Talk:Don Valley Parkway

	Don Valley Parkway is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 31, 2011.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 29, 2010 Good article nominee Listed June 26, 2010 Peer review Reviewed August 10, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 24, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada Roads: Ontario Top‑importance This article is part of the Canada Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads in Canadian provinces, territories and counties. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Canada RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject Canada RoadsTemplate:WikiProject Canada RoadsCanada road transport articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Topics: /  Ontario This article has a KML file. Canada: Ontario / Toronto Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

(Moved from User talk:Alaney2k)

You cannot respect an under construction tag, I will continue to remove the content I added. I will restore it when I am done. Feel free to edit the old version and put a citation needed tag at the end of every sentence. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more editor who thinks he "owns" an article. Some of your statements were flat-out wrong. A hill does not cause traffic congestion. The idea is a joke. The off-ramps are simply off-ramps, not some unbuilt expressway. That is pure conjecture. That said, your article was a large improvement. Lighten up. :-) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I own it, I think you should respect that I'm half-done it.

They were the start of the freeway, but the crosstown design plans called for using it as the eastern terminus, then swinging up through Yellow Creek ravine to Mount Pleasant.

Trucks cause traffic jams. They can't go 90 up those hills, and everything works backwards from there. Weaving is also a significant contributor, but the hills are the root. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trucks can cause traffic jams on two-lane roads, not six-lane roads. Anyway, you've gone far beyond that with comments about perpetual congestion. And, the vast majority of the traffic is automobile. If anything is the cause of the congestion northbound, it's the congestion of the 401 intersection and the heavy traffic on the 404. The hills are more known for being slippery in winter. The Crosstown thing. This is like an urban legend. Maybe they would have integrated the ramps into the Crosstown. Only maybe. And putting a comment in about Rosedale opposition seems irrelevant to route description. The opposition was much more widespread than just Rosedale. The City removed the Crosstown Expressway from its official plan, only to have the Province put it back in. I agree the article was a mess, but we don't articles alone here. I would rather there be a section on the congestion separate from route. Route does not need to be cited, but traffic congestion does. Everyone has an opinion on traffic, but we need to have evidence to back up the text. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have several sources from the Toronto Star alone that back up the congestion. Your opinion on the Crosstown is irrelevant - In every proposal (and I have two of them), the eastern end of the crosstown in that interchange. The only one where it isn't is the 1944 city plan that called for the DVP to follow Mud Creek along the beltline. Reliable resource trumps personal opinion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The road is congested because of the volume of users, not because there are some steep hills. The off-ramps are not part of the Crosstown, they are the original off-ramps of the Don Valley Parkway. Yes, the Crosstown was -planned- to connect in that area. If you look at the roadway where it connects to the Bayview, it does not align with a direction leading into the ravine valley. If they wanted to use that roadway as part of the Crosstown, they would have had to demolish the interchange. It is just pure conjecture: in the past, and today. Just let it go! ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. Reliable sources (several in fact) indicate it was the plan up until 1971, so it will be in the article. Nothing is being made up here, and there is no conjecture. I'm sorry, but you will have to go to WP:RSN to try and get some exception to wikipedia policy, because these are sourced facts, not here-say, not plans that could have never been feasible, not synthesis of a simple line map, but explicit technical drawings showing the highway connect to the DVP via that extended ramp. Otherwise, the whole article on cancelled expressways is pure speculation and should be deleted. Take your pick. Conjecture would be saying they were designed from the get go for that eventual use (and reconstruction even, why not? They blew money out the wazoo then). It's possible, but I don't have a source to verify these details, the same as you have nothing to contest the addition of it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put anything in that is not supported and I won't have any problem with it. It was built to be the original off-ramp for the first stage of the