Talk:Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Qingdao Haiwan Bridge??[edit]

There are a lot of blogs and other unreliable sources on the Internet saying Qingdao Haiwan Bridge is part of the Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge. For example:

"The Danyang Kunshan Grand Bridge is actually made of different or several bridges. One of its parts is called as the Qingdao Haiwan Road Bridge, which is a portion of the Danyang Kunshan Grand Bridge"

But this makes no sense, one is a road bridge, the other is a rail bridge - they can't be part of the same bridge - rail trains can't go on car roads. It's also unclear if they even follow the same geography. Any clarity on this appreciated, there does appear to be a lot of confusion about it and I can't find a reliable source. It may be just a seed of bad info planted somewhere that has spread like a virus. Or there may be a kernel of truth (such as both bridges administered or built by the same company at the same time). Green Cardamom (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Well by convention we don't always start an article with the definitive article, rather just the name of the article, but some people do it that way. The information about the GWR is needed since it adds additional detail not included in the first sentence, which is part of the WP:LEAD, which is a summary only. The lead is supposed to duplicate what's in the rest of the article. Granted this article is still brief, but we need to say according to who it is longest bridge, and which category and date it was included, and it's awkward to get into those details in the first sentence of the article - but we still need to say why the bridge is notable in the first sentence. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWP:BRD - you made a bold edit, I reverted, now we discuss. See above. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that rather than answering my question where I asked it you've answered it here, and in the meantime continued to revert without using edit summaries. The first one was extremely discourteous, the subsequent ones even more so. Now, we do not start articles ungrammatically, and the definite article is required here. See for example Channel Tunnel, Forth Bridge, Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, Öresund_Bridge, Sydney Harbour Bridge, Chirundu Bridge, Friendship Bridge (Paraguay–Brazil) etc etc. Also we do not need to include the details of the reference in the article text. It is fully specified in the citation. The text says what the fact is, the citation says where it came from. The article is a stub and does not have a lead, so it is quite absurd to insist that there should be a single sentence which re-states exactly what was already in the first paragraph.
In future, you can avoid getting into edit wars by simply using edit summaries and explaining yourself when you revert someone. And if you answer a question somewhere other than where it was asked, it would be courteous to mention that. 200.104.181.183 (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also we do not need to include the details of the reference in the article text.
I disagree. Calling it the "longest bridge in the world" is a subjective statement and not an objective fact. It's only the longest within the rules defined by Guinness. See the top-note in Longest bridges in the world for more background on this. It's critical that readers understand it is being called the longest by Guinness, it needs to be spelled out in the main body of the text and not just in a footnote. This is not a minor point. And as I explained above the best way to do that is the way I had it. The best way articles are written is they start with broad statements in the opening and lead into more detailed later, thus repeating information. Just because this is a short article doesn't mean we throw out good practices. As for the definitive article I don't care and had already restored it to the way you wanted it, not sure why your still arguing that (your edit comment suggests you didn't notice that I restored the "The"). As for courtesy, sure whatever I could have left edit comments and responded on your talk page, but I discussed it on the article discussion page which is where we are supposed to discuss article content issues, you could have equally taken the time to look here (if not already seen it on your watchlist). So now we know where the discussions are happening and that we have an ongoing edit dispute. I look forward to working with you to resolve this. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leave edit summaries that explain what you've done, and if you've suddenly decided that you no longer wish to insist on starting the article ungrammatically then you could mention that in the edit summary or next to your previous attempt to justify missing out essential words.
Articles that need a lead section do as you say, the lead summarises the whole content of the article. This article doesn't have a lead section. So if you simply say exactly the same thing twice in two very short paragraphs, it looks a bit ridiculous. The information that you suggest is critical is not actually who says it's the longest bridge, but by what criteria it is the longest. So put that in the article. But don't put it in there twice. 200.83.32.2 (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK let's talk about courtesy. Your obviously an experienced editor. But you don't have the courtesy to sign up for an account on Wikipedia. If I knew I was dealing with an experienced user my approach with you would have been different from the start. In general I don't leave edit summaries when reverting an IP address edit because 99% of the time they are fly by editors who care little and are often vandals anyway.
