Jump to content

Talk:Elbe Tunnel (1975)

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

Page has moved:

[edit]

I changed the title and moved it to simply Elbe Tunnel to avoid confusion and make it match what the locals refer to it as. thanks MKLPTR (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not changed the title, but cut and pasted the contents, which I have reverted to avoid confusion. The question is what the tunnel is called in English. If we follow German usage, it is "Elbtunnel". Kusma (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move:

--Lox (t,c) 09:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the Survey heading below for the latest poll

As can be seen above, User:MKLPTR would like to see this page moved to Elbe Tunnel. I am unsure what the correct title is, so would like to have a discussion about it. The problem is that two tunnels under the Elbe exist, we currently cover them at Old Elbe Tunnel and here, with Elbe Tunnel a disambiguation page. As the old tunnel is no longer an important part of traffic in the Hamburg area, common usage in German is to just say Elbtunnel for this one, especially when it is implied that the one on the Autobahn is meant (like when the usual traffic jams at the tunnel entrance are reported). The German Wikipedia unfortunately has chosen to just have one article on the two tunnels, although they are not really related. I did a quick Google search of the English-speaking world without Wikipedia, and the results were somewhat inconclusive: It seems "Elbtunnel" was most common, but a lot of the hits are from essentially German pages. "Elbe Tunnel" []looked like more common than "New Elbe Tunnel", but not necessarily enough for us to choose a somewhat ambiguous name instead. I can live with both names, but would like to see some more evidence that a move is really necessary and that removing the "new" really helps us follow the naming conventions. Thanks for any input. Kusma (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've summed it up very well. It's as close to a line call as I can see regarding WP:NC. I'd stick to the existing naming, with Elbe Tunnel a disambig, and two articles Old Elbe Tunnel and New Elbe Tunnel. Other possibilities would be to merge the two articles, or to rename one of them (but which?) to Elbtunnel, or do both. But as I said, I'd stick to the status quo unless and until a case is made to change it. Andrewa (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TO Andrewa:

The one to rename is the old one. For the oficial name for the old one is ST. Pauli Elbtunnel and the "New" one is just refered to as Elbtunnel by the Germans from trafic reports and road signs. And for every one. To not move this article would be would be rediculous and unacceptable.
Vielan Dank,
MKLPTR
MKLPTR (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why should we move this article to "Elbe Tunnel" instead of the "Elbtunnel" used in German traffic reports? Kusma (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good Question! Why don't we? it will make every one Happy and it will fit better, as all I wanted to see was the "New" part removed :) MKLPTR (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't usually use a German name when an English one exists and is in wide use. For example, we have chosen the article titles Munich and Cologne instead of the German names of the cities. Can you provide some examples of the use of Elbtunnel or Elbe Tunnel in English that you find convincing? Thank you, Kusma (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that it will only make every one happy if you can provide better justification for use of the German name(s). If your opinion that the current names are ridiculous and unacceptable is based on Wikipedia:naming conventions, then there's every chance your suggestion will be adopted. But of course if, as it seems to me, it's contrary to these standards, then you'll need to present a very strong case. Andrewa (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly do not understand why we in the English speaking world even change the naming of anything like Cologne VS Köln or Munich vs München or Germany VS Deutschland. This just goes to show the LACK of respect for the Deutsch population and the OVER Romanticism of the world and a complete disregard the Deutsch ways of doing things. This argument to stick with the "Status Quo" is just a sheet to hide behind you ignorance and disrespect of the Deutsch culture and naming of things. So because the Deutsch call it "Elbtunnel" it there fore MUST be called EITHER Elbe Tunnel or Elbtunnel.
Danke,
MKLPTR
MKLPTR (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very common linguistic phenomenon, and not restricted to English. And I certainly don't mean any disrespect when I adapt words (particularly names) to the phonology and other conventions of whatever language I happen to be speaking at the time. Nor do I feel any disrespect when, for example, a central Australian aboriginal pronounces my name as antirewnya, it's just the way it fits best into that language. Nor do I feel upset when the French call me André and struggle to do anything at all with my surname!
I see that you have a great admiration for German culture, and much exposure to it, and I expect understanding of it. I also see, looking at German Wikipedia, that the German language seems to take very few liberties with words from other languages, as languages go. But not all languages work in this way.
I feel I must refer you to the policy on personal attacks regarding ignorance and disrespect of the Deutsch culture and naming of things. I'm not going to take it any further, I just suggest that this doesn't advance your cause.
As for the claim that because the Deutsch call it "Elbtunnel" it there fore MUST be called EITHER Elbe Tunnel or Elbtunnel, I disagree. Although there's some ongoing debate on this, English Wikipedia policy is still to use English. If you wish to change that policy, propose this by all means. Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) as the first step, and then perhaps Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Andrewa (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support the move. All that was requested was to change the Title of "New Elbe Tunnel" to just Elbe Tunnel". I feel that to have it listed with "New" in it would make confusion to the English speaking populous that would like to experience the tunnel. As people would be searching relentlessly on maps trying to find "New Elbe Tunnel" when you would never find written that way on a map. Yes I love Deutsch culture and naming of things, but I never intended to make it a Culture war. However the Idea of sicking with the status Quo does not always work. Just like the war in Iraq, the Status Quo is to always finish the job you start. But in the wars case this notion would be absurd. Same goes for the naming of this article. When it comes to Transportation routes and landmarks it is best to stick with the local naming convections in order to make sure confusion is kept to a minimum, like when one wishes to plan their route. For this reason likewise I have designated myself as the road transportation lead in Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Transportation. As this article falls within my scope and I have experienced the tunnel numerous times, I would appreciate it if my opinions were not shoved into a corner and spat on in the name of "Sticking to the Status Quo". Because if everyone in history stuck to the Status Quo. . . Democracy would not exist.