Don Valley. So any description of it as anything more is speculation. In the fifties, when they designed the off-ramp, they did not even have a settled route for the Crosstown. Gardiner, I believe even voted against the Crosstown at that time. When the stage opened, I think there was a newspaper article that said the Crosstown would connect there and that the Chester Hill interchange and the roadway would be used for it. But even at that time, the Crosstown was not approved for construction, so they were speculating. As for the roadway, it's clear that the roadway itself is not part of any expressway. Not even by the standards of the time when they did not put guard-rails in the middle. If you say there were plans drawn up to use the off-ramp for the Crosstown, then that's about all that can be said. Like I said before, it's like some sort of urban legend that the off-ramp is the only part of the Crosstown ever built. As for opposition, the City was against the Crosstown, not just Rosedale. East York was against the Crosstown and the Spadina. So was Forest Hill. Not just Rosedale. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats all I intended to say. Others have reversed the roll to say that it was built as a first part of the crosstown expressway. It wasn't, it was built for the DVP (The Globe and Mail article discusses that, but I've yet to get my hands on a copy). I'm not sure if the trumpet loop was built as part of the first stage, but the ramp all the way to Castle Frank was there in 1961 (A 1965 aerial of the city at the UofT library backs this up). AFTER the fact, it was chosen as the preferred routing for the last fraction of a kilometre of the Crosstown, but absolutely nothing came of that (ergo, it's not the only part of it built, it just happened to be built and was then chosen as the eastern terminus). Speculation by wikipedia editors is forbidden, but if a reliable source speculates, we can still put that in the article, clearly worded as such. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you going to work on it again? I really only had objections to two points you were making and I can wait until after you've put your effort in, to go over those. The things I removed, one was not yours and the other about the 'hill effect', well we'll see. :-) (I'm not prepared to go Sojka over this. I can see now, after reviewing everything that it will better. The 'Traffic' section especially was a mess. I do think you have to avoid the 'essay' style on the route description, too. And I think it would be interesting to have the facts about the off-ramp in the article, but in a separate sub-section of the route description or elsewhere. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The standards I use for the Route Description are the same as the US roads wikiproject (which has quite the lead in terms of road articles). I'm not sure what you mean by essay style, its meant to describe the route from south to north as if you were driving on it, in a storytelling style rather than a "At blah, there is this. At blah2, there is this, at blah3, the DVP passes under the viaduct..." I'll admit that at times I can be heavy on the metaphors or descriptive wording, but I'm open to rewriting poorly worded parts. I don't think there is enough information on the offramps to warrant its own section. Perhaps splitting the route description into two subheaders for above and below the forks of the Don... As it is though, they aren't extrodinary long sections and (especially the History and Future) could stand to have more material. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yonge subway -opened- in 1954, so there is no way it could have been a Metro project. Why are you putting that back in? Metro built the University and Bloor lines, not the original Yonge subway. The extension north from Eglinton was done in the 1970s, so again, not relevant. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source that says otherwise, you'll need to contradict it with another source and not anecdotal evidence. I personally agree, but transit toronto is the only source that says it that I can find, but it's not a reliable source since it's self published. I'll put my source into context since I imagine you don't have the full copy:

So where did this schizophrenic piece of engineering come from and where is it headed?

Well it came mostly from the minds of men like Douglas, the Parkway's project engineer, and a nearly insatiable hunger for public works in the newly born Metro of the mid-1950s.

"In those days the public was demanding more and more in the way of sewers and water mains and roads." says Douglas, now with the engineering consulting firm of Morrison Hershfield Ltd.

"They weren't worrying about debt services; they were bringing in a lot of money, they could afford things, and the idea was 'Go Go Go, all the way.' "

And Metro, which had begun its existence in 1953 free of debt and rattling enormous financial clout, was more than willing to borrow capital to feed its growth. That fiscal free-for-all also spawned plans for such mega-projects as the Gardiner Expressway, the aborted Spadina Expressway and the original Toronto Transit Commission subway lines.

