Talk:Bradford Bypass

Bradford Bypass has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 13, 2022. (Reviewed version).

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Canada: Ontario Low‑importance

	Canada portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.

Canada Roads: Ontario Mid‑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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics:
/
	Ontario

This article has a KML file.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bradford Bypass. 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/20110929151147/http://www.kingsentinel.com/news/2008-04-02/news/024.html to http://www.kingsentinel.com/news/2008-04-02/news/024.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 11:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Bradford Bypass (Highway 400 - 404 Link) Updated Diagram.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exit list

The unopened shading makes sounds like it's under construction/nearly finished. Would "proposed" or "not yet built" be better? Is there a style guide for these things? Turini2 (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just changing "unopened" to "unbuilt" would work? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! Much clearerTurini2 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Long Star article

Could be unusable due to POV, but: "What the Ford government hasn’t told you about its next controversial highway project" Mapsax (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much anything from the Star or Sun are diametric POV that has no place amongst facts. I can't even read the article, but if they want me to pay for it I know it's not worth reading. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Floydian Several issues with that - a paywall doesn't make a source bad as per WP:PAYWALL. Many newspaper of records have them (Globe and Mail, New York Times etc!) The article is a journalistic piece, not an editorial - read it and then make a judgement on it. Obviously an editorial would fail POV, but that's a separate issue. I'll add a few relevant bits from it shortly. Turini2 (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added relevant bits - not a huge amount for a huge long article, some useful FOI bits. All relevant bits quoted so you can read it - impressive that they got the MTO on the record about tolling, something no other news outlet has managed! Turini2 (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Also, UK person grumble - very annoying that Canada doesn't something similar to WhatDoTheyKnow so we could read the FOI responses for ourselves! Turini2 (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]