Danke Für Dein Zeit (Thanks for your time),
-MKLPTR
MKLPTR (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting views. I'm sorry if you feel they are being ignored, let alone spat upon, I certainly don't intend that. But I'm afraid I think your opinions may not prevail in this case. I could be wrong. And that doesn't mean they're being ignored, just that others have other views. That's part of what collaboration is about.
I noted your passion for things German not to personalise the discussion, but because you had already referred to it above in promoting the Deutsch ways of doing things as the answer to the OVER Romanticism of the world, and of course you also express similar views on your user page: I now promote the good of the Germanic peoples in an over Romantic (Latin based, Spanish, & French ETC. . . ) society. The problem is, these views seem to me to conflict with official Wikipedia policy. Andrewa (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable source points to SUPPORT MOVE NOW!!! I have just stumbled across the website for the "International Tunneling and Underground Space Association" and their publication for the disputed "New Elbe Tunnel" titles it simply IN ENGLISH mind you, as simply "Elbe Tunnel" now if this is not a reliable source I do not know what is.

[1]
-MKLPTR
MKLPTR (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this is a reliable source is also irrelevant. The question is whether the proposed new title is one that the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity (my emphasis, and again, see WP:NC). It appears to me not to be; Quite to the contrary, the proposed new title is highly ambiguous. Andrewa (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REALLY!!! You have got to be kidding me!!! I thought that all articles and statements on the article pages had to be sourced from "Reliable Sources" (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources for info) if my calculations are correct, my proposal based on personal experience and extensive Geographical review of Deutschland holds more weight than your argument which is purely based on speculation and policies that do not even touch the tip of the iceberg on our specific matter. Yes both tunnels under the Elbe can be referred to as "Elbe Tunnel". However the only people that would even care about the tunnels are people who are in Deutschland long enough to drive in Deutschland and want to drive from say Hannover to Kiel, or people deeply involved in the engineering of underground structures. Which is what my source is an INTERNATIONAL agency focusing on underground structures, making them the authority on how to name said structures in the English speaking world. That said, we should go with the experts on this one, and the experts have already left the Court on this one and the verdict is that the said structure is "Elbe Tunnel". Thus you tailor this article to people with a working knowledge of the Deutsch language and would naturally refer to it as "Elbe Tunnel" as that is what the road signs and traffic reports translate to in the literal sense. And for the "Old Elbe Tunnel" you leave it titled as such with either a new page titled "St. Pauli Elbtunnel" to redirect to "Old Elbe Tunnel" page, As I have already done for everyone ;) , or do the reverse. Now with you having looked at my page, I looked at yours, and I do not see any interest on your part in Deutschland as you seem to have studied French (An opposing force to Deutschland). That said Leave the naming of this article to the Experts of underground engineering and people with at least a working knowledge of Deutschland. Dieses Schrieben hast macht der Dritte Welt Krieg, Crazy Leute in der Welt in Heute.