I think the finances for it came partially from Metro's large wallet, and that may be what they are referring to. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a -reliable source- for two reasons. 1. It's an essay (without primary sources). 2. It does not mention the Yonge Street subway. Why not leave it out anyway, the subway is pretty well irrelevant for discussion of the road, anyway, don't you think? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it makes more sense than figuring out who did what. It may be an essay, but it was scrutinized by an editor and published by a notable publication. Either way, take 'er out. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in WP:Roads does it say that you cannot have a 'Design' section. It justs lists the ones to have. It's a good spot for the grab-bag of items that highway enthusiasts add, like lighting, call boxes, etc. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted per WP:BRD, and you should give that policy a read instead of reverting multiple times. If you add something and it is reverted, its time to discuss it, not push your opinion.

That information is often WP:TRIVIA and not worthy of mention, unsourceable, or more fitting of the route description. The standard for WP:Canada Roads WikiProject and WP:USRD (the road wikiprojects for Canada and US), as well as what I have further applied to WP:ONRD, the only top level headers should be Route description, History, Future, Services (optional), and Exit list (or Major intersections for non-grade-separated roads). Anything else belongs in one of the others. No need to create an odd 'Design' section to make two Toronto highways unique amongst the 925 other road articles when it fits perfectly well in the sections already present. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Pulaski Skyway. A Featured Article in the top level highways project. That's what I based it upon. Maybe in your ontario roads project you want it to be just exactly one way, but that doesn't seem to be the way it is elsewhere. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... That's a bridge. Look at U.S. Route 1/9, the article for the highway that it carries. The format of the Pulaski article would be more appropriate for the Prince Edward Viaduct and Hogg's Hollow Bridge. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit: Also, the Services section is valid, but is meant for current services or service centres (as on the Highway 401 and Highway 400 articles). The call boxes have been removed since the nineties, so it makes more sense to have them in the History. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the feature articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways#Featured_articles. None of them conform to the spec. This is a guide you are talking about, not something to follow slavishly. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but why add a new second level header for something on telephones that no longer exist, which makes more sense in a History section? The cameras belong in the route description, like with Highway 401. I had them in their own section before, and was told to integrate it into the route description. Keep in mind the USRD editors are the ones that do much of the FA reviewing, so you may wish to go over WP:USRD/STDS and WP:ONRD/STDS. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That first paragraph of the Route description section is a mess. There are two incomplete subjects of that paragraph. One, that it is congested, earning the nickname, and two, that it was not designed for the role it has today, as traffic from the east was going to be handled by the Scarborough. The first is indisputable, but the second makes it seem that it is congested today because the Scarborough was not built, which is disputable, because it is speculative. I'm not taking a side to the debate, but you could argue that with the amount of sprawl that has occurred it still would have become overloaded and congested, as it was not expanded, for one reason. It also states that it is one of Toronto's busiest commuter routes, (something I watered down from simply 'busiest commuter route') which I think is indisputably true, but is not supported. (The section from 401 is busier than Gardiner) So, three problems to fix in that one paragraph. I was trying to move that paragraph to the bottom of the route description section, with a subsection heading of 'Use as commuter route'(but another title will do) and rewrite it. Could we have a sub-section of a couple of paragraphs? What do people think? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really... It's very simple to source what you believe to be "speculative". Go heck out the expressway plans at the Toronto Reference Library. The Don Valley was planned to carry northern traffic. The two topics also flow into each other. The highway has been busy since day one, which leads me to remove a single sentence to hopefully clear up the paragraph: traffic volumes were much lower than today. That is simply not true, and the thing has been a mess since day one. It's obviously far worse today, but we can expand on it to mention that this is not the ONLY reason it is congested today.

