in tiny letters on my 1997 map, so I've added it into the article.
 * Fixed
 * Should be all of them. Cheers,  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  16:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is good. However you forgot to address the issue related to "the single-tier municipality" (2 above). I also want to point your attention to the newly added note 3—the first sentence in it is incomprehensible. Ruslik_ Zero 17:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, half awake today. Both have been fixed (though I'm not sure how note 3 got that way; must have deleted a line by accident). -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.