Talk:Don Valley Parkway

message: I like the new style for Sauriol and Sewell, but the other two only have one reference each, and they are two pages in ~250 page books that discuss the DVP, while the rest of the book covers Toronto. Shouldn't these be avoided in a bibliography? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On singles you can go either way. I've not seen complaints in GA or FA reviews about that. It looks better to include all books. Then the notes are all shorter, and fit better in two columns.  ʘ alaney2k ʘ  (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but the footnotes should be changed to a 'LastName p.##' format if that's the case, and the books separated from it using a === Bibliography === and a === Footnotes === section. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: The 'future' section is going to need some work. The discussion of tolling, etc. needs to be improved. Needs supporting citations, etc. I think discussions of expansion/tolling/etc. and municipal elections are really part of 'history', no? I don't know if this would affect a GA rating, but I think it needs to be done. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt the GAN will be reviewed for a couple weeks or so. The future section concerns anything that hasn't yet happened, including proposals that may never come to light (if they're sourced). I think we should mentions the bus lanes (both in the shoulders, as well as Toronto's proposed dedicated busway (like that would ever happen)), GO buses, tolling / the upcoming municipal election (might as well toss the info on the last, it's rather trivial now even for the history section since nothing came of it), and the waterfront revitalization. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The tolling is about financing transit, not for the road maintenance/upgrades/whatever, and not specifically about the DVP. You could almost have a article or section on tolling of highways in Toronto, it's been brought up numerous times. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Tolling in Ontario would probably be more appropriate; there is a whole history of it dating back to the days of Mr. Simcoe. Regardless, the concept of puting tolls on the DVP is future tense. If they are put on, it would be in the history section. Perhaps after the election when it becomes past news, whether or not it actually happens, it would be worth putting in the History section. Right now though, it's a debate on the future of it. In other news, city council voted today for a fall trial run on GO bus lanes between Lawrence and York Mills in the shoulder lanes. - ()
-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Future' section 

message: I just received my 1965 Official Ontario Road Map in the mail yesterday. I was looking over it and I noticed that the DVP (which is shown under construction north of Lawrence) ends at Jarvis Street, where it becomes the Gardiner (This is shown by a colour change, an orange road for the Gardiner becomes blue for the DVP). I wonder if this is how it was initially designated or if the map is just labelled oddly? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting! And if you can't find the answer here, may be we can cross reference with other maps in Archives of Ontario or the City of Toronto Archives. Raysonho (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: At the least I'd want to find a map that actually names the road to either side of Jarvis, rather than just assuming based on different coloured lines. It'd be WP:SYNTH to add it at this point. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm sure it is just bad colouring. Someone's crayons strayed outside. :-)  ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I figure it's that or that Highway 2 wasn't designated along the Gardiner past Jarvis (did it exit onto Keating before the Leslie street extension?) and they use different colours to show non-Provincial highways - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  An odd discovery 

message: I found three photos of the Parkway on flickr that can be used on Wikipedia. Just thought I'd link ya and see if you're interested.  Haljackey (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, that's my photostream :P Got many more to add, but my computer is currently in meltdown mode and I'm running Knoppix (=HDD is read only) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Ugh. lol! Saw your comment on the evacuated 401 pic on flickr and checked out your photostream. I didn't know it was you. I stick with the same name throughout the internet to minimize confusion. Haljackey (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to when possible, but "Floydian" tends to be taken on most sites. Otherwise 'Fizscy' is my unique never-used-by-someone-else s/n. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: I made some copy edits to make the prose easier to read. If I have inadvertently changed the meaning or misconstrued what was meant, please fix. Michael Glass (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  copy edits 

