Talk:Jin'an Bridge

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 April 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

China: Transportation Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Transportation in China task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Requested move 28 February 2017

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: I have moved the article as proposed, but I will now open a procedural nomination at AfD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taku Bridge → Jinshajiang Jin'an Bridge – Name, design and location of the project have changed Glabb (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Messy. These seem to be two completely different bridges. All they have in common is that one has replaced the other. The question is, will the previous proposal (see http://www.highestbridges.com/wiki/index.php?title=Jinshajiang_Bridge_Taku for details) merit its own article, or should it just be a section of the article on the bridge now under construction? Andrewa (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they are the same or different, the bottom line is no bridge has been constructed yet, and I can't find any construction updates online. The only notability claim is that it will be the fourth highest in the world, but who knows, maybe it's all bluff to attract investment, may be it won't even be built. Shouldn't this be AFDed per WP:TOOSOON? Timmyshin (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... I had assumed that http://www.highestbridges.com would be a reliable source, but looking at this page and this page and others it seems to be a wiki dedicated to promoting China. The only other source given for the article has, as you say, no construction updates at all, in fact it seems to be completely out of date if we take highestbridges.com at face value. So we have no sources at all. Andrewa (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move(and tidy): Leave the Taku bridge as a section i.e. previous proposal. The G4216 expressway is under construction and will be built. The crossing of the Jinsha River will be a record breaking bridge regardless of exactly which route is constructed. it is definitely notable. There are also multiple sources although not in English e.g. http://www.ynglsj.com/news/1483476701773.html. It also mentioned in the Chinese wiki for the expressway, a page that is well referenced see https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%BD%E6%94%80%E9%AB%98%E9%80%9F%E5%85%AC%E8%B7%AF ShakyIsles (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not about the expressway, but about a particular river crossing and two different proposals for it, and their status is still not clear in this discussion. I'm afraid that the policy is not to consider other language Wikipedias as reliable sources, but the references there should be investigated (by editors who read both Chinese and English) and added to our article, which still has no reliable-source references at all. Andrewa (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Taku Bridge(塔库大桥) and Jin'an Bridge(金安大桥) are two different schemes for Jinsha River crossing. One will cross the river at Taku Village(塔库村), Da'an Town(大安彝族纳西族乡), Yongsheng County(永胜县). Another will cross the river at Zengming Village(增明村), Jin'an Town(金安镇), Gucheng District(古城区), which is in the upper reaches, about 15km from Taku along the Jinsha River. The Taku Bridge Scheme is famous for its height of 512 meters. But at last, Taku Scheme was not selected in 2016 or earlier. This expressway G4216 which is under construction will never pass through Taku Village. Taku Bridge will not be built. So that most people have never heard of Taku Bridge at all. So I support turning it into a section of the article on the Jin'an Bridge(If that article should be created) . I am a Chinese live in Panzhihua, which is at the east end of the Lijiang-Panzhihua Expressway. So I always pay attention to this project from the media. And I drew the route map named "Lijiang Panzhihua Expressway Map.svg".--Zhangzj cet (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We seem only a little closer to identifying any useful sources. Is there any point relisting again? Andrewa (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewa, I don't see any useful source or any indication a further relisting would make things much clearer. I would suggest closing as no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, but it's not my call as I'm involved. It's a difficult one IMO. There must be sources for a project of this magnitude and significance, English ones even. Surely it's not all a fabrication? And if it were to turn out to be such, how could Wikipedia possibly defend ourselves against what would essentially be cyberwarfare by a superpower? Andrewa (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. For some reason I focused on the relisting comment rather than the rest of the conversation that I had just read. I suppose I am somewhat involved now since I have commented and am commenting again, so I won't make the close, but I would suggest to the closer a close of no consensus and then possibly taking this to AfD. AfD being the only real defense we have hear against possible cyberwarfare by a superpower if it is in fact that. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tony, this page should be AFDed. User:Zhangzj cet appears familiar with the project, and they said "Taku Bridge will not be built". I'm not sure what the guideline on bridges are, but I don't think we should create an article for Jin'an Bridge before it is actually in use. Just look at Taku Bridge, a proposal doesn't mean it will be built. Most likely G4216 expressway will finish before 2021 with a notable bridge over Jinsha River, but WP:CRYSTAL & WP:TOOSOON apply here. Timmyshin (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it: Everyone was just debating and going around in circles. I've just moved it. Your efforts are probably better spent updating the article.ShakyIsles (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've asked ShakyIsles to reverse the move on their talk page as being out of line with WP:RMCI since they were involved. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment - per decision at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2017_March, I am relisting this for one more week, in case any further information can be brought to light. It seems that there is a lack of sourcing and no firm evidence to support the move, right now though, so if there's no further discussion, this seems like a "no consensus" case. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - A title change would not improve the article, which is currently a stub. However, I could not find a widely used name for the bridge. Therefore, per WP:NC-ZH#Place names, let's use the "default naming pattern" for now until the article expands and the widely used name is found. --George Ho (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2017 (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.