This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
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
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
A fact from Digha鈥揝onpur Bridge appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 July聽2011 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that one person was killed by police during disturbances occasioned by the site selection of the Ganga Rail-Road Bridge in India?
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.
Support as a revert of an undiscussed malformed move that resulted in the
chimera of dash and hyphen "rail鈥揷um-road" that suggests a combination rail with a "cum-road". The en dash in "rail鈥搑oad bridge", like in
bridge鈥搕unnel, clearly signifies an "and" or "cum" relationship between parallel items rail and road, and is not confusable with "railroad" as AA suggests. It is not uncommon in sources. After reverting this error, we can separately decide if editors prefer an explicit "cum" with hyphens (not with an en dash or two as now).
Dicklyon (
talk)
04:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Move to
Digha鈥揝onepur bridge, per
WP:CONCISE policy, since adding other claptrap to the name is unnecessary over-disambiguation, which we avoid. Agree that the present, confused name is the result of an undiscussed move, and that it is badly malformed; the second en dash is wrong, and cum is not necessary anyway (nor is it much used in 21st-century English in this sense, being more often encountered as a slang term for the male ejaculate). Why to use the shorter version: Titles exist so people know they're at the right article; they do not exist as information conduits of educational content about the topic, like what kind of bridge it has been in what order. That's what the lead and/or "History" sections are for. Even if moved back to
Digha鈥揝onepur rail鈥搑oad bridge, this is an inappropriate use of
WP:DESCRIPTDIS when no such descriptive disambiguation is needed. Finally, I don't really buy the "Americans' brains will melt and mis-parse 'rail鈥搑oad' as 'railroad'" fear, should a longer name be kept for some reason. The obvious solution to that imaginary problem would be to use "road鈥搑ail bridge" or "rail and road bridge", but we already know this verbiage is superfluous, so just excise it. Ask yourself if there would be any reason to move this to "Digha鈥揝onepur bridge (rail and road)". If that disambiguation is not needed, it is not needed in any other form than parenthetic, either. 鈥夆斺
SMcCandlish 鈽鈽垄鈥冣壗蕦獗芬岽獗蕦鈮尖05:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)reply
The bridge has not yet been named, probably because the road part is not yet functional. I have a feeling that once the bridge is named the page will have to be moved to that new name. For the time being the earlier name is okay. -
Chandan Guha (
talk)
00:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)reply
I do, too. And that reverts the bizarrely broken move. It's what I requested as a technical. I would also be OK with SMcCandlish's suggestion, but a simple revert of the crazy move seems like a good place to start.
Dicklyon (
talk)
04:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
However, since the Indian editor has since moved it and indicated the Sonpur is official over Sonepur in English, I went ahead and moved it again to fix the cum. If a closer wants to move it differently, that's OK, too, as long as we don't end up with en dashes where hyphens belong or vice versa.
Dicklyon (
talk)
05:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Move to
Digha鈥揝onepur bridge per
SMcCandlish. When I first saw this I thought it was a "railroad" bridge that someone had written really badly as "rail鈥搑oad", so this concern is real. Furthermore, as SMcCandlish says, there is absolutely no reason per
WP:CONCISE why we need to say what kind of bridge it is, as there's no other contender, and it is not officially named yet. 聽鈥斅
Amakuru (
talk)
17:08, 3 August 2016 (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.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Digha鈥揝onpur Bridge. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
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: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.