Talk:Ontario Highway 409

Untitled

Please leave the Plagerize comments up. People who read this website deserve to know that the Highway 409 image that was removed earlier today was used without permission from another Ontario Highways Page.

Well was it the image or the entire text? I don't see how these pages are plagiarized, as you claim. Adam Bishop 19:38, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And where exactly was this article plagiarized from? Darkcore 19:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The image that was formerly on this site was used without permission from www.thekingshighway.ca But it seems like this situation has been reasonably resolved. --24.103.215.190 19:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Map

You can barely see where Highway 409 is, based on the current map (since the highway is so short). Would it be possible to do a "zoomed-in" version, with the current map as an inset image? Darkcore 17:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The inset format for Highway 420 is a good example to follow. Dl2000 04:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Category: Toronto Streets

I have removed Category:Toronto streets, since I don't believe we should include provincial highways in that category. If we did, we should also include highway 427, and parts of highway 401. RayGates 23:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Ontario Highway 409

Cyberbot II has detected links on Ontario Highway 409 which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://g.co/maps/purch

  Triggered by (?<!-)\bg\.co\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop adding the image in, stop changing the captions

These have been stable for over a decade, your opinion is noted. Stop changing the caption to be less descriptive, stop adding the ugly image that adds zero encyclopedic value to the article. All I'm seeing you do is add more and more images to various 400-series articles, sandwiching text, throwing off the visual flow entirely, and dumbing down captions from what and where to just where. There are too many images, the selection of images has been available for 10–15 years now; there is a reason they are not in the article - they suck. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The 2007 shot is not an "ugly picture" nor does it "suck", as it is of decent resolution and focuses on the path ahead. You have permitted other driver-taken photos for other 400-series articles so why is this the exception? In particularly, this shows what the freeway looked like prior to the 2008-10 major overhaul.

Conversely, this picture [1] isn't great as the focus is on the grass making it off topic, while the 427-409 interchange is way in the background. FobTown (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on the second picture. Cropping might fix that, but that image has always been a sore thumb to me. I'm not sure what major overhaul it got. It was rehabilitated, something constantly done on the 400-series highways, and the guardrails and lighting were updated. That's like 6 words.

To be clear, I'm not permitting or forbidding anything, as these are not my articles, even if I wrote them. I'm disagreeing with your changes and asking you to justify their reason d'etre before making them. I have made every attempt to clear out driver-perspective photos unless they are the only available images of the subject (i.e. what I had to do for Ontario Highway 18). Windshield tint ruins images, plain and simple; they belong on forums and scrapbooks, not encyclopedic articles. Maybe there's a better image from Averill Hecht's collection, which he gave permissions for us to use before his passing.

As an aside, I despise the image of the 401 through Pickering taken from a vehicle that is slanted, but it always finds its way back. Same of the destroyed M-C freeway shield, where an .svg drawn marker image would look better. I have 300 articles to keep consistent, I don't feel to devote huge expenditures of time dealing with three or four of them, cleaning up after new editors. My focus is on these

For what its worth, here is how this article looked right before I started working on it, and the good article version 2 years later. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that the presence of the 2007 picture was a reason why the article was held back from good status, but I would credit everything else you did (particularly following a standard format for 400-series highways) which is what merited the good status.

I felt that the 1970s B&W aerial photo caption could have been shortened (part 1) as it is actually longer than the article text itself, as I see the the grass photo caption as part 2 which explains the 1992 flyover sufficiently. FobTown (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The 2007 picture doesn't seem to be an issue in the article review FobTown (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't in the article when the review was conducted in December 2011. I replaced it on July 10, 2010.diff As for the caption, it's supposed to provide additional information and be part of the narrative of the article. Dry, descriptive captions are good for the alt text used by screen reader software. But I do agree there is redundancy between the two captions. Now, if we combine those two images into a stack with a single caption, then it opens up room to stick in this image perhaps (cleaned up to reduce the blown out white balance). That could be stacked with the "present" day image likewise. Another option is to talk to Scott Steeves (User:Sonysnob) and see if he'd be willing to upload one of his shots from 2006. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)