Talk:List of Alberta provincial highways

Highway 29 and 67

I can't seem to find Highway 29 or 67 on my map, and I was unable to find them via a google search. Can anyone elaborate as to where these highways are? Earl Andrew 10:19, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't find them in my (searchable) mapset either. Qyd^(talk)22:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The following is copied from my talk page. --Qyd 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC): Go to AB government. Highway 29 is a new highway that replaced several other secondary highways. --Colin473 19:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Highway 67 was renumbered as Highway 88 back in the late 1980's or early 1990's. As for Highway 29, it replaced Secondary Highway 637 and a small section of Highway 28 through St. Paul. The section of highway that was previously numbered as Highway 28A running north of St. Paul was renumbered Highway 28 Nericson081263 (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

To add to this last post, the renumbering of Hwy 67 to 88 occurred in 1988 and coincided with the bicentennial of Fort Vermilion, which was founded in 1788.(Hwy43 (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

Not sure if anyone would still be interested, but the original Highway 29 was a short highway that linked the Village of Spring Lake (formerly the Summer Village of Edmonton Beach) with Highway 16A (formerly Highway 16) near Beach Corner west of Stony Plain. --Hwy43 (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you basing that off of Google maps? I assumed that it was wrong, I'd like to see a better source of why Google calls that road Hwy 29. 117Avenue (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, although I too have noticed the same on Google. I'm basing it off of my extensive historic collection of official Alberta road maps. On the 1971 edition in front of me right now, the previous iteration of Highway 29 is shown as having a mileage of 4 mi from start to finish. It started at then Highway 16, travelling due west about 1.5 mi and then turned due south to then Edmonton Beach, traveling no more than about 2.5 mi. If you want to go even further back in history, Parkland Drive as labelled on the Google link you provided (currently incorrectly numbered as Hwy 29) was actually an even earlier alignment of Highway 16 before it was re-routed to the north at the time of twinning (or maybe earlier - I haven't pinpointed when the alignment changed yet). This means the roughly 1.5 mi stretch of road between the current Hwy 16/43 interchange and Parkland Drive was formerly Highway 43. I learned this recently and have been meaning to drive the old stretches of both and been meaning to pinpoint when the re-routing occurred. As you know based on our past discussions, Google's roadway network database is out-of-date, inaccurate and just plain wrong in many cases when it comes to labels (road names and highway numbers). Quite disappointing... --Hwy43 (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am quite annoyed by how much Google is trusted. I think a great deal of Edmontonians think that Hwy 16A goes through the city, and I have seen the engineering drawings for the north leg of the Henday that label Range Road 244 as Hwy 28A.

Ah yes, chalk both of those up under the once-upon-a-time category! Regarding the engineering drawings, were you referring to this? --Hwy43 (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No those are AT drawings, I've seen the ones from the Engineer that are used on site. 117Avenue (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Highway 31

Where is Highway 31. In the article it says it's between Seba Beach and Gainford, yet the two communities are linked by highway 759 and yellowhead, no direct link (see google maps for example). --Qyd 03:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hwy 31 is so short that most maps don't have it; I was quite surprised to see the "Hwy 31" signs when I had to drive down 759 about a year ago. It's primary highway 31 from the Hwy 16 junction to the southern edge of Seba Beach, and secondary highway 759 from there on, with only tiny signs to mark the transition. I have no idea why it's set up that way. 02:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Hwy 31 exists anymore. Any signs for that corner along the Yellowhead read as 759, unless this has been changed recently. As well, it also appear tha Hwy 30 has been decommissioned as well, as any signage for that corner does not show the highway number anymore. Nericson081263 (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It still does exist according to both the 2008 and 2009 editions of Alberta Transportation's "Primary Highways 1 to 216 Series Progress Chart" and the 2009 Alberta Official Road Map produced by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development for Travel Alberta (a division of Alberta Tourism, Parks and Recreation). (Daryou1978 (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

Highway 93

Highway 93 doesn't end at Lake Louise, unless something's changed recently. It continues southeast on the same roadbed as the Trans-Canada to Castle Junction, where it branches off again and heads for Vermilion Pass on the B.C. border. The highway continues with the same "93" number all the way to Mexico, or a least California, if I recall correctly. The name "Icefields Parkway", however, is restricted to the Jasper-Lake Louise portion. Indefatigable 21:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyright problem

I believe that the original page came from [1] especially since the typo error on Highway 11A shows a closing parenthesis after Rocky Mountain House on both pages. However, I think the same results could have been generated anyway. Also the page has been modified and is obviously useful. Cadillac 15:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Highway 666

