This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels 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.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Flagging some concern that User:Denwiki has repeatedly (since 2017) talked down the bridge and talked up the idea that a ferry would be better, to the extent of now rewriting sections to imply that a certain company's ferry plan is now the front runner for a permanent solution, when TfL have only talked about using (an unnamed?) ferry service in the short-to-medium term (Denwiki removing "short-to-medium" without comment).
The actual TfL plan right now seems to be that the bridge plan is on pause due to lack of budget, and that a ferry system (possibly in a broad, generic sense rather than explicitly the Thames Clippers/Beckett Rankine plan listed here?) is being considered as a temporary short-to-medium term alternative. If this is further along and now leaning towards a permanent ferry service from any particular provider, the article needs secondary sources to support that. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Belbury continues to remove updated references that accurately referenced comments from articles that admit the bridge was complex and over budget. Sorry if I'm not as a dab hand at wiki editing as you are, but why do you keep removing "Paused" from the bridge proposal when that is a recognised fact? I would flag some concern that you continually talk up the bridge and reduce correct content referencing the onward transition to the ferry service that is now being explored as the project gets rolled back to the discovery phase — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denwiki (talk • contribs)
I removed "(now Paused)" from a section header as these headings are meant to be concise, that's all (we don't need to describe the ferry as being "Fast" in its header either). I left "paused" the three times it appeared in the article text and have no objection to the term being used.
The two sources I removed were an unpublished letter that a deputy mayor had sent, which is unusable per WP:PRIMARY, and a hotfashionnews.com article, which is a reprint of a Daily Mail article, as Wikipedia does not consider the Daily Mail to be a reliable source per WP:DAILYMAIL. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