I don't think there is enough information to warrant separate headers. It's a general summary of the use of the highway, which is pretty fitting of the Route description. I'll see what I can make of it now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I see what you mean about the two separate ideas. I've modified the paragraph to hopefully be more specific in separating them. Any better? (I know my grammar is terrible) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There, I've tried to reword it without being political. The main points are that it is the sole north-south highway commuting route into downtown, a role it was not designed for, which I think is fair to the original engineers. Secondly, that it experiences daily back-ups and is nicknamed the Don Valley Parking Lot. I think that congestion is a poor term, but people know what it means. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find congestion slightly more mature than "traffic jam", and it's a recognized term world-wide. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. When there is an accident, other is maintenance, and a lane is closed, I could see that as congestion. The flow of traffic is impeded. But what happens on the Parkway is simply being loaded to capacity or beyond. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that still be it being congested to over capacity? The term is used pretty leniently, like gridlock (which is technically only when full blocks of traffic become locked when none of them can move). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. - (Jonathon, Jenkins (May 19, 2010). "Buses cleared to GO on shoulder". News. The Toronto Sun. p. 20.)

-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Don Valley Parkway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dough4872 00:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "the Parkway" sounds colloquial, can another word be used instead? Can you also replace other colloquial expressway names?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Citations are needed for the third and sixth paragraphs of the route description as well as the phrases "The entire length of the highway utilizes the RESCU Traffic Management System, which was installed in 1994." and "The message signs also frequently display messages to motorists, encouraging them to buckle up or avoid idling. The northbound CMS approaching York Mills is controlled my the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and as such, often displays traffic information for Highway 401 or 404." In the History, citations are needed for the phrases "The boxes were attached to Street lighting on the right shoulder with direct line for help from the then Ontario Motor League, now part of the CAA. After the advent of the RESCU Traffic Management System, the call boxes were removed." and "Metro had to build more extensive concrete retaining walls to hold the slopes cut for the road-building." The first paragraph of the Future section needs a citation also.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I am putting the article on hold to allow for a few fixes. Dough4872 00:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not sure what is wrong with 'Parkway'; it is part of the proper name of the highway. That seems to be a personal preference. It's capitalized. I have been working on the citation-related comments. The first paragraph of the 'Future' section will be a summary of the section. I have one other paragraph to add on expansion of the Parkway. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Parkway" sounds like an informal slang term and is not the most appropriate wording for an encyclopedia article. Dough4872 00:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respectfully disagree. :-) I agree with Floydian that DVP is less professional. I would not want to write 'Don Valley Parkway' over and over. That would be tedious to read. When the whole road is referenced, the article uses Parkway, when a paragraph is about a section, e.g. route description, highway or freeway wording is used. I believe that is consistent through the article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Further -- I've moved the past expansion and toll proposals to the History section and removed the first paragraph of the 'Futures' section. I think that's less of a problem. I've commented out the retaining wall sentence. I will find more information about what Metro did to fix the soil problem. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Parkway" may be informal, but it used by multiple secondary sources to refer to the roadway. I've tried to reduce a few redundancies where possible, but the Parkway comes off more professionally than the DVP. In either case, it's usage was reduced significantly by Alaney2k.
    • As for the (former) first paragraph of the Future section, it was somewhat of a summary of the many proposals mentioned in the History. I think it is necessary to have it there, as the section begins rather abruptly as it stands. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are still two uncited sentences in the route description, can references be added? Dough4872 03:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I worked on the message boards paragraph. Could you explain what you think needs to be done? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The sentences "Today the ramps also serve a winter maintenance yard and salt silo." and "The northbound CMS near York Mills Road often displays traffic information for Highway 401 or 404." need citations. Once they are added, I will pass the article. Dough4872 00:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've tried to find sources for both with no luck. They are honestly not important enough to really even be mentioned, and were simply tidbits (at least the bit I added about the salt silo. I get many people that ask what those dome shaped buildings are for). I've removed both. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I will now pass the article. Dough4872 23:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm sure it is just bad colouring. Someone's crayons strayed outside. :-) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just my 2 cents. The word has officially lost all meaning and become a political word, like "freedom". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the new nickname from the lead text to the infobox. It's -way- too much weight putting it in the first sentence. Never mind, personal feelings. :-) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh.[1]

What it says is true. The Highway of Heroes designation was applied to the entire route as far as I remember, not just the 401. The only reason it wasn't officially changed was because the MTO doesn't sign the streets of Toronto, and David Miller was anti-support up until now. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the name "route of heroes" sounds stupid IMHO. We already have the Highway of Heroes, so changing that to route for another highway will cause confusion. The DVP could have just carried the "Highway of Heroes" designation continuing from the 401/404/DVP interchange.