I was surprised to find that there's no article about any Highway 666. Alberta is one of several provinces and states to have a highway with this somewhat notable numeric assignment. QuinnHK 05:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's now a red link in the list. Qyd^(talk)22:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There's an article now Alberta secondary highway 666. --Qyd 02:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Map

[2] has a decent pair of maps as a source for what highways exist; unfortunately you can't calculate most mileages with it.--NE2 13:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Grizzly hwy.png

The image Image:Grizzly hwy.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Highway 615

I have tried several times to add Secondary Highway 615 to the list. It has been removed each time it has been added for some strange reason, as this highway does in fact exist between Highways 14 and 36 running south to southeast of Viking. The most recent maps show this highway, however it keeps being removed. Nericson081263 (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to wikipedia. Thank-you for finally creating an account, so that I can talk to you. I am from Beaver County, so I keep up with the recent news, the decision to make Hwy 615 part of Hwy 26 is so recent, as seen on this news release, that no map shows it yet. I have already redirected the article Alberta Highway 615 to Alberta Highway 26. Also, I have never heard of this Philips, it does not deserve a Wiki link, as the other hamlets in Beaver County (Bruce, Kinsella), do not have articles yet. Another thing that I would like you to keep in mind, is that maps from popular brands, and internet mapping websites, are not always right, I have used a Government of Alberta issued map. 117Avenue (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for clearing this up. I was not aware that this change had been made as I was going from a 2009 edition of the Alberta Road Atlas, so this must have been very recent. I had lived in Edmonton for several years and had occasionally travelled Highway 14 whenever I headed east. Thanks for this. Nericson081263 (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, just took a look at this and the Beaver County newsletter link. It appears from the newsletter County Council has supported the proposed renumbered of Hwy 615 to 26. However, has Alberta Transportation finalized the proposal to make the renumbering official? If no, I would suggest it remains as Hwy 615 until the renumbering is officially confirmed. Obviously I'm not "in the know" on this one. Just curious and adding my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daryou1978 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

All I know is from the county newsletter. It appears from the newsletter that Alberta Transportation had the idea before Beaver County Council. I must admit I did want to change this article a bit preemptively, so that it won't have to be changed in the future. But this newsletter was written in June, it must have taken into effect by now. I realize that it takes time to go from Council and government signing documents to the actual physical signs being changed, that it why the formal highways section gives the general term "2009". 117Avenue (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on what I've learned from the four Provincial news links on this page involving past highway renumberings, it appears AT was recently undertaking the municipal consultation stage of renumbering the highway. With the support of County Council attained, I suspect the renumbering is inevitable. Perhaps an inquiry to AT is in order, or we can wait until the 2010 Alberta Road Map is released. The 2009 versions of the AT Progress Charts that I have (prepared May, 2009) still show it as Hwy 615. (Daryou1978 (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

It is official. I inquired with AT and AT confirmed Hwy 615 was renumbered to Hwy 26 effective July 14th. This should then show up on the 2010 Primary Highway Progress Charts, which are annual snapshots in time taken on March 31 (the end of AT's fiscal year). In other news, an AT news release issued today (Nov-4/09) announced that the Hwy 54 realignment (bypass of Innisfail) is now open. (Daryou1978 (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC))

