Talk:Ontario Highway 404

message: This "citation" was a link to an article on Uncyclopedia. That's not an acceptable source, so I've removed it and added a fact tag. Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on Uncyclopedia is a 404 error page specifically about this highway so would show that this joke exists. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here... if the only point is that a joke had been made, a jokebook would be the source - not a scholarly reference tome. Try searching online for the words "Internet error highway" and you will find Uncyclopedia isn't the first to spot this link.
=== Ontario Highway 7275 ===
Speaking of 404 errors, a link to Ontario Highway 7275 fails with a highway 404 error. The page name redirects here but any mention of Ontario Highway 7275 on this page is not found. This is an error, as a redirect target normally at least mentions the redirected topic -- usually boldly right in the intro. I'd suspect a few of these below-tertiary provincial road stub numbers redirect to an article for some main road with no indication as to why the reader is being sent there or where the stub road connects. --66.102.83.61 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 7275 is or was a temporary designation for the northern extension prior to its opening. There are many such redirects that aren't explained since the secret designations are unposted. Its certainly not important enough for the lead... Perhaps a blurb in the history. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  404 error citation 

message: Speaking of 404 errors, a link to Ontario Highway 7275 fails with a highway 404 error. The page name redirects here but any mention of Ontario Highway 7275 on this page is not found. This is an error, as a redirect target normally at least mentions the redirected topic -- usually boldly right in the intro. I'd suspect a few of these below-tertiary provincial road stub numbers redirect to an article for some main road with no indication as to why the reader is being sent there or where the stub road connects. --66.102.83.61 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 7275 is or was a temporary designation for the northern extension prior to its opening. There are many such redirects that aren't explained since the secret designations are unposted. Its certainly not important enough for the lead... Perhaps a blurb in the history. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ontario Highway 7275 

message: These are well established plans, with an environmental assessment completed. Well beyond the "Highway 410 to Collingwood" notion, and more like the 400 to Sudbury. Anyways, transportation plan to 2011 shows up to Ravenshoe Road. Bradford Bypass has been removed from the York plan, iffy in the GH plan, and certainly not "under construction".
*http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2002/10/04/c8050.html?lmatch=&lang%3B=_e.html Original 2002 announcement. Not Harris, but Eves (same thing)
*2006 amendment to York Region Plan
*Status report
*Public information for the first segment
*Environmental Assessment
*University of Windsor diagram of proposed 400-series extensions
Based on these, I would say it's in the design phase, but we'll know for certain what the future holds after the next provincial election. Until then, I'm trying to find the MTO document with the proposed interchange locations. The distances/exit numbers should be removed if they are still there for the future sections. Regardless, the extension is well sourced, just the route it takes isn't. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  With regard to extensions to 48/12