Talk:New Suez Canal

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

Where is it?[edit]

Where is it? Where does it run to and from? Start point and end point? North or South of the Great Bitter Lake? Or both? There is much else unclear in the text. Is the new section continuous or discontinuous? Is the new canal parallel to (and separate from) the old one? Or is it a widening and deepening of the existing canal? The text seems to imply that both are the case, but this is not stated unambiguously. In short, more detail and clearer statements are required.

I strongly agree with the above comment. Plus, is there a map available with English descriptions for this article in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.148.71.212 (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, strongly agree with the above. Came here wondering where it is relative to the existing canal, etc having not heard of it before it appeared on the front page... Also went to the Suez Canal page which seemed to have nothing on this extention/replacement/bypass. - Cheers, Burwellian (Talk) 23:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked on Google aerial photos of the Suez Canal and cannot see an anything of this length that appears as a by-pass either under construction or complete Cls14 (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added co-ordinates and links to maps for both ends to article Cls14 (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just reverted possible vandalism of the co-ordinates. But the infobox map needs urgent attention (or replacement) - it may or may not show the whole new work, and lacks appropriate labelling in English, even to identify which is the new work.Davidships (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks as if that image will be deleted anyway [1]. Davidships (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Suez Canal vs Suez Canal[edit]

Either merge this article into Suez Canal or rename it New Suez Canal project —67.101.5.101 (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we? Sinai Horus 〉〉〉 23:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 August 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Suez Canal → New Suez Canal Project – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. 67.101.5.101 (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the nominator has provided no rationale, I will. The current title, while the official name of the project, is a little misleading. It is not an entirely new canal but modifications and bypasses of the existing canal. More importantly, many of the article's sources append the name of the project with "project", "scheme", et al. to express this. Therefore, I support a move to New Suez Canal project (no caps for "project"). —  AjaxSmack  01:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Whether we like it or not, almost all reliable sources call it a new 35km long (22 mile) waterway built parallel to the existing canal. Yes, this is an extension of the original canal, but to simply call it a "modification" is a serious understatement. The project involved 35 kilometers of dry digging parallel to the narrow southbound wing of the original canal, as well as 37 kilometers of deepening in the wide northbound wing (72 kilometers of digging overall). Finally there is no clear common name here, but Google News results, which are characterized by being the most recent and reliable, show 4,730,000 hits for "new suez canal", slightly more than 4,570,000 for "new suez canal project". Also, you both realize (IP and AjaxSmack) that years from now it won't be labelled as a "project" anymore, right? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nor article title nor project name is about what we like. The project's name is a given, and btw no one is disputing that name or its translation/transcription here. It's their choice. Personally I think the word "new" is inappropriate in the project name, as I described below. Anyway, we should use it capitalised always (being a proper name), "new" should never be lowercase (descriptive). This difference nicely separates PR-like publications from true sources. -DePiep (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And mine says that years from now this whole thing will be called the Suez Canal and that the new parallel extension will be called the New Suez Canal, not "New Suez Canal project" (that's the whole point of this move request), unless the latter naming becomes more commonly used in the future, which is not the case right now. And I don't care much about other stuff. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not "new" Oppose [- this is not a new Suez Canal, there is just one Suez Canal, but it is the formal name of a project. This article describes the latest in many improvement projects since 1869 - for example, the four by-passes completed by 1980 or successive widening/deepening projects [2] - some of which have been comparable in scale. Whether or not the current works will be called a "project" or "improvements" in the future we do not know, though "project" as a descriptor is not limited to future events but is commonly used in relation to enhancements of infrastructure. though the whole thing will no doubt continue to known as the "Suez Canal". There is no consensus by RS on whether this is "new" or "New", a project, an expansion, works; even Egyptian sources are not consistent. The Google News poll above is flawed because it doesn't distinguish between "new" and "New", ignores synonyms for "project" and doesn't take account of headline styles where adjectives are also given capital initials. New Suez Canal project will not mislead readers, while the existing title does. Davidships (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)][reply]
DePiep's argument below has merit, and does seem to follow WP principles. The status of this "project" can be addressed in the article. Davidships (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I need to reconsider. -DePiep (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Oppose. In short: it actually is the title of an existing, formally named project. Then, this name is spelled unique enough, it has no need to be ambiguated (by adding extra words). And don't try to explain the topic in the title.
1. Use the given name. I assume that the name is translated correct, either by the Egypt project organisation or by sources. It could be the the indef article (The ...) should be added, but no one here is asking for that. The translation is verifiable, good. With this, it is a proper name (WP:TITLE, and we are not allowed to change that for article title (no original research).
2. Next, is the (current) title ambiguous by spelling? Clearly not, because no other title comes near. (This were an issue if there is a play or book from 1869 named The New Suez Canal, but not so). Now our titling policy says something like: "if there is no ambiguity, then don't add words" (like "project"). Because that is not by precision & conciseness.
3. The Title Trap. I too fell for the Titling Trap (is what I struck): Don't try to explain/describe/define the topic in the title. That is the job for the lede! Don't use the title to tell what it is. Just use the title to give the topic's name (proper, common, or sensible).
4. So I argue think the title "New Suez Canal" is correct for WP. That said, I dislike the bombastic claim for "newness", which is obviously not true and not correct. The project includes deepening of the existing canal, which does not make it "new". Actually, the deepened length is longer that the added lane length. And it remains to be seen that the actual new canal lane (which could be considered a new thing) will be named "New Suez Canal" after all.
5. Verify and RS only. It is our job to rout out each and every PR-victim that writes "new" in lowercase (not as a proper name then, but as a description). this sister project also has the government propaganda (source: one govt publication). For example, above Fitzcarmalan writes:
"almost all reliable sources call it a new 35km long (22 mile) waterway built parallel to the existing (cheat, same link as "new" ;-) ) canal.".
The sources I struck are not reliable, they write "a new canal", the others more seriously write "expansion" etc. Not only does the Egypt govt do this, even the IMF joined the PR-choir. Also, in the same non-verifiable campaign both IMF and Egypt govt claim enormous profits within a few years. In other words: we are being sold something, and that is not encyclopedic. btw, Fitzcarmalan arrives at an 'Oppose' just like me, but for different reasons. -DePiep (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't like the word "Project". It implies it's ongoing, which is won't be in the end Cls14 (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are considering an appropriate name for now, not for some indeterminate point in the future. At present only part of the project has been completed. We can leave the future to look after itself. Davidships (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which "part" exactly? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a "project" may also have ended in the past, like Manhatten Project. -DePiep (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed difficult to say what has actually been completed due to lack of reliable independent sources. It may well be that 35km of new waterway has been dug and was formally opened recently, but whether all work on that and the 37km of widening of the existing canal has actually been completed is not clear. But in any case, the project has two phases - the second has not started yet: [[4]] Davidships (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Link to Suez Canal Authority page[edit]