Copyrighted material

Could this excessive or improper use of copyrighted material please be explained? My guess is that it is referring to the highway shields, but all list of highways for provinces and states show the highway markers. And from my understanding this article is allowed to have Alberta highway markers, (for example see Alberta Yellowhead Highway media use rationale.) What exactly is the problem? 117Avenue (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In a list such as this the use of copyrighted material is excessive and unneeded. All the shields that are copyrighted has to be removed. That there are invalid rationales for this article is not relevant. Rettetast (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed the non-free highway signs, replacing them with textual links to the highways they represent. This satisfies WP:NFCC #1, and WP:NFLISTS. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think that WP:NFLISTS #4 allows the use of these images. 117Avenue (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Not in this case, no it doesn't. This is really no different than discographies, bibliographies, videographies, and the like. This is a list, and we do not include a long list of non-free images like this. If you disagree, other people's opinions on the matter are available for discussion at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Somebody re-added the copyrighted images. I've removed them again. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This list displays the types of markers used in Alberta, just like List of Canadian flags can display the flag of Edmonton, read WP:NFLISTS #4. For example, not only is Highway 36 marked by File:Alberta Highway 36.svg, but by File:Alberta Highway 36 (Veteran Memorial).svg; not including half of the marker on this list would be misrepresentation. 117Avenue (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hey! I got an idea! Let's edit war! That will work wonders, won't it? I'm sure it will make things just peachy keen around here, right? I'm feeling better already! Wow! Thank you!
• Look, this isn't "List of Alberta Provincial Highway MARKERS" It's "List of Alberta provincial highways". The markers already exist on the separate individual highway articles, such as Crowsnest Highway. Your comparison to List of Canadian flags is invalid. Treating this article as you are wanting to do is no different than summarizing all the album releases of Michael Jackson in his discography and including the album covers. We don't do that around here. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, please don't edit war. That will get one -1- of you blocked. The guideline WP:NFLISTS #4 does not allow for small copyrighted icons to be used in this article. #4 only says that we prefer to use the same image, not that it can be used in the first place. The files simply fail WP:NFCC#8 in this context as they are not important to understand this article. If you believe using only free images on this list result in a misrepresentation of the subject, we should consider removing all the shields. I really don't see the importance of any of them. Rettetast (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My comments about edit warring were sarcastic, and referring to 117Avenue's actions in trying to force the images back in without consensus to do so. Last year, there was also a debate about fair use images being used as icons (i.e., small size, less than 100px) with the result being in that case that the use of them as icons was deprecated. I think here the dimensions on width is/was 32px. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it fails NFCC#8, I think it is important to list which highways in Alberta have special naming and marking significance. A look at the list without images wouldn't give any inclination that there are special highways. Will this article have to be renamed to "List of Alberta provincial highways and markers" to legitimize it, or will a new article titled "List of Alberta provincial highway markers" have to be created? 117Avenue (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't work like that. We don't rename articles to get around regulations here. The point would be in such case whether reliable secondary sources thought the sum work of Alberta highway markers was notable or not. A slavish reproduction of the highway markers without such secondary sources in another article would result in an unreferenced article which would not last long. You're saying these highways are special, and we have to have the markers to highlight that. I disagree. You could just as well add a free use icon to alert readers that the highway is special in someway, and they can then look at the specific highway article they are interested in if they must see the markers. There's simply no legitimate rationale for them to be included here that is in concert with our policies and guidelines. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the NFCC-violations. If you want to pursue this I recommend Wikipedia:Non-free content review. Rettetast (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How can any other icon alert readers there is a special marker there without showing that marker? I think that the special markers are notable, and so does the government of Alberta, that is why they created them, what better source needs to say they are notable? I think that having a special marker means nothing if you can't compare them together. I think that having a list of the different highway markers used in Alberta is totally a legitimate list, and I hope to have one without renaming an article. Also, you didn't explain the difference between a list of highway markers and a list of flags. 117Avenue (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think it might be useful for you to read Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. The government of Alberta is a primary source. Effectively, it's like saying "We are notable because we are notable". Also, Wikipedia is not a guide. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the proof that these images are actually under copyright? There is no such claim in the document listed as the source.[3] Are they not works of US governmental agencies and as such in the public domain? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 17:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Proof needs to be provided that the images are not under copyright, not the other way around. Copyright is automatic these days. There has to be a specific release of rights, or a clear reason as to how the images are free of copyright anyway. On the "hi signs" site, there is nothing to suggest any of the signs in question have been released under a free license. Also, Canada is not the United States, and Alberta is in Canada, not a state of the United States. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Does Hi Signs count as a secondary source, or should I look for other companies who make the signs? I searched the Alberta Transportation website for who owns the rights, and found the Highway Guide and Information Sign Manual published October 2006, it has the special route markers on page 49 and trailblazers on page 51, page 1 states that purchasers of this document are given permission to reproduce all or portion of the document without modification, does that mean the signs have been released to the public? By the way I am still waiting to hear why List of Canadian flags is allowed to be filled with copyright material. From what you have said here it shouldn't exist because the only source is government. 117Avenue (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I think I missed a step. It's perfectly fine to use the primary source (and you SHOULD) to identify the source of material. It is not perfectly fine to produce an article on a subject for which there are no secondary or tertiary sources supporting claims of its notability. See Wikipedia:Notability. With the permission from page 1, no that release is not compatible with concepts of free works, as they are specifically prohibiting derivative works, and therefore the signs must be used under terms of our WP:NFCC policy. As to List of Canadian flags, it is one of many problematic high non-free content articles. Coincidentally, it currently happens to be the worst in that regard, with 80 non-free images (2nd place has 73). The article is highly problematic because the claims of fair use are exceptionally weak and the sheer quantity is enormous. For example, the fair use claim for using File:Weyburn, SK flag.png in that article has the purpose of "To show the reader what the flag of Weyburn looks like." If that's all we needed for a valid fair use purpose claim, we could use fair use all over the project, anywhere we wanted to do so. Be careful in viewing other articles on the project as being the 'right' way to do things. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I figured. But when you said my comparison to it was invalid, I thought you meant flags are allowed because they are different in some way. 117Avenue (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Official confirmation as to whether or not these markers can be used may simply be an email away. Ever thought of contacting Alberta Transportation? --Hwy43 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• See WP:COPYREQ if anyone makes the effort. Though, I doubt such a request would be fruitful. We already know from the link 117Avenue helpfully provided that they don't want the materials modified, which prevents it from being available under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Granted what is presented on the cover page of the link 117Avenue provided, the manual is four years old and there since may have been a change in license, or there have been an exception for non-profit parties all along that wasn't published on the cover. If someone wants to make the effort, the second page (last paragraph) provides a contact name. A phone number and email address can be found by searching that contact name here. Although it may not bear any fruit, the inquiry may be worthwhile to at least settle this long-standing difference of opinion. --Hwy43 (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Understand two things; one, permission to use on Wikipedia is not sufficient. Two, we permit for profit uses of free works. Non-profit has no relevance here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

