Talk:Highway 406 (Ontario)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Canada Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the Canada Roads WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
	Ontario Portal This article is part of the Ontario WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

New Image appears to be used from Gribblenation.com. Was permission gained from Douglas Kerr (the copyright holder as stated on Gribblenation.com) for the image to be used here? If not, image should be immediately removed, as it is copyritten. --149.99.202.64 00:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Angela. 00:41, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Permission has been obtained from Doug to use the image in this article. Snickerdo 01:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Notice to Wikipedians: My website at www.thekingshighway.ca contains copyrighted material! You may not reproduce it without my permission. Thank-you. Cbevers 01:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Construction information can easily be obtained from any source, including my family who lives here in the region. It's not like someone copied your (and excellent, I might add) detailed history of 406 construction. The only information that was included was the years it opened. Snickerdo 01:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that even the average family member would know 40 year old highway information off the back of there hand. Such information needs to be sourced, always, whether from a family member or not. Until information (and pictures) are sourced, they do not belong on pages. --149.99.200.38 03:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

So publicly available information is now considered copywritten?! Should we now go running around on a witch hunt removing all other publicly available information that is posted in these articles? Also, I have permission from the person who took the picture (a friend of mine) to use it on this web page. If you want a revet war, that's what you'll get. Snickerdo 10:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Information that isn't common knowledge has to be sourced. This irrelevant of where the information came from. If you got the date information from old maps, then in your reference section you source them; If you got the information from old annual reports, then you source them; and if you got the information from thekingshighway.ca then you source that aswell. Whether or not information is copyritten or not it still always needs to be sourced. Properly referencing articles not only gives people reading articles more information, but also makes the article more credible. For theses reasons, I just cannot understand why so much of the informaiton on this website isn't sourced, (unless authors are trying to hide something) it just seems like such a no-brainer. --149.99.202.161 13:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright stuff.

I sourced The King's Highway just to make everyone happy. Claiming that construction information cannot be used on this page because it is copywritten is ridiculous. I could understand a direct copy-and-paste of Cameron’s excellent detailed construction history, but the dates that extensions were open could have been easily obtained from the MTO, the public library, or maps that people have laying around in their basement. Nonetheless, I have added a reference to the website to cover all angles.

As for the image, I have known Doug for many years, and a number of his images have even been taken with me driving him around the region. I have permission to use this image (as well as other images in the future), it sourced to him, has the correct copyright tag, and all that fun stuff. If someone has a problem with this, I recommend you contact Doug. I am weary about posting his email here due to spam, but I would be happy to personally provide it to anyone who doesn't already have it.

There, are we all happy now?

Snickerdo 11:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, also, you guys might like to take a look at the following line from the Copyrights article:

Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. (See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context.)

Snickerdo 11:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

That quote is all well and good, but has nothing to do with the argument. That information is about not plagerizing text, it has nothing to do with referencing it. --149.99.202.161 13:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)