The following Suez Canal Authority webpage on the project answers some questions posed here: http://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/sc.aspx?show=69 I could have edited the Wikipedia article to incorporate all of the facts of that webpage, but I have other priorities today. Please do so if you have the time and inclination. I believe the maps/graphics would be forbidden for incorporation into the Wikipedia article in view of copyright laws. Does Wikipedia ever request permission from a copyright holder (Suez Canal Authority/Egyptian government in this case) to incorporate material into articles? If someone gets permission from a copyright holder to incorporate copyrighted material into an article, what sort of documentation has Wikipedia accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:4002:E680:55BC:32EE:CA2C:540C (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've used these map to update {{Suez Canal map}} RDT scheme. -DePiep (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New_Canal_claims_vs_facts[edit]

See Talk:Suez_Canal#New_Canal_claims_vs_facts. -DePiep (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Discussion[edit]

Formal request has been received to merge: Suez Canal Area Development Project into New Suez Canal; dated November 26, 2015; discuss here. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 08:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GenQuest, 2nd article is...?-DePiep (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected above. Sorry for the confusion. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 18:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, no indication of separate concepts.--Zoupan 20:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but if merge wins, then I would hope that New Suez Canal is merged into the Suez Canal Area Development Project, meaning keep the article name equal to Suez Canal Area Development Project. I support it because when Sisi announced digging a new Suez it was not only that, he also talked about all the other parts of the project. These two articles should be merged but kept as Suez Canal Area Development Project. Level C (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and  Done Klbrain (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"military flyovers"[edit]

At least in British English a "flyover" is a road bridge crossing another road. This should surely read "military fly-pasts".213.127.210.95 (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Suez_Canal&oldid=1184984272"