message: Let's identify any potential issues before this goes back to FAC. On a renomination, especially one so soon, the article should be practically "perfect". Most of your major issues have been cleared in the first FAC. The goal here is to garner supports and move through cleanly.
I have two off the top of my head. The History section should be broken into some subsections. Even if it's just cleaved in half or thirds by the addition of subheadings. Someone who hasn't edited the article in a while should skim through the section looking for any copy-editing opportunities. When I did my in-depth review, I skimmed it unlike the RD. In a day or so, I can do some more in-depth stuff, but I'm trying to let my internal memory of the article fade so I'm re-reading it from a fresher perspective.
The other point: get the infobox map done. Honestly, unless a non-roads editor/reviewer comments on something to do with the map at FAC, there should really be no editing of the map during the nomination. If the map's not ready, the article shouldn't be at FAC. Unlike other graphic elements, maps and marker graphics are the two that should really be done long before an article gets to this stage. (The Capitol Loop marker was recently "tweaked" in the sense that I got confirmation from MDOT that it wasn't copyright after all. Now I'm trying to get an SVG created to replace the PNG, but the PNG is fine for now.)
As for the map, it could use some work, IMHO. It needs some perspective added to it. There are two ways to do this. The first is an inset of Ontario with the location of the map highlighted in red. The second would be to zoom the focus of the map out. That would show a little more of Toronto. In doing so, it would also allow you to make the map more landscape-oriented than the current portrait orientation and reduce it's effective height. USRD uses a default 1:1.7 height to width ratio. I'm not saying that Canada Roads WikiProject-produced maps need to match the nominal 172x290px size (860x1450px recommended SVG size). I'm just saying that similar ratios produce a map that isn't too tall in the infobox. Making the map wider overall will give you more space for that inset of ON. In any case, the current map does not give any visual clue that this road is in Ontario, let alone Toronto. Imzadi 1979 →  13:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing that needs to be fixed, and it relates to comments I made at the FAC. In the following sentence, the word parkway is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized. "North of Highway 401, the Parkway continues as Highway 404 to Newmarket." The word parkway should only be capitalized when it is part of a proper name like Don Valley Parkway. If I can substitute expressway, highway or route in its place without altering meaning, it's not a proper noun. Imzadi 1979 →  15:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two things there. Use of 'Parkway' is acceptable as a short form for Don Valley Parkway, when referring to the whole project, instead of repeating Don Valley Parkway several times. So let's be clear there. In the above example, it's incorrect as it's not referring to the whole. Should be 'highway continues' anyway, as it changes names. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct that it's an acceptable short form, but unless spelled out in full as Don Valley Parkway, the word parkway on its own is not a proper noun and doesn't take a capital letter. Imzadi 1979 →  16:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely in agreement. I've rewritten the lead -I've wanted to do that for a long time- and I hope it covers your concerns and is a good summary of the article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I never had any concerns with the lead, per se. My concern was with how the word "parkway" is capitalized. If it is not in the format "Don Valley Parkway", but rather used in the format "the parkway" it is not a proper noun and it doesn't take a capital letter. In an article on Barack Obama, "president" is only capitalized when used as a title in front of his name. That's the difference between a word being used in a specific sense versus being used in a general sense, even if by implication the general sense can only apply to one subject. Imzadi 1979 →  00:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Yep, that's definitely what they're doing. The new lane is painted and several new signs are up in the median facing in both directions. Now we just need a source. Hopefully we'll get that alongside their unveiling. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before renomination... 

message: The map has been updated with the suggestions above. Let me know if you spot any issues (besides the 401 protruding into the overlay slightly), let me know. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, don't tell anybody, but I forgot to connect Clonmore (Gerrard) to Warden... Relatively minor, but I'll fix when I get a chance. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was wondering if you could put in some street names or locations on the map. E.g. 'Forks of the Don'. Do you have time to do this. If not, I can work with photoshop files. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can try for the street names, but they would likely just show up as a black smudge in the thumbnail. I'll add some POI's though. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just be careful not to over clutter it. Btw, you didn't say anything, I wouldn't have known. After all, the only part of Ontario I've seen is around Sault Ste. Marie. Imzadi 1979 →  19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's so minor that even most Torontonian's wouldn't pick it up. I've already made the fix so it'll be gone on the next upload. I was thinking of noting Lake Shore, Bloor, Don Mills, Yonge, Eglinton, Lawrence, York Mills, and Woodbine, adding the symbols for the 401 and Gardiner, and putting the viaduct, Brickworks, Todmorden Mills, Forks, and Milne Hollow / Sauriol Reserve. Any additions or subtractions? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated the map 