117Avenue, should you choose to inquire, I suggest doing so per WP:COPYREQ while considering Hammersoft's 18:41 and 19:41 comments above. --Hwy43 (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I could give it a try. 117Avenue (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

1939 and 1960 Alberta road maps

For those interested in the earlier days of Alberta's highway system, see these black and white scans of the 1939 and 1960 official Alberta road maps. Cheers, --Hwy43 (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Highway 13A in Camrose

It appears that Highway 13A in Camrose is still a provincially numbered highway as evidenced by this Google Street View shot. The reason why it is not shown on the main map of this 2009 official Alberta Transportation map is that it only shows those provincial highways that are the responsibility of Alberta Transportation. The majority of highways within Alberta's cities are the responsibilities of their respective cities (a consequence of incorporating as a city).

There are some exceptions though. Based on the main map the official map linked above, these exceptions appear to be: Highway 43 through Grande Prairie; Highway 16 in Edmonton from 231 Street to Highway 216; all of Highway 216 in Edmonton; Highway 2 through Leduc, Red Deer, Airdrie and Calgary; Highways 3 and 4 through Lethbridge; and Highways 1 and 3 through Medicine Hat. On the 2010 version of this official map (not yet posted on Alberta Transportation's website), all of Highway 201 in Calgary is shown like these above on the 2009 version. All other highways from the 1-216 series that enter a city retain their provincially assigned number, but are the responsibilities of the cities. It just so happens that Highway 13A is the only provincially numbered highway within a city, under city jurisdiction, that is wholly within a city from start to finish.

I suggest that the Highway 13A segment within Camrose be re-added to the article with a description that states "Bypass wholly within and the responsibility of the City of Camrose" because it retains its provincially assigned highway number despite no longer being the responsibility of Alberta Transportation. --Hwy43 (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but it isn't the only provincial highway, not under Alberta Transportation, Highway 93 and 93A, and a section of 1A are entirely within national parks. 117Avenue (talk)

You are correct. Add the applicable sections of Highways 1, 5, 11 and 16 to your list of provincially numbered highways under federal jurisdiction. --Hwy43 (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

QEII

As I understand it, the highway between Edmonton and Calgary is no longer called Highway 2 at all, but QEII. It should have its own entry separate from Highway 2. At the very least, the QEII sign should be incorporated into the list, as it's what people see, not the Highway 2 shield. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Provincial legislation (Provincial Highways Designation Order, effective January 1, 2010, under the Highways Development and Protection Act) and mapping (Alberta Transportation's Provincial Highways 1 - 216 Progress Chart and Travel Alberta's official road map) still number it as Highway 2, and the assignment of exit numbers between Calgary and Edmonton continue based on the Highway 2 exit numbers south of Calgary. Also on Anthony Henday Drive in Edmonton, way-finding signage at exit ramps refer to it as Highway 2. Hwy43 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet another highway rebranding

A discussion has been initiated here advising that the province has rebranding the designation of its highway system once again.

The primary highways designation has been dropped in favour of provincial highways.

