Talk:Proposed British Isles fixed sea link connections

Article name

Is there a project called Irish Sea Tunnel that is the subject of this article? I suspect not, but rather that the article should be renamed to be Irish Sea tunnel, or better still, Proposals for an Irish Sea tunnel. See guidelines for naming articles. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

dunno. If that is so why dod you complain about thing s that are common sense being unverified? Alien from brixton (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No doubt what you've written is true, but truth is not the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, verifiability is. This is a core policy and it it quite common sense. While I've no doubt that what you've written is entirely correct, others write things that are ill-informed, or even simply fictions of their own mind, and similarly protest that they what they wrote was just common sense. Making sure that everything that is likely to be challenged is appropriately referenced is a quality control that everyone must consequently work under.

Another related policy you should be aware of is no original research, this includes "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas", which this article, I believe, contains in spades. This does not mean that I believe that anything that you have written is incorrect, but just that it doesn't meet the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia in it's current form. It's no big deal, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such it is a tertiary source - it sums up primary and secondary source information, but doesn't advance any original arguments or ideas of it's own contributors.

On the original matter of my post, if there is no project called Irish Sea Tunnel that is the subject of this article then I'll move the article to Proposals for an Irish Sea tunnel, if you don't mind. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the other articles in the "Planned or proposed tunnels" category, none of them have the words "planned" or "proposed" in the title. Though I must admit I haven't read each article so they could all be planned tunnels for all I know. The Irish Sea tunnel is surely still a propsal and has never been anything other than that? As far as I am aware there is no current project planning for a tunnel to be built any time soon? ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your stance on the naming issue Sony-youth. In addition, I believe any proposal if and when forthcoming, would be described as a Megaproject. I think we can describe it as such in the intro.

Benjym (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Overseas crossings

It would be useful to have a List of overseas crossings including the Channel Tunnel and the Belt Bridge between Denmark and Sweden.

Tabletop (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Cannot be done in stages"

It says that under the last section: Economics and politics... If anyone can explain that please do ~ R.T.G 22:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose what was meant was that the entire length of a fixed link would have to be built in one go, unlike (say) a motorway or a high-speed rail line. However, I don't think it would be strictly true; although the whole length would have to be available from day one, it would be possible to build (assuming a rail tunnel; it might be harder for a bridge or a road link) one running tunnel plus a service tunnel and come back later to put in the second running tunnel. This was actually proposed in the "Mousehole" scheme for the Channel Tunnel. Regardless, the statement in its present form doesn't meet the verifiability requirement.
Grover Snodd (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that the first sense, which is not disputable, is the primary meaning, so arguing about whether some policy is technically met is a red herring. Postlebury (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, no prejudice against starting a new RM to discuss a new proposed title. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Irish Sea tunnel → Irish sea crossing – This route has been proposed as both a bridge and a tunnel. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/6958191.stm 92.14.179.149 (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - The proposed title is too ambiguous and could be read as implying the broader means of crossing the sea by plane and ferry. This article is specifically about a possible structure. Even the BBC article referred to is titled "Bridge to Northern Ireland mooted". Perhaps not a perfect article name as is, but better. RashersTierney (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. However, I wouldn't mind something like "Irish Sea fixed link", as this includes both types of hypothetical future infrastructure (bridge and tunnel) but excludes the real crossings (ships and aircraft). bobrayner (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: I've crossed the Irish Sea numerous times and doubt that in my lifetime I will cross under it by tunnel. ww2censor (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move pt.2

Irish Sea tunnel → Irish sea fixed crossing – This route has been proposed as both a bridge and a tunnel. Advice on naming taken by User: bobrayner http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/6958191.stm --92.14.186.252 (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)