Vielen Dank und Schön Weihnacht Wiki Project Deutschland, -MKLPTR MKLPTR (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that you'd prefer that I take my opinions and leave, but we really don't work that way here. We listen to everyone who wishes to contribute. Yes, it seems a bit like Dritter Weltkrieg from here too. Suggest a read of the old page at Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot which these days is regarded as a mere essay but was once fairly central to the project. There are several points you make which I think I could answer, but I don't think it would achieve anything. Consensus seems a long way off. Andrewa (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Elbe Tunnel (and addition of dab notice on top of page pointing to the Old Elbe Tunnel). Ask anyone in Hamburg where the "Elbe Tunnel" is and you'll get directed to this one. - tameeria (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC) - Addendum: In a quick scan through the English-language hits on Google Scholar for "Elbtunnel", "Elbe Tunnel" and "New Elbe Tunnel" it appears that "Elbe Tunnel" is the most commonly used term in conference papers, books and other scholarly publications. - tameeria (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is relevant, certainly. But if you ask anyone in Hamburg you're predominantly asking German speakers rather than English ones. Andrewa (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English is taught as second language early on in German schools and Hamburg is a very international city (about 15% of Hamburg's citizens are not German). It also is a port of entry from overseas and Britain's direct neighbor via ferry connections over to Harwich etc. My guess would be that most people in Hamburg speak English just fine. - tameeria (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that, and they all count as English speakers, we're not just interested in native speakers. But the point is, they're a particularly bad indication of what the greatest number of English speakers would find on this particular issue. Andrewa (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Google test as you've conducted it doesn't address the question of ambiguity at all.
And this is the sticking point IMO. Someone comes back from a holiday and has photos of the Elbe Tunnel. Someone they show them to looks up Wikipedia to find out more. Where do we want them to be directed in the first instance? That's the question. And it's no good asking "Ah, but which tunnel did the tourist visit?" because that's the whole point; We don't know, and the person who's seen the photos doesn't know, they probably don't even know there are two. They're about to find that out.
My feeling is it should either be a merged article on both tunnels (which is what German Wikipedia has done) or a disambiguation page, and that we have plenty of material to make a merge a bad idea. So by elimination, it should be to the disambiguation page. That provides them with the information they're after.
Next question then: What should the two articles on the two tunnels be called, now that Elbe Tunnel is taken? I think the existing names are fine. Andrewa (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm not clear on Wiki naming guidelines (and I don't have the time to go hunting for them), but I support the move because:

  • There are only two "Elbe tunnels" on Wiki so far. I seem to remember a guideline that dab pages should have at least three entries. If there are only two, the one that is the most likely people will want to see when they search for the term should be the main page and the less likely search target should be a "see also" dab link on top of that page. This should take care of the ambiguity. Having a dab page with two links make no sense to me. The solution would be to move or merge like the German Wiki does.
  • The term "Elbe Tunnel" is most frequently used for the "new" Elbe tunnel in Hamburg when looking at scholarly literature written in English (books, conference reports, engineering publications in technical journals). This can be verified by checking through Google Books and Google Scholar (and actually looking at the hits, not just counting them - instances of "old Elbe tunnel" will of course appear as "Elbe tunnel" hits as well.) Since Hamburg is not exactly a tourist hotspot compared to other German cities such as Munich or Berlin, the people most likely to look up the term might be tunnel engineers actually. But that's just speculation based on what type of publications come up for it.
  • As far as I am aware, Wikipedia is not about what the "greatest number of English speakers" would say or think, but what can be found in the greatest number of verifiable and reliable sources on the subject. (See my comment about books and scholarly publications above.) Of course, scholarly reports can be overridden by popular vote and I've seen it countless times, but in most cases (including this one) it just doesn't make sense to me to ignore the literature in favor of an unverifiable "but this might not be what most people would say" argument.
  • As for consensus, it would be nice to have more than just three people's comments. I felt the need to comment because I was born in Hamburg and lived there for quite a bit. It would be nice to see comments, e.g. from a tunnel engineer.