The article is short but we still use best practices. The first sentence is a summary to establish notability, the later sentence was a more detailed expansion. It has (or had) two paragraphs for a reason. The first paragraph is the lead. If you want we just create a new section called "==Longest bridge==" where the info on the GWR is put. Then we have two paragraphs and a section ie. a lead section. As for the criteria that's unknown since Guinness doesn't publish it (for this record). Green Cardamom (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. Read the bit on the front page. Where it says "the free encyclopedia that ______ can edit", what is in the blank? I am under no obligation to register an account, and to call me discourteous for not doing so is ridiculous. You, on the other hand, are obliged to assume good faith, as am I, but you conspicuously failed to do so. It is not hard to tell the difference between good faith and bad faith edits, even if the editor has an IP address and not a named account. It's even easier when people use edit summaries. If you can't be bothered to try to distinguish the two, then you shouldn't be reverting at all.
Now as for this article, no, the lead is not the first paragraph. The lead section is the section before the table of contents. Does this article have a table of contents?
If the criteria are unknown then it does no good to even mention the source. But presumably it's not just Guinness who consider it the world's longest bridge, and if we want to we can find other sources and add a fuller discussion about who considers it what, and why. The Guinness link is broken in any case, so should be removed and an alternative found. Later we might also wish to include details such as when it was constructed, how much it cost, why it was built, what traffic it carries, etc etc. And if we generate enough material then the article will need a lead section. At the moment it doesn't have one and it doesn't need one. I will add whatever information I can find to the article over the next few days. 200.83.32.2 (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Registering for an account is not technically required but it is encouraged by Wikipedia that you do so. Wikipedia is a reputation based system and intentionally hiding that reputation (by not registering) goes against the spirit and intention of how the system was designed to work. Yes IP numbers are allowed, but again, once you start editing you are strongly encouraged to sign up for an account. It is a courtesy to other users.
As for calling it the longest, anyone can call a bridge the longest and get it in print because there is no universal standard for measuring bridge length, it's meaningless. Guinness however is not meaningless because of its notability and history and standard - calling it the longest is a subjective statement that only makes sense in the context of who said so, which is why Guinness needs to be in the main body of the text. I agree more material can be and will be added to this article which makes me wonder why your wasting so much time on this issue, it's going to end up the way I had it anyway sooner or later. As for lead sections and TOC, no problem, just add _TOC_, external link, see also and a History sub-section and there is the lead section. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read WP:WAE and WP:HUMAN. If you think I have any obligation at all to register an account, you're mistaken. I find it pretty irritating that when you have been clearly wrong by reverting a perfectly good edit without discussing it or even leaving an edit summary, you are trying to somehow imply that I was at fault.
The article will not end up the way you had it, because you had it duplicating information unnecessarily. If you consider that I am wasting time by improving an article, you don't really understand the point of an encyclopaedia.
And there is nothing subjective about the length of a bridge. There may be different ways of defining it but none are subjective. If Guinness do not specify their criteria then the reference to them means very little. I have been looking unsuccessfully for more information about the bridge, its construction, its status as longest, etc etc, but it seems there is a remarkable lack of information available about it. 200.104.121.217 (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HUMAN and WP:WAE are minority viewpoint essays written by some users. Officially, Wikipedia encourages users to sign up for an account. IP accounts have fewer privileges. By design registered accounts have more benefits. Wikipedia doesn't require registration, but it encourages it, evidently.
Your assumption that everyone must leave edit comments with every single edit is incorrect, as is your assertion that those who don't leave edit comments are intentionally being rude or inconsiderate, that's an assumption of bad faith; your characterization that I didn't discuss the edit is evidently incorrect.
Finally, your opinion about the material being "unnecessary" is just that, your opinion - I provided reasons for my opinion on why the material should be included. I've explained it, I won't repeat it. Please address the facts and lets stop this back and forth "I know more about Wikipedia than you" or "I'm better at talk-page rhetoric than you" game - I don't really care about winning an argument, I want to improve the article. If you want a TOC for the lead section than I can create one per above. Do you have a problem with that, if so why?
Also, you need to explain why you think mentioning Guinness Book of World Records is not relevant. The criteria for the bridge length is one thing, who uses that criteria is another. Just because we don't have info on one doesn't negate the importance of the other. Indeed that lack of one makes the other that much more important since it's all we have. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "bridge"[edit]

