Talk:Great Belt Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Talk:Great Belt Fixed Link
)

Great Belt Bridge or Great Belt Fixed Link?

I suggest we either move this page back to Great Belt Bridge, or alternatively make main page under that title and then have a sub page on the fixed link. I have two reasons for this suggestion: 1, It is the name that this construction is commonly referred too, both in Denmark and Internationally. 2, The Danish page that links to this is called Storebæltsbroen (Great Belt Bridge), and not Den Faste Storebæltsforbindelse. --Mecil 15:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You are right. --Arigato1 20:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undone. This is a comment from 9 months ago and there is no support for this, see further down where there is more discussion. The article talks about the entire fixed link, the bridge and the tunnels. Please seek consensus before moves such as this. ++Lar: t/c 01:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page move appropriate?

This article begins by describing the suspension bridge, but soon turns to considering both the Eastern and the Western bridge and the tunnel. Perhaps a title like "

Great Belt fixed link" would be better for an article on two bridges and a tunnel; should the page be moved? — Peter L <talk|contribs>
11:55, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I created
Samuel Wantman 00:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Highest point in Denmark

The top of the pillars of the Great Belt is not the highest point in Denmark (except Faroer and Greenland). It is the top of the mast of Rø Transmitter.

toll charges

Anyone know what the charges for using the bridge actually are, for the benefit of anyine thinking of using it? Sandpiper 17:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today it's 200 DKK for a car under 6 m. For other vehicles see [1] and click the UK flag. --Oami 22:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, and it's DKK 5,793.00 for a passenger train and DKK 5,373.00 for a freight train in case you have a train that's all yours :) Sorry about the reply time, btw — Peter L <talk|contribs> 23:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finland Suing Denmark

Does anyone have more information regarding this? I don't see finlands problem, as they could have gone through Öresund which had a tunnel on the danish side.81.235.136.245 (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched a little in the Swedish or Danish language about this and only the suit from 1991 has been found [2], nothing more. The Finns seemed to have dropped the issue. The problem with Öresund is that it is much more shallow. -- BIL (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/denmark/images/dtr2.jpg
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/denmark/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—

NotifyOnline 09:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—

NotifyOnline 19:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Assessment comment The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Great Belt Bridge/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following
several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs references and inline citations. Hemmingsen 14:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 14:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

Great Belt Fixed Link. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on

Great Belt Fixed Link. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of structures

The articles says there are five structures but only lists three: a tunnel and two bridges. What is correct? Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 23:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 August 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: moved to

criteria. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]


Great Belt fixed link predates moves back and forth between Great Belt Fixed Link and Great Belt Bridge, but capitalization has never been discussed, and should not be controversial here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Polyamorph (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A quick google search did not find any examples without capitalization. Sources clearly regard the whole name to be a proper noun. Tammbecktalk 17:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A "quick Google search" generally finds results that come from Wikipedia. Book search is a better place to look for usage in reliable source. I see 5 with lowercase "fixed link" in the first page of 10 hits at Google Book Search. This is clearly not close to "consistently capitalized in reliable sources". Dicklyon (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rationale by nom – The n-gram stats show about half lowercase up until 2005, when Wikipedia adopted the article title "Great Belt Fixed Link". After that, there's a trend toward more capitalization, but still nowhere near the threshold of "consistently" specified in
    WP:NCCAPS. So per these guidelines, WP should use lowercase "fixed link", like half of book sources do. Dicklyon (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Polyamorph: what happened to my "oppose" !vote?  — Amakuru (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Was it at
    WP:RM/TR? Usually I would copy any meaningful discussion but its possible I missed it? Polyamorph (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Here is the entry at
    WP:RM/TR. I think I interpreted your comments as simply technical discussion about how the move might not be uncontroversial and so should go to a full RM, so I didn't copy them here. Feel free to add again below. Polyamorph (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Amakuru: You noted that it appeared to be a "bordeline" case, needing discussion, based on a quick Google search. I hope you'll look at the stats in books before deciding whether to oppose or support. Dicklyon (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polyamorph and Dicklyon: apologies, I misremembered what I'd done, I thought I had opposed it outright. No problem then, I will look in more detail in due course.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom; this is not consistently capitalized in actual sources like books, no matter what WP-polluted G-hits are misleading Tammbeck to think.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate – moving back to Great Belt Bridge as suggested in sections above might be a happy alternative, likely more in agreement with COMMONNAME. The "Bridge" in that is much more commonly capped in books. Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be consistent with Øresund Bridge, which is a similar bridge+tunnel fixed link.Tammbecktalk 09:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate –
    WP:CRITERIA. I had no idea what a fixed link is but I clearly recognise what a bridge is. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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.

Maps (and other issues)

The maps do not at all show where the tunnel is, and become completely useless when trying to view them in detail (in search for better visibility and text information, which often is present at the pictures' own pages - but non of that here). A non-helpful idea, to link to some coordinate-thingy, for ordinary encyclopedia readers/ viewers, who are not all satellite-coordinates-nerds. A simple, drawn map/ sketch would do the trick.

- WHY was freighter Bella on a course that would have had her crash into the bridge? HOW did "the navy" prevent that (and why not the police?)

- The wording of the very last sentence of the article is a bit weird (overcomplicated). And what where the results?

- For such looong references lists Wikipedia will have to think about having an extra page, like the talk page, as that's really becoming a problem especially in the mobile format...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:F61:1640:9446:96F9:7891:5AA5 (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Belt_Bridge&oldid=1203159487"