- tameeria (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this seems harsh, but how is it that you have so much time to contribute to this debate but no time to read the official Wikipedia policy on which the decision will be based? There's not a lot of hunting required to find it, as I've linked to it regularly. Now, to your points:
  • Yes, there is generally no need for a two-way disambiguation, but this is not a hard and fast rule. Propose deletion of the disambiguation page by all means, if that seems a good thing to you. This is not the place for that discussion, I can show you how to propose it if you like. It's also a shame the the existing disambiguation page has been modified to reflect one person's view while this debate was proceding, but at least they have now decided not to blank it completely.
  • As you say, the second point is mere speculation.
  • The phrase the greatest number of English speakers comes from official Wikipedia policy on article names. Yes, verifiability is required even of article names, but verifiability is not in question here (and rarely is in move discussions). The question here is, what is the best name to choose from several possible accurate (and verifiable) ones?
  • Heartily agree it would be good to have more people contribute. Unfortunately the aggressive style of some of the comments above will discourage many who may otherwise express their views, and we have several policies that discourage such contributions for that reason among others. But I must also say that while a tunnel engineer might give us the official name, this doesn't carry a lot of weight here. See User talk:Andrewa/systematic names for some discussion as to whether such names should carry more weight.
Thank you for your comments, and the time taken to make them. Andrewa (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. This seems to be a matter where disambiguation is made when necessary, outside Wikipedia as well as within. It is helpful to have it. We could possibly let Elbe Tunnel redirect here, and add the now-missing disambiguation link to Elbe Tunnel (disambiguation) (at Elbe Tunnel unless it is changed to redirect here) at the top of this article (especially needed if Elbe Tunnel does redirect here, helpful even when it doesn't). Keeping the Elbe Tunnel disambiguation page is the simplest way to include "St. Pauli" information as well, and perhaps a bit about purposes and uses. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The related question of what to do with the unqualified name Elbe Tunnel, assuming it's not a suitable name for an article on either tunnel (and I think that's clear, on grounds of ambiguity), is difficult. On the one hand there's no great damage in having it point to the article on the new tunnel, just so long as the page name and a suitable hatnote make it clear that there's another claimant to the name. It's not in my view as good a solution as having it point to or be the disambiguation page. My fear is that, if we allow it to be a redirect of any kind, we won't have finished this discussion... it will come back again and again, until like the unjust judge we are worn away. That's not a good reason for doing the wrong thing of course, but it's an extra incentive to try to do the right thing even if it takes a bit of extra discussion now. Andrewa (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Another proposal

[edit]

