Talk:Crimean Bridge

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bridges and Tunnels Start‑class Low‑importance 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ukraine Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine 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.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: Technology & engineering / Economy / History / Politics and law Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force. This article is supported by the economy of Russia task force. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

How is that? De jure the bridge connects Russia and Ukraine throuth the international waters. This bridge is the same Russian as Ukrainian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.10.253 (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bridge is planned by Russia, counstructed by Russia, kept by Russia, named by Russia, used by Russia. Ukraine does not recognise the bridge and states it is illegal. How can it be 'The longest bridge in Ukraine de jure'. Moreover, Ukraine is fully a part of Europe so the statement that the bridge is the longest in Europe fully describe Ukraine too. I suggest deleteing the statement about Ukraine here. History of the bridge (including aneexation) is fully described in the paper. 83.242.173.252 (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the history section could use some references. Bericht (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This bridge in this picture is obviously the Forth Bridge not an old Kerch bridge. Perhaps it would be better described as "Stalin in front of a proposed Kerch Bridge modelled on the Forth Bridge"?Andrewdpcotton (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it is really a different bridge then it should be for that article. (I have no idea myself, I don't know any of these bridges anyway.) 2A02:8388:1641:4700:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The intro describes the Kerch Strait Bridge as "under construction in Russia", which seems to violate neutral POV to me because one side of the bridge (the Crimean side) is internationally recognized as being Ukrainian territory rather than Russian, despite its March 2014 annexation by Russia. I'm going to tweak the language ("by Russia"?) to try to make it more neutral. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 06:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The lede should at the very least reflect the fact that this project aims to form a closer bond between disputed land and Russia proper. I don't care if it's called "Russian-occupied Crimea", but the current lede violates neutral POV imho. Haage42 (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, how do we sort this out? Are you suggesting that this bridge is being built in Ukraine by Russia? That doesn't make sense either. Santamoly (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we stop the Russia/Ukraine edit wars and insert something that avoids the issue? Such as "the Kerch Strait allows ships to transit from the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov" - or whatever is correct as to physical geography.

It should should be mentioned who builds it. The article currently does this, when the (main) company is mentioned. It can also be mentioned that Russia pays for it, which is also a factual statement. The issue of the territory is a disputed one in regards to the two countries (Ukraine and Russia). Since that legal status will most likely not be settled for a long time, the wikipedia article should also reflect that, by simply stating observable facts (such as the company that is building it). 2A02:8388:1641:4700:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

talk @Santamoly, Haage42, and Moxfyre:This article breaks a neutrality in a frank and impudent form

It is written from positions of the invader of the Ukrainian Crimean Tatar territory. This article has to be marked as "it isn't recommended completely for reading" It is written in style of the Russian state machinery of false propaganda The dispute on the Crimea will be to close by estimates of analysts in 2021 a maximum. The Russian economy under santion will receive a default soon. Therefore to consider a problem to the Crimea as the eternal conflict it isn't necessary. Already now life of the Crimea in connection with sanctions is economically very difficult. In this article the international law is violated and Ukraine is thrown out. There are Resolutions of the UN where is accurately written that the Crimea the occupied territory. In the legislation Ukraine - the Crimea it is temporary the territory.

The statement that " the final design has not been selected" is obviously out of date since the construction is quite far along. A little information as to the type of bridge design would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.53.146 (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article right now has more information about the history and the "why". But the upper top-most part should be about the bridge itself.

