Talk:History of the Nicaragua Canal

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Nicaragua Canal. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Model built[edit]

The BBC Antiques Roadshow had a participant bringing in a model of the Nicaraguan landscape in a wooden case. A British businessman had this made to support his pitch to possible investors. I forgot how old it was. The person assessing it was Hilary Kay. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:E5D8:FD36:1A1B:78F1 (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 April 2024[edit]

– As the opening sentence of this article puts it, "there is a long history of attempts to build a canal across Nicaragua to connect the Atlantic Ocean with the Pacific Ocean", from as early as the 1500s to the most recent and hence most notable one in the 2010s. Currently, the general article is at "History of" and the specific one about the 2010s project at "Nicaragua Canal". Each has a section summarizing the other, Nicaragua Canal § History and History of the Nicaragua Canal § HKND project (2010–present), with {{main}} hatnote crosslinks.

This likely made sense when said project was active and there was reason to expect it to result in an actual canal, which would obviously have been vastly more notable than any mere plan to build one. But by the end of that decade, the project had been essentially abandoned, and I don't think it makes sense any longer.

"Nicaragua Canal" has about 200 incoming article links ([1]), of which I surveyed the first 20. The result is pretty much an even split between links that should indeed go to the 2010s project, and links that should go to the general page, or in some cases ideally one of its sections about earlier specific projects.

But it's more confusing to follow a link to an article that's about the wrong specific thing than to an article that's too general, especially when that specific article has an unspecific title. So a switch would clarify the situation, IMO.

The most obvious choice for a new title for the specific article is "Nicaraguan Canal and Development Project", per its opening sentence - though something that includes a date, as the "HKND project (2010–present)" section title does, might be more informative, so I left that open.

- 2A02:560:58C3:0:B0B9:6993:EC37:F849 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to merge the two articles to Nicaragua Canal? No opinion yet, but wanted to make sure you know it is an option. If you go in that direction, there's templates available for proposing a merge: ({{Merge from}}, {{Merge to}}). –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The historical article is only about two thirds as long as the 2010s one, so unless the latter gets some significant pruning first, the pair of articles with their mutual summaries works better than a merged one would, to my way of thinking. I guess it's possible that such pruning would be in order anyway, due to the inevitable and ongoing decline in notability of the now-abandoned project... *shrug*
- (OP) 2A02:560:58C3:0:EDE8:7876:C892:D12E (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]