Should we rename the Old Elbe Tunnel article to St. Pauli Elbtunnel or something similar? This might be a way forward. I have no feeling on whether it's a good idea yet, but I note recent edits to both the article (anonymous) and the disambiguation page that suggest this might be a better name for it. Can these claims be backed up? Andrewa (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, only 73 ghits doesn't inspire confidence. It seems to be an accurate name, but perhaps it's not all that common. Andrewa (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BRILIANT!!! Seriously :) That is exactly what I was trying to do. I have already got the ingredients for it in place. I have formed a page (Strictly a redirect page mind you) in which St. Pauli Elbtunnel goes to the page for "Old Elbe Tunnel" Now for the newer Elbe Tunnel we should make the "Elbe Tunnel" page have a Disambiguation remark on the top which it will ask if you were referring to the "St. Pauli Elbtunnel" and you can click there to go to that tunnels page. Likewise we make "New Elbe Tunnel" strictly a redirect page and move the content to "Elbe tunnel". When this is accomplished you solve the disambiguation problem (Point for you!!) while retaining the integrity of local naming conventions (Point for me!!). I am sorry for turning this in to a showdown. However when someone does not care what the Deutsch people call something:
The problem is, we're still short of evidence that it's a good proposal. We know it's your opinion, and that you've put it very forcefully. But that doesn't in itself justify a rename. Andrewa (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As for the claim that because the Deutsch call it "Elbtunnel" it there fore MUST be called EITHER Elbe Tunnel or Elbtunnel, I disagree. Although there's some ongoing debate on this, English Wikipedia policy is still to use English. If you wish to change that policy, propose this by all means. Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) as the first step, and then perhaps Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Andrewa (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)"
I can view this as a dis respect of the Deutsch and out here in California I get "All Germans MUST be Nazis" or "Germans MUST be mean people" because that is all the see in their history classes. Based on what I saw in the writing I was putting on my "Must support all that is Deutsch" battle forces together, because I was seeing similar rhetoric that I see around here in California when I get people who ask "Why do you not learn Spanish?" and I think "I have no interest in doing so" as I will NEVER step foot in a Spanish peaking land EVER. Having lived in California my whole life all I had was Some realm of Roman based stuff shoved in my face Spanish (the most of any of them), Italian, French ETC...(As California Wikipedia states "California has the highest percentage of roman Catholics of ANY state") and having lived in Deutschland for 1 1/2 years it was a nice change of pace and a great fresh perspective on the world. With that and traveled in France and Italy I am more pleased with Deutschland in the realm of order, discipline, cleanlieness, quality of people, and overall Cultural vibrancy. Somehow that love and overarching appreciation makes me a bad person. I love Deutschland Plain and simple. I plan on moving there, and living in Kiel for good here maybe in less than 5 years. I hope this can close your hard feelings about me and that we can move forward and as professional editors of Wikipedia we can execute our mission to provide ACCURATE yet NON-AMBIGUOUS articles to further educate our brethren in the world of things they either never hear of, or things they may have heard of but in a WHOLE NEW WAY!! That is the Beauty of Wikipedia ladies and gentlemen. ;)
Thank you,
MKLPTR
MKLPTR (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect is intended. I'm sorry you have had such negative experiences. I'm told my great grandmother spoke no English, only German, and she certainly wasn't a Nazi, and nor was her son my grandfather, who was obviously fluent in German. I too have had some very happy times in Germany; On my last visit there I was best man at a friend's wedding. But none of this seems to support the rename we're considering. Andrewa (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I un-watched this page, but came back here when I saw it was moved to the backlog. I have to say, I find it amazing and somewhat amusing that the discussion turned from a tunnel in Germany that most of the English-speaking world will probably never know about to Nazis. Now that's Wikipedia live! It really makes it look like an argument for the sake of wasting of time.
Anyway, last comments from me: I still support moving this page to Elbe Tunnel as that is the most common usage plus most instances of Elbe Tunnel in English publications actually mean the new tunnel. The original request was "Please help us determine correct English usage." I thought the publications established that.
I oppose moving the Old Elbe Tunnel to St. Pauli Elbe Tunnel because I can find no reliable English source using St. Pauli Elbe Tunnel. However, St. Pauli Elbtunnel is the "official" name on German city maps (e.g. [2]) whereas Elbtunnel is used for the Autobahn tunnel (e.g. [3]), so I guess that's a borderline case. In Hamburg, we simply call the old one Alter Elbtunnel and I can find two English publications on Google Scholar calling it "Old Elbe Tunnel" but not a single match to "St. Pauli Elbe Tunnel."
I totally don't understand the discussion of what to do with the page Elbe Tunnel if this is not moved and I would strongly oppose creating a new dab page. There is no need for yet another page about these tunnels. Why couldn't Elbe Tunnel be kept as dab page if this move wasn't happening? Making a new dab page for the sake of redirecting the former dab page Elbe Tunnel makes even less sense to me than anything else that has been suggested so far. It's just cluttering Wikipedia with unnecessary dab/redirect pages and doesn't solve the question at hand.
I suspect the best solution might be to simply consolidate and merge both tunnels into Elbe Tunnel and have two subsections there like the German Wiki does. I mean, honestly, how many people in the English-speaking world will be looking for these tunnels on Wikipedia anyway? How many Americans even know there is a river called Elbe? I doubt the tunnels need separate pages, especially given the short length of these articles.
So in summary, my vote goes for merge if moving is such a big problem. - tameeria (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Towel to be thrown!!
Ok. I see on the Wiki Project Germany page that this page needed fixing up. So I came along and fixed it up, and suggested a rewording of the title thinking it would be a "slam dunk" and an easy process because I had substantial evidence to back my claim. I did not want to argue to "waste time" but to fight for the integrity of the name. Some wouldn't hear it, probably because they thought because I am 22 years of age I must not know what I am talking about, but whatever. The point is this argument is a glimpse of the overall societal problem. . . Extremism. I listened to others views and made concessions and incorporated others views into a bilateral solution but because others thought their way was the only way people made themselves look like fools (including myself!). Wikipedia is meant to be a tool and a beacon of a democratic process. Democracy requires concessions, and concessions require open minds. Please take these words and live them for this will brighten all attitudes around you. I will be placing this article in a new "Disputed" section under Wiki Project Germany's Transportation department and maybe an international transportation expert will come allong and put in their 10(€uro) cents on this one.
Later and happy editing ;)
-MKLPTR (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still another proposal