Something stupid like that happened in London as well. The 416 is the "Veterans memorial highway" and now Highway 100/Airport Road is known as the "Veterans Memorial Parkway". Simply changing the road term throws a lot of people off balance, including myself. Haljackey (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It already does. The MTO just doesn't sign the DVP and city streets, so they don't have an official designation. David crumbum just fucked everything up for a publicity stunt. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you grumbling? The Canadian Legion asked for the designation. You shouldn't wear your politics on your sleeve. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I commented out the latest sentence on the topic. Warmington's column is an opinion piece, and we are talking about an official designation. His piece is mainly just criticism. Secondly, the part about 'whose article named it in the first place', is not mentioned in the source cited. What was the point? Did you want to mention that Warmington criticized the naming? Then that would be something like "The designation of the route was criticized by Joe Warmington ..." That would be encyclopedic. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was more to have a reliable source (I was saying Warmington originally coined the name Highway of Heroes, as per the research I did in writing Highway 401) stating that the Highway of Heroes already included the DVP and city streets leading to Grosvenor. Any regular attendee of the ceremonies would tell you the same, as well as any of the people that led to it's designation. I could equally criticise the encyclopedicness of mentioning the naming in the first place. Nobody uses the term yet, it isn't notable just because a politician says "make it so". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the only connection Warmington has to the Route of Heroes is to criticize the designation. The only connection to the Highway of Heroes designation was that he coined the phrase. The Ontario government designated the Highway of Heroes on the 401 after a petition was circulated, and the petition was not circulated by Warmington. Giving him credit is like giving Al Gore credit for the Internet. Secondly, it doesn't make sense to me to designate Bay Street as a 'Highway'. Why would that make sense to Warmington? The spontaneous outpourings on the bridges of the 401 are not a Toronto phenomenon, which Warmington states in his column. I think Warmington's comments are just Toronto Sun knee-jerk criticisms of Miller. Since it was an official ceremony, and route signs posted, that becomes part of the official designation of the highway. You can always get political criticism from the Sun. Everyday! That part is not notable. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that again. There are a lot of people (especially those who petitioned for the Highway of Heroes) that are up in arms about this. I suppose at this point we just wait and see. I'm going to try and get a picture of the sign at some point in the near future. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think if anyone or anything is to be criticized it would be Toronto Council's treatment of the Legion, (and police car ribbons and the like) and not this designation. Although I don't know the details, I don't believe that the 'Route' was what the Legion wanted, exactly. I think that ordinary Torontonians (like me) are ok with the idea of designations on police cars and fire trucks, and firemen on the DVP bridges. But there is this disconnect between Council and the public. I think it never took off in Toronto is because you don't really know when the procession is going to come. (I've driven numerous times between Kingston and Toronto, and I've seen the people gathered on the bridges, but only once saw a procession come along -- impossible to miss) The media has never publicized it. Maybe we don't want to adopt someone else's idea. Even Miller gave credit to Don Cherry, something I never thought I'd see. I am sure this designation is going to stick. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. [2] Haljackey (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Was thinking of taking this to WP:FAC soon, see how it fares. I'm sure it'll fail, but the way I see the article now, few if any improvements are left to be made besides tightening the prose. Would you have any objections Alaney2k? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Why do you want to submit it, if you're sure it'll fail? It's not easy, I know. I have not been able to successfully get an article to FA by myself. One sort of died off after I addressed the objections. I do feel like the article still needs to cover more history during the highway's lifetime-- I'm sure there's been more mudslides, for example. I think there's more to cover about tolling the road. The road seems to have a prominent place in the life of Toronto, and is a bit of lightning rod for traffic congestion talk. We don't have anything about when it first hit 100% of capacity. There is something about the pavement too. They installed heavy-duty pavement, and it's been very successful. What do you think of those additions? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only because of the growth potential should it fail. It gets out many of the objections of the people that frequent FAC and lets you know how close you are to actually having a chance.