You can call it an "overpass" or "elevated highway" or whatever else is appropriate in your language. In English the word "bridge" means a "a road above water", those are the simple words which all English-speaking people understand. And when it comes to water, rainfall and puddles under this "bridge" do not count :) You can call it a "bridge" in the Wikipedia version in your own tongue, but not here. 173.66.197.20 (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if you are serious or not, but assuming you are, suggest to pick up a dictionary or reference "bridge" to learn more about what a bridge is. Also this structure is a viaduct, not an overpass. It is a bridge, to say it's not a bridge is like saying Mt. Everest is not a mountain. Green Cardamom (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This so-called bridge should not be called a bridge. It's an elevated railway. Go to Google Maps and look between Shanghai and Nanjing. It's about 99% land. All the images on the Web of this so-called bridge show the same 9 km section that's over water. Talk about propaganda. If this so-called bridge gets included in lists of bridges then every elevated roadway, railway and subway in the world should be included in those same lists. One entry would be Montreal's Autoroute métropolitaine which is a 21 km long elevated roadway (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoroute_m%C3%A9tropolitaine). The Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge might still be the longest elevated transporation thing in the world but its length would be a lot less impressive compared to other elevated railways, roadways and subways.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.225.13 (talk • contribs)
An "elevated roadway" is a class of bridge, formally called a viaduct (not a "transporation<sic> thing"). A bridge is defined as "a structure built to span physical obstacles such as a body of water, valley, or road, for the purpose of providing passage over the obstacle." Thanks for pointing out Autoroute métropolitaine, that should be made into an article and added to List of longest bridges in the world. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to rephrase. This so-called bridge should not be included in any lists of bridges that don't also include elevated roadways, railways and subways. Go to Google Maps and look between Shanghai and Nanjing. It's about 99% land. All the images on the Web of the so-called Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge show the same 9 km section that's over water. Talk about propaganda. Any list that has this so-called bridge should also include the Bang Na Expressway which is 55 km long (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang_Na_Expressway). The list should also include Montreal's Autoroute métropolitaine which is a 21 km long elevated roadway (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoroute_m%C3%A9tropolitaine). Since lists of bridges don't include these roadways it appears the makers of those lists don't consider them bridges. They should not then consider the so-called Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge as a bridge.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.225.13 (talk • contribs)
Which list are you referring to? The Guinness World Records includes Lake Pontchartrain Causeway as the "longest bridge over water" (it is a viaduct just like Autoroute métropolitaine), and List of longest bridges in the world includes viaducts. If there are viaducts missing from the later list that is not surprising since it makes no claim to being complete. Bang Na Expressway expressway is included though, listed number 4 in that list, and listed by Guinness as the "longest road bridge" in the world. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I see Bang Na Expressway in the Wikipedia list so it's OK to have Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge and Montreal's Autoroute métropolitaine. I'll try to add that last one. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.225.13 (talk) 06:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Height[edit]

Any information about its height? Avarage or maximum 91.77.226.240 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources??[edit]

In the grand Wikipedia tradition of attempting to garner credibility by ascribing independent "sources", the first one is an absolute joke. It's from some dude's blog. The second source isn't much better, as it is not only dubious, it's behind a paywall.

200.68.142.2 (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC) baden k.[reply]

Naming[edit]

The first paragraph begins “The Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge …”. The second paragraph begins “The Kunshan Grand Bridge …”. Please could these be consistent? JDAWiseman (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

longest span?[edit]

Is it known what is the longest span between the pillars? Seems to be about under 50 metres (~150 feet). As the longest one is over 2 kilometres (6600 feet) List of longest suspension bridge spans, and almost 50 are over 1 km. 86.115.107.96 (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The width[edit]

Two railway tracks 79 meters wide? Seriously? 37.48.32.167 (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Danyang–Kunshan_Grand_Bridge&oldid=1195101092"