If you have any comments to share before revisions are processed to acknowledge the designation change, please do so at this other discussion (instead of here) to keep everything in one place. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Image(s) Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Alberta Highway 613.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of Alberta provincial highways subcats

You are invited to comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 12#Alberta provincial highway subcats. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Highway 65

Very likely went from Amber Valley to Athabasca. Did not last long. Original 55 probably went from Beiseker to Near Langdon (Highway 9 went on current Highway 72) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexlatham96 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I have every official Alberta road map issued since 1938. Highway 72 was never previously Highway 9. You use terms like "very likely" and "probably" for the others, but I'm fairly confident from memory of reviewing all these maps that these never existed. If you can provide approximate year(s) for each I can take a look however. Hwy43 (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have the maps in front of me, but I recall that Hwy 72 was previously Hwy 572 (changed in the early 1980's?) while the original Hwy 55 was present-day Hwy 21 between Hwy 16 and Fort Saskatchewan, while Hwy 21 ended at Hwy 14. Does anyone have the time-frame? MuzikMachine (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Alberta wordmark update

Hello! A couple years ago the province of Alberta updated their wordmark, resulting in all their highway shields having a slightly new look. The present 1-216 highways shields presently show this revised look; however, the 500-986 series and the selected named highways need to be updated. What would be the proper way to start this project? Cheers! MuzikMachine (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@MuzikMachine: It would just be a matter of somebody finding the time to do it. These days, I kind of prod away when I have a bit of time but that's vector graphic stuff I think, and I'd have to learn how to do it before tackling it. -- Acefitt 16:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

AB133X highway missing

133X is missing from the list. It's the highway through Morley that connects 1A to 1. I'd add it myself but not familiar enough with formatting.

Wikifanman14 (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No such highway according to Alberta Transportation. 133 sounds like a range road number. Perhaps the community incorrectly posted a sign with the number 133X inside an Alberta Transportation highway marker? If you could provide a photo that would be helpful. Hwy43 (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Just Google StreetViewed entire length from north to south and no evidence of my theory. Not sure how this is being incorrectly referred to as a highway as of yet. Hwy43 (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Evidence points to 133X existing. If you look at the 2017 AB Transportation highway network map (link below), you can see a tiny line connecting 1A to 1 west of Cochrane and east of Seebe. That line is 133X. It is coloured brown on the map, unsure what that means. But nevertheless, it is included in the network map. Also, StreetView reveals no signage explicitly showing a sign for 133X, however, it does have a (Caring for Alberta highways) sign, which is only ever included on Alberta highways, not County or private roads.

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType329/Production/ProvincialNetworkMap.pdf

Wikifanman14 (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The following two maps are the definitive sources confirming current highway designations in Alberta. [4] [5] It is not recognized as a highway in either series. It is not recognized as park access road or urban access road either (see lower left portion of the first map for listings). We need reliable and definitive source that confirm its designation as a highway and that it is numbered 133X. The other map provided does neither of those things. It is too bad that map doesn't put the brown roads in the legend to give us a more definitive idea of its role and standing within Alberta's roadway system. Hwy43 (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

"Interstate Highways in Alberta" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Interstate Highways in Alberta and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 29#Interstate Highways in Alberta until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Do not remove short description please

This is a notice for editors to please refrain from removing the short description, the short description is there for a reason, reason being is to clarify that this article only contains currently operational highways in Alberta’s network, not decommissioned or closed ones, as that was how the article previously behaved before I separated currently operational highways and decommissioned highways into their own separate articles, plus, having a short description helps the search result previews on desktop and mobile, as people are able to find what they want faster. Having a short description of none doesn’t help anyone. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 23:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there are three editors (me, User:Imzadi1979, and User:GhostInTheMachine) who all disagree with you. I think you need to get consensus here on the talk page if you don't want "none" as an SD. Also, it seems you have an issue with "none" in general. If that is so, I think you need to take your concerns to Wikipedia talk:Short description. Masterhatch (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Both List of former Alberta provincial highways and List of Alberta provincial highways have titles that clearly explain what they are. An SD does not add to either and both should be none. So, I'm asking you to self revert and get consensus to have an SD other than "none". Masterhatch (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

On what grounds should I revert something that helps accessibility? - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 00:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:Short description#To SD none or not to SD none. I think if the core of the issue is the usage of "none", then this is bigger than just one SD on one article. Masterhatch (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not really the purpose of the SD to gloss article titles that might be misunderstood. If readers expect the article to include decomissioned highways, the best approach would be to move it to List of current Alberta provincial highways. That would then match List of former Alberta provincial highways, with both having an SD of None. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The purposes of SDs are debatable. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 03:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:SDPURPOSE. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose move to List of current Alberta provincial highways. The existing title is succinct and the "current" adjective is superfluous/redundant. It is a list of Alberta provincial highways. If it is not or no longer a provincial highway, it falls off the list. The existing state of article titles is fine and there is no need to match. Look at List of municipalities in Alberta and List of former urban municipalities in Alberta. Hwy43 (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree with User:Hwy43. Masterhatch (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree; there is no reason to move the article. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 09:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)