Talk:1915 Çanakkale Bridge

Name of article

It's plainly confusing to have the date "1915" at the head of the name of the article. When dates are included referring to a construction like that, they almost always refer to the time when the object was built or inaugurated. No one would write "1776 Freedom Tower" as the name of an article on One World Trade Center, even though the figure 1776 was deliberately included in the construction as a symbolic nod to the Declaration of independence. The date 1915 and the other symbolic figures featured in the construction of this bridge are essentially a Turkish propaganda ploy - it's not the business of Wikipedia to include the year 1915 in the title, it will just make people wonder "was this actually built in 1915?". It would be much better to trim the title to "Canakkale Bridge", and that's how most people are going to refer to it anyway, even in Turkey. 188.150.64.57 (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

No one would write "1776 Freedom Tower" because its name is the One World Trade Center. It's not the business of Wikipedia to tell the Turkish government how to name it's bridges. I think we should be guided by the majority of English language sources. e.g. The Independent calls it the "Canakkale 1915 Bridge"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, the pseudo-date should be removed from the name of the article. Pretty much no one, except Turkish government officials, is going to say "we crossed the 1915 Canakkale Bridge driving up to Istanbul". 188.150.64.57 (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree tend to agree. Although it's somewhat unlikely they would be speaking in English. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

At least I think, if the date is kept it should be moved to after "Canakkale", as in your link to the Independent. Makes it less confusing. (There's already a page up with that title, and a redirect to it from Dardanelles Bridge - but all that's on it is a pointer to this page.) I suggest it should be the other way around; "1915 Çanakkale Bridge" would be migrated to Çanakkale 1915 Bridge. 188.150.64.57 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The article was originally created, in 2013, as Çanakkale Suspension Bridge by User:1886kusagi, who may have a view on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"1915 Çanakkale Bridge" is used my multiple English language reliable sources: Eurasian Times, Reuters, CNN- I found all these sources when searching Google for "Dardanelles Bridge". I don't see that anything else but "1915 Çanakkale Bridge" is the WP:COMMONNAME (but happy for someone to demonstrate otherwise if I'm wrong). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

GoogleSearch for "Canakkale 1915 Bridge" gives me about 17,300 results. GoogleSearch for "1915 Canakkale Bridge" gives me about 159,000 results. So I think you are right. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The title remains very confusing, yet correct, and the explanation needs to be much sooner in the article, not the very last thing - and with a hint ("the name is symbolic", or similar) in the Lead.Davidships (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The name of this article needs to be moved immediately to get rid of the confusing date. UserTwoSix (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

People will assume it was built in 1915? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It really feels like the Turkish government is trolling. Or cultural differences. Either way, this is the English Wikipedia. UserTwoSix (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This could be a ploy along the lines of "any publicity is good publicity". They are making people learn about this victory of theirs in World War One by causing a confusion. It almost feels like propaganda. UserTwoSix (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see, a ploy. Or maybe "trolling", lol. Not just because of differences in typical Turkish word order? But I'm interested to know where you think his "confusion" arises? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

What need is there to make people learn? In turkey this victory is common knowledge, like the 4th of july in america. Freedom Tower isn't teaching anyone about independence from britain. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 14:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and America has its own special turkey celebration anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There is strong consensus against the move. The RM was initiated very recently but it is heading towards a SNOW close, although editors are welcome to contest this close at my talk page. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

---

1915 Çanakkale Bridge → Dardanelles Bridge – Since the bridge already has another name, possibly the simplest solution is to use that name to get rid of the confusing date (1915) which doesn't represent bridge construction or opening but rather commemorates a WWI victory. UserTwoSix (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The Dardanelles name is also more specific (referencing a strait rather than an entire province). UserTwoSix (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Still waiting to learn what this "confusion" is. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The "1915 Çanakkale Bridge" sounds like it is differentiating from the "2022 Çanakkale Bridge", which is the one that just opened and set the record for longest suspension bridge. UserTwoSix (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

But we don't have a "2022 Çanakkale Bridge", nor any other Çanakkale Bridge article with a year in the name, and none of the sources used in this article use that name? How many sources use the name "Dardanelles Bridge"? Do any?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Strong Oppose This is not how the bridge is called by Turkish media. It's also not the official name and its also a barely used name in international media. This proposal seems unreasonable. A date in articles (in this case would be date referring to construction) is always between parenthesises. This is not the case here.SoapDispenser94 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Strong Oppose I don't see how there's any confusion. That's the name of the bridge. We call things what they are, we don't just make up names for them. MrAureliusR_Talk! 21:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Weak Oppose It is apparently the official English version of the Turkish name, and that is naturally used by most sources reporting its completion and opening. Although a good number refer also to the "Dardanelles bridge" or "bridge over the Dardanelles", I agree that it is not the current common name. That may change over time, and I am mindful that we do not automatically follow an official name for article titles, see 15 July Martyrs Bridge for example (where, re my point in the earlier section, the significance of the official name is explained up front).Davidships (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose It's the official name of the bridge, and it hasn't been open long enough for any other name to come to prominence. We can't just make up new names because we disagree with the one it has. Come back in a year or two to see if a different WP:COMMONNAME has taken hold. BSMRD (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose even in English language sources, it seems to be almost exclusively referred to as the 15 Cannakale Bridge. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose True, we don't always have to respect the "official" name. But in this case WP:COMMONNAME seems to be unavoidable. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment: There are other possible English names, including Çanakkale Strait Bridge and Çanakkale Bridge and Çanakkale 1915 Bridge. UserTwoSix (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to refuse to use the actually used name for the bridge, and the proposed title isn't really used in the sources at all, as Martinevans123 pointed out. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This seems to be motivated by the above discussion claiming that '1915 Canakkale Bridge' is a propaganda method by the Turkish govt. ??? In Turkey 1915 is probably commonly understood to refer to the victory and they want to commemorate that. There are plenty of western historical events that are commemorated in buildings - Plaza de Mayo in Argentina directly references the May Revolution and Independence, Missouri is directly named after independence from Britain. This is the used name for the bridge so we have to use it. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – I'm still waiting to hear why it is such a problem and what the WP:COMMONNAME alternatives, used in reliable sources, are. I admit that I found it "confusing", by which I mean interesting, when it came up on the main page. This confusion – OMG it says it's new but it says 1915 in the name – lasted for at least half a second and then I clicked on it to see what it was ... ah the joys of a hypertext-based encyclopaedia, no? And then my confusion was all better and I had learnt something new. Please do not change the name until and unless there is some clear and better alternative in the future. Thanks and best to all DBaK (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 1915 Çanakkale Bridge, October 2021.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Height

Both 334m & 318m are mentioned as being the height of the towers. Can someone confirm which is correct & amend accordingly? Thanks 120.16.185.204 (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)