[edit]

How about Elbe Tunnel (1911) and Elbe Tunnel (1975) as the article names? Just trying some lateral thinking. I'm not satisfied with any proposed outcome yet. I got the new tunnel opening date from http://www.papascott.de/archives/2002/10/26/elbtunnel-party/ and hope it's correct, the current article doesn't give it when last I looked.

Then both articles need a good copyedit... some of the phrasing is now a bit peculiar, enough that I'd be suspicious of the claims of some of the writers to be native English speakers, except I know from experience that living in another culture does exactly that to many people... notably, in the 60s and 70s my father who speaks only a little German would often visit Germany, and would always come back speaking English in just that fashion! Andrewa (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that nobody speaks, I propose to relist this proposal as Old Elbe Tunnel -> Elbe Tunnel (1911) and New Elbe Tunnel -> Elbe Tunnel (1975). That will get it out of the WP:RM backlog and give everyone a chance to express an opinion. But it seems a good compromise to me, in fact better than a compromise, it seems to meet all the various requirements raised above. Andrewa (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting sounds good. I see no consensus here yet. Dekimasuよ! 02:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted with new proposed target names:

  • Old Elbe Tunnel -> Elbe Tunnel (1911)
  • New Elbe Tunnel -> Elbe Tunnel (1975)

Survey

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]

Gee, it's peaceful here now. Now half-way through the relisting period, and no votes other than mine. I'm a bit nervous about counting that as a consensus. Andrewa (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reversible lanes

[edit]

Article read The tunnel has a unique feature, in that the center bores can switch direction to meet the needs of given commute scenarios... Hmmmm, worldwide it's quite a common feature of tunnels and bridges, see Reversible lane. Is it perhaps unusual in Germany? Andrewa (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Put that on there due to the few numbers of roadways I have been on that incorporate that feature. I know the Golden Gate Bridge does and so does the Caldecott Tunnel and a section of I-5 (Interstate 5) in Seattle, Washington USA. Which over all may total 15 miles max (25 Kilometers Max) of over 2,000 Miles (over 3.000 Kilometers) combined roadway I have driven. Yes it may be common feature LIMITED to Tunnels and Bridges. But this feature is overall unique to Germany and distance of reversed lanes over total distance of roadway in the world. That is what was meant. MKLPTR (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean it's unique in Germany rather than to Germany. That's what I was guessing. In Sydney, it's quite common, more so than in other parts of Australia but it's not confined to Sydney. As well as on bridges and in tunnels, it often occurs on short sections of highway passing through shopping centres, where it has been impractical to either widen the road or to bypass the bottleneck owing to ribbon development along the highway. This sort of problem is particularly common in Sydney, where the main roads developed along the ridges rather than in the valleys owing to the local geomorphology. Andrewa (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not unique in Germany, unless you meant unique to german motorways. Ever come to Berlin, drive the Heerstrasse between Theodor-Heuss-Platz and Spandau. Five lanes, center lane changes. KapHorn (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elbe_Tunnel_(1975)&oldid=1196650863"