I understand that it is presently built and not finished but once it is finished, I suggest that the factual statements come first, perhaps on the right side with the statistics. And then perhaps a SEPARATE article about the HISTORY of the bridge, linked in from the main article. For example, I came to wikipedia some minutes ago because I wanted to know the STATUS of the bridge; I did not particularly care to read the history to the build up to it. 2A02:8388:1641:4700:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be divided into two articles (Kerch Strait Bridge and Kerch Strait Railroad Bridge or Kerch Strait Bridge (1944) and Kerch Strait Bridge (2018)). Bridges have a different location and type. Of the total, only that both are thrown across the Kerch Strait. See articles ru:Мост через Керченский пролив and ru:Керченский железнодорожный мост. --Insider (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. You are making two conflicting proposals there, apparently with the sole aim of fragmenting the article. The article deals with the current and previous bridges at that location, and is not particularly lengthy, so I see no need to split it. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no contradiction in my words. Maybe then merge Hobart Bridge and Tasman Bridge? The case, which is more worthy of one article. One bridge is replaced by another in the same place. Places (12 km), times (73 years), appointments (+highway) are different in the case of Kerch Strait Bridge. You can see the articles in ruwiki. They are both big. You can expand the article about the old bridge in enwiki. --Insider (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Then make a new proposal and that can be discussed. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not the only example to show the incorrectness of the arguments. The bridges are different, different articles are written in accordance with them. --Insider (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the article's name be changed to Crimean bridge as that is the official name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarne Colman (talk • contribs) 12:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it only makes sense to call it buy its official name. The alternative/historic names can still be mentioned in the article. Newuser1138 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It is an official name and there is no controversy. mixer (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. "Crimea Bridge" has also been used, but "Crimean Bridge" seems to be preferred now in current English-language sources, such as [1][2][3]. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been WP:BOLD and renamed the page "Crimean Bridge (Crimea)", the disambiguation being needed because there is already a disambiguation page for Crimean Bridge, linking to Krymsky Bridge in Moscow and to this bridge. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed below that the article should be renamed to "Crimean Bridge (Kerch Strait)" since only one end of the bridge is in Crimea. However [4] shows that most of it, and almost all the over-sea sections, are still within Crimean borders. What do people think? — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is less borders than meaningful disambiguator. Crimean Bridge (Crimea) comes too close to Department of Redundancy Department. For example, Massachusetts Avenue needing to be disambiguated between the one in Massachusetts and the one in the nation's capital (and a few other cities as well). Rather than disambiguating by the state, they are disambiguated by the city. In this case, the reasonable disambiguators are Kerch (destination city), Kerch, Crimea (more explicit name for city) Kerch Strait (geographic feature), Crimea-Krasnodar (only bridge between those two regions), or even Crimean Bridge (Krasnodar), which is the perspective that resulted in the name in the first place (it's the bridge to Crimea from Krasnodar).

I haven't read the whole thing, but some parts of this article are clearly written like personal opinions. I've tagged the 'Reduction of prices' section. I would normally remove it, per WP:NOTESSAY. But I'm giving whoever wrote this a chance to rewrite it in a more encyclopedic tone. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why this article is titled Crimean Bridge (Crimea)? Isn't it a bit repetitive since we have two Crimeas in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.106.112 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To distinguish it from the Crimean Bridge in Moscow. There's a discussion in the #Name section above, if you have a better proposal. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it is posible to add more info aout this ? i readed that building of this ship limited ships to 60-70k toons ships, while before that, ports in azov sea, especialy matriopol was served by ships big as 100k toons. to be more specific to - lenght 160 m, beam 31 m, underwater 8 m, height cca 34m. so that some ships allready cut off thier poles to pass under that bridge. so, it is realy naval trade at ukraine realy hampered by this bridge, or it is just propaganda ? and more on it, i readed that main limiting factor is clearance of 35m under bridge, so why it was not higher ? after all, bridge build by russia was mainly based on joined project between rusia and ukraine, or it was completly new russian project ? 2A00:1028:9198:E50E:7C36:3949:13E7:B9D7 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Few weeks and already so much happened? Or rather "Planned economic results"?Xx236 (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC) Two videos about one person? Xx236 (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting this whole section as WP:OR violation. A discussion like this should be based on RSs discussing potential impact of the bridge on price reduction. The cited sources don't make any such connection. This is a classic case of WP:SYNTH. Eperoton (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]