Talk:Proposed British Isles fixed sea link connections

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proposed British Isles fixed sea link connections article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Transport Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

Bridges and Tunnels 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Northern Ireland Low‑importance

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland 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.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Irish Maritime

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Maritime, a collaborative effort to improve and standardise the content and structure of maritime, seafaring and inland waterways articles associated with the island of Ireland. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Irish MaritimeWikipedia:WikiProject Irish MaritimeTemplate:WikiProject Irish MaritimeIrish Maritime articles

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article name[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have to object to the name of the article due to British Isles naming dispute. Since most options laid out in this article envisage this project funded primarily by or substantially involving Ireland, and Ireland does not recognise "British Isles" as referring to Ireland, a more appropriate name would be "Irish Sea Fixed Crossing" or similar. 17:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cros13 (talk • contribs)

Overseas crossings[edit]

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)[reply]

"Cannot be done in stages"[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move pt.2[edit]

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: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose This is a fixed crossing over/under the Irish Sea, not a fixed sea crossing over/under Ireland. Would support a move to Irish Sea fixed crossing, which is possibly what the proposer intended anyway. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you thought I had entered before. I have capitalised the word 'sea' anyway. --92.14.187.60 (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sea wasn't capitalised, which changes the meaning slightly. Now fixed, so I Support. Skinsmoke (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.98.197.34 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Some concerns[edit]

Why is unsourced content & OR added to the article over and over again?

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

...and so on. If you don't have a source which supports what you want to say, don't add it. bobrayner (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The IP implies they intend adding a ref. I'd give them another day and then remove apparent WP:OR with extreme prejudice if they fail to deliver. RashersTierney (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still some problems.

[6] does not mention Ireland or the tunnel; it's about real infrastructure projects in other countries.
[7] is not about actual infrastructure projects; it's just daydreaming. "The object of this exercise was not to predict, plan or project forward the trends that are evident today, It was to cast a vision, essentially an optimistic vision, of transport in Ireland in the middle of this twenty-first century"
[8] is about three rail projects in Japan. Ireland is not Japan.

bobrayner (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7 looks interesting, even if only an 'optimistic vision', simply because of its provenance. Perhaps include it in an 'External links' section if it can't be worked into the text? RashersTierney (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's already the basis of the "Tuskar route" section. There used to be another, separate article based on it. That article had the same problems as this one. bobrayner (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Missed that. Thanks for clarifying. RashersTierney (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with this small piece of text? Ireland and Britain use different gauges. If a tunnel is built there will be a break of gauge problem to overcome. I want to explain to people that there are ways to overcome this problem. When I read the article, it sounds as if a break of gauge is a problem that can't be fixed, because the article doesn't mention how it can be fixed. It doesn't matter if the sources don't mention an Irish Sea Tunnel, the options to overcome a break of gauge problem are exactly the same all over the world. Just because the tunnel is between Ireland and Britain, doesn't mean that we can't use the same technology used in Japan to overcome the problem.

What harm would this information do if it stays in the article? Can you please tell me exactly what you are looking for in a reference? 86.42.98.44 (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a gauge change sounds pretty obvious if the tunnel were to be built tomorrow. But it's not. Regauging the whole of IÉ's network would cost less than building the tunnel; or maybe in 50 years we'll all be on monorails or maglev or whatever. Assuming contemporary solutions for contemporary problems in something which isn't going to be built any time soon is exactly what we see in Mathieu's plan; did the channel tunnel get built with oil lamps and an island at the halfway point so coaches could get fresh horses?

We avoid problems like that, by limiting ourselves to what reliable sources say. We shouldn't state things as fact if, in reality, they're not solid facts at all. bobrayner (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade of page underway[edit]

Started working on this page recently and I have taken a few decisions to shape the content into covering fixed sea links of the British Isles / proposed and existing.

Im also going to clear away some of the older talk comments above.

Work in progress.

Bulverton (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bulverton, please read WP:TALKARCHIVE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that is an improvement, just about done I think - I would like to remove the warning straps now if everyone is happy.................. Bulverton (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bulverton. Thanks for your efforts and yes, I agree the warning tags are no longer necessary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Other section could benefit from some context. Other than the Chunnel, this article ignores the facts of the construction of many bridges (and causeways) linking smaller islands over the years from the ambitiously named 18th century Bridge over the Atlantic to the Skye Bridge--FDent (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Islands Tunnel[edit]

Are the Channel Islands any British Isles? There is an article on a suggested Channel Islands Tunnel between them and France.--BIL (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I'd not seen this page, the information would be best brought onboard this page I think.. Bulverton (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symonds[edit]

The UK engineering firm Symonds is referenced twice on this page. Which Symonds would this be? Capita Symonds? Symonds Engineering PLC? Or some other company? -- The Anome (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Irish Sea tunnels.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]