While I'm sure there is more history, at this point at least I can't find any mention of other events of note. The 1981 congestion map on page 9 of 'Funding Transportation in the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton Wentworth' shows the entire DVP as 0.8 to 0.95 volume to capacity ratio. The 1983 Dillon Don Valley Corridor Study indicates it operates at or beyond capacity (above 0.95). 1981–1983.

Anything more I haven't seen sources for (the pavement or mudslides), but could always be put into the RD if you know of any. Tolls right now seem to be circuitous studies and repetitive newspaper articles without any clear direction - I think we should restrain from adding more until something more than an independent study or advocacy comes out (e.g. a government study or EA, or a transportation plan that discusses implementing them). All it seems to be now is (official albeit) speculation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You might like to look at the "Future" section too: June 2010 stopped qualifying for that over two months ago. Yomangani^talk 00:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[3], and based on the construction going on north of Lawrence, and the removal of the left solid line, I'd say they are being added right now. For the time being, this confirms that it was passed. Not time to add it at the moment, but I will soon if nobody else gets to it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've got Safari 3 and just did some html update. Try again. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's back the way it used to look. Imzadi 1979 → 17:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was my bad. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up to everyone, I am actively planning to have the Don Valley Parkway appear on the front page as Today's Featured Article on August 31, the fiftieth anniversary of the parkway opening. If anybody has any ideas or suggestions feel free to post them here. For the most part I was planning On using the lead, with some extra focus placed upon the August anniversary by rearranging that sentence nearer to the beginning. I'll post up the blurb template shortly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a tossup between that image and this one:

-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me and my roommate are currently in Etobicoke for the summer, we would be willing to take a trip over there on a weekday evening just to take a photo. He has an pretty awesome DSLR, so if the community could give us a few suggestions on where to shoot from, we could do it. --Natural R_X 00:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been shooting all summer... was hoping they'd have a maintenance weekend so I could get an empty shot of it. The best spots I've found are A) The Chester Hill lookout[4], The second is the Lawrence Avenue Bridge facing south (these are the positions for the two photos here) and from atop the train tracks midway between Lawrence and Eglinton,[5] which requires a good 5 or 10 minutes of walking down the tracks (also its technically trespassing if CP catches you on the tracks). The Gerrard Street viaduct or Winchester Street pedestrian bridge would also work

I like the first photo better. Shows congestion and that cool bridge quite well. Also, it's in a valley. Haljackey (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination is up. I went under the Leaside bridge last friday and took an interesting angle that may also be a consideration (or at least a candidate for replacing or adding a photo to the article). I'll try and upload it tonight. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See [6]. --Natural R_X 20:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor items I was wondering about: There is no stopping on the Don Valley Parkway. (Of course, this means on the shoulder!) Pedestrians and cyclists are banned from the roadway. I was wondering if the speed limit and police info, which is in the lead, could be moved a section in the route description section, along with the other traffic regulation items. What do you think? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, those are the two unsourced items in the article at the moment (along with the length). I'd like to find some source on the traffic bylaws that apply to the DVP but I'd have a library or two to search through to find that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source for the speed limit [7]. Is it normal to have a 'Traffic regulations' sub-section of the route description? That's where I would put the speed limit, etc. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk)

I'd stick it near the top of the RD (perhaps in the initial summary) for now, as I think we could only muster up a short paragraph on the speed limit, police, and other regulations. I've never seen a Traffic Regulations subsection yet, but then again I've never seen another highway article as detailed as this one. :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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/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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]