message: :File:Gardiner Lake Shore Don Bridge.jpg is still overlapping the infobox in the article on my screen. The effect is that it obliterates most of the link to the Gardiner Expressway in the browser section and the Major Cities label in the location section. Can someone please fix it back the way it was? Imzadi 1979 → 13:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What browser are you using? I saw this problem with Google Chrome, but nowhere else. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Safari 5 under MacOS X 10.6. (Most recent versions of both.) Back when the second FAC was opened, the photo was fine. I think it previously had been encapsulated in some table coding. The table kept the centered graphic centered between the left margin and the infobox, but now it is centered between the left and right margins of the page, and overlapping the infobox. As I change the width of my window, it overlaps more or less, but my windows are sized so that they approximate what a printed page's width would be. I don't get the same problem if I create a PDF through print preview because then the photo is left-aligned and the TOC runs to the end of the infobox. Imzadi 1979 → 14:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I've got Safari 3 and just did some html update. Try again. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's back the way it used to look. Imzadi 1979 → 17:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I think that was my bad. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo layout issue unresolved from the second FAC 

message: The article has an image of the traffic approaching the Eglington area, but it is not particularly dense in this photo. I think a much better illustration would be the permanent traffic jam at the interchange with the 401. I travel past this point headed west every day, and have found that it is jammed up at least 90% of the time, including low-traffic times like 11:30 AM. The jam is often at a standstill, and extends northward far past Sheppard. Is there any way we could get an aerial photo? Does anyone reading this work/live in the towers on the northwest side? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried bribing the superintendets of several of the apartments surrounding that interchange to let me take my camera up on the roof. No dice as of yet. The image of the Eglinton area I took yesterday and it was sort of a last second colour improvement over the winter shot from that same angle. Traffic wasn't particularily bad unfortunately (one of the few times I'll say that :p), but I'm sure on another day I could get one with that entire section stopped solid. There isn't as scenic an angle of the section between Highway 401 and York Mills. Ideally I'd like to get an aerial of the whole interchange with traffic. Two birds with one stone. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Sheppard Avenue bridge is probably high enough to see the DVP/404/401 interchange, but any picture from this direction is probably more relevant to the 404 article as it might not show enough of the DVP. There is also a hotel to the north-east that might have a view. Radisson? Too far away? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The apartments on the southwest corner of the interchange offer the closest vantage point. I've taken pictures from the Sheppard Avenue overpass and they haven't been very satisfactory. There isn't enough vertical difference to give any definition. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The hotel looks to be about 10 storeys, and there appears to be a hallway window on the top floor that might look over the interchange. Might be able to just walk in. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a picture of the traffic at the DVP/401 interchange 

message: How old is that comment?    Look at the Link to Hwy 404 itself....  That article includes an Exit list for the Highway at the bottom.   The highway runs from Hwy 401 to East Gwillimbury.... now beyond Richmond Hill!!   Try to keep the article up to date!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.82.233 (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It says Newmarket, not Richmond Hill. Although the highway ends in East Gwillimbury, Newmarket is the primary destination and the control city. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the destination. It's not necessary, the main point is that it continues as the 404. I drove up to Green Line on August 16th and the road ended there. Green Line is in Newmarket, no? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, no. The boundary between Newmarket and East Gwillimbury is 400 metres south of Green Lane. Leaving it out is probably best. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See . --Natural RX 20:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to "Continuing as Hwy 404 from Hwy 401 to Richmond Hill" 

message: Since the DVP is closed this weekend, I was going to go out and try to retake a copy of every picture in the article on the empty highway, perhaps one or two from the top of the median barrier on the highway itself, and some nice shots from beneath the Millwood Bridge. If anybody has any requests, it'll be at least 6 hours before I leave - Get 'em in while you can. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 11:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any photo requests since the DVP is closed today? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Don Valley Parkway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607062913/http://www.toronto.ca/don/watershed.htm to http://www.toronto.ca/don/watershed.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Don Valley Parkway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927175116/http://www.heritagetoronto.org/discover-toronto/photos/building-bloor-viaduct-1916 to http://www.heritagetoronto.org/discover-toronto/photos/building-bloor-viaduct-1916
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606121657/http://www.toronto.ca/don/lower_don_map_large.htm to http://www.toronto.ca/don/lower_don_map_large.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606122155/http://www.toronto.ca/don/pdf/spring_2010.pdf to http://www.toronto.ca/don/pdf/spring_2010.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Don Valley Parkway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130511171244/http://www.toronto.ca/don/wetlands.htm to http://www.toronto.ca/don/wetlands.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100514213027/http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/explore_projects2/the_gardiner_expressway to http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/explore_projects2/the_gardiner_expressway
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Don Valley Parkway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161222124656/http://www.thekingshighway.ca/Highway404.htm to http://www.thekingshighway.ca/Highway404.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified