Talk:Crimean Bridge/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

The longest bridge in Ukraine de jure

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)

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)
Hardly any country in the world officially considers Crimea to be part of Russia, but an illegally occupied part of Ukraine. Hence ist is wrong to state "longest bridge in Russia" as a fact, this is at least debatable. Hence, the claim needs to be removed. -- H005 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

References

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

Stalin picture

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)

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)

"under construction in Russia"

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)

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)
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)

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.53.146 (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

@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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohdan Bondar (talk • contribs) 06:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"Design of the planned bridge"

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)

The bridge itself

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)

Now that the bridge is operational, perhaps we can focus on the design and structure itself, rather than going on and on about various political issues. The article is about the bridge, not unrelated side issues. There are plenty of other articles that discuss these other issues ad infinitum Santamoly (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Split

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)

  • 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)
    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)
    • Then make a new proposal and that can be discussed. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      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)
      • Agree. The two bridges carry quite different loads and the parallel structures appear to differ substantially because of the loads. Now that the bridge pair is operational, it would be useful to get some insight into the various engineering challenges - especially in view of the recent Italian bridge failure in Genoa. Santamoly (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, these are two different bridges (railway vs pair of road and rail bridges) in different places ("Chushka-Kerch route" vs. "Tuzla route"). Their combination in single article, aside from other problems, creates werid problem of categorization. For example, currently this article claims that Crimean Bridge (current one?) was created in 1944 (???), moreover, not so long ago it claimed that current, now partially operational link (with operational road bridge and u/c rail bridge), is demolished (?!) because it is, supposedly, bridge disaster caused by construction error (!!!). These "demolition" categories - fully suitable for 1944-1945 bridge but very werid in article that describes "a pair of parallel bridges constructed by the Russian Federation to span the Strait of Kerch" - are removed now (note rationale of removal, which shares exactly same concerns I'm talking about right now), but this leaves a strange issue: why bridge was "constructed" twice (1944 and 2018/2019)? Well, because these are two different bridges with different histories, yet it is in no way clear from current lead. Bests,--Seryo93 (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. It would be best to have 3 articles. One on each bridge, and a short article saying that there have been two bridges, directing the user to each.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Name

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)

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

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)

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)

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).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarl N. (talk • contribs) 12:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2018

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.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, WP:SNOW opposition to the name suggested by the IP editor. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


Crimean Bridge (Crimea) → Crimean Bridge (occupied Crimea) – Crimea is internationally recognised by all the civilised world as Ukrainian territory occupied by invading russia. This article's name gives the impression the bridge is built on the russian territory, and not on the occupied Ukrainian territory. The bridge should be renamed accordingly so that anyone who reads it immediately understands the perilious situation of this occupied land. We can rename it later when russia returns the Ukrainain lands back 194.67.223.186 (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose I prefer the geographical name vs. the political one--109.92.164.235 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposal violates WP:NPOV. The article is about a bridge, and the current title is accurate regardless of the political status of the territory. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rwxrwxrwx, but I suggest renaming to Crimean Bridge. --Insider (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    Crimean Bridge is already used as a disambiguation page; it links to Krymsky Bridge in Moscow (also known as Crimean Bridge), and to this bridge. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Fine as it is. Disambiguators are just there for convenience, not to make political statements, and it does its job perfectly well. And it's still called the Crimea, no matter who occupies it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This seems to be an effort to leverage the bridge name onto an international conflict. The bridge will remain, regardless of who claims sovereignty over the endpoints. Naming the article Crimean Bridge (Kerch Strait) might be worthwhile (after all, how many Crimean Bridges are there in Crimea?), but adding a term "occupied" to the name would be incorrect. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Crimea is simply a geographical name. The area had that name already long ago regardless of political changes. However, Crimean Bridge (Kerch Strait) is really a good idea. After all, the bridge is not literally part of either Crimea or the Krasnodar region, but it is in between, spanning the Strait of Kerch.Aecur (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - The entire purpose of this proposal is POV-pushing. "Crimea" is a perfectly neutral name for both the peninsula and the administrative region, which doesn't say anything one way or the other about which country it's rightfully part of. Furthermore, I propose a SPEEDY CLOSE per WP:SNOW, as it's clear there's no consensus for this move, and the continued presence of the move proposal template on the article is in effect vandalism. -2003:CA:83CC:F800:A5D5:7649:DF5D:6F28 (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close per above. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:40, 16 May 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Editorializing

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)

Just wondering

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)

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)

limitations to maritime trade

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)

The "limitations" allegedly imposed by the bridge are to a great degree specious. Specifically: 1) the Crimean Bridge in no way changed any previous limitations on vessels able to navigate the Kerch-Yenikale Canal (the navigational channel through the Kerch Strait. Whether administered by the Soviet Union, Ukraine, or Russia, the procedures for passage through the Strait have remained unchanged. The dredged water depth and the width of that deeper dredged channel remain unchanged. 2) Some reporting from Ukraine has asserted that the bridge, due to the vertical clearance between the water and the bottom of the span, has limited the passage of PANAMAX-sized vessels. This is totally incorrect since PANAMAX definitions ONLY address measurements of the length, width(beam), and draft(vertical below waterline) of vessels. Vertical air draft clearance (waterline to top of mast) is not a PANAMAX parameter. Additionally, the significant decrease, from previous already low volumes, of cargo handled for either export or import at Ukraine's two Sea of Azov ports, Berdyansk and Mariupol, due to the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine makes the use of a PANAMAX-sized vessel commercially non-viable and hugely inefficient for use in the Sea of Azov.Moryak (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Economic impact  ?

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)

Synthesis in "Reduction of prices in Crimea"

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)

Potential OR in "Economic impact" section

As I noted above, I deleted one subsection of this section as consisting solely of WP:SYNTH. Now skimming through the other subsections, it looks like they may suffer from similar problems. The whole section was translated from ru-wiki. We should take a closer look at the cited sources to make sure their use complies with the policies of en-wiki. I'll tag the section for now. Eperoton (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

How to word that the Crimea was annexed by Russia but is generally recognised to be part of Ukraine

An edit war is going on, where various user accounts have tried to delete part or all of the following from the lede:

(Russian-annexed, internationally recognised as part of Ukraine).

The various deletions and the reasons given for the deletions have been as follows:

The argument against these deletions appears to be:

South Sakhalin, for example, was annexed (retaken) from Japan, yet it is not in dispute at all. Crimea, on the other hand, is different in that a) there is active dispute and b) Russia, while claiming territory and wielding actual power there, isn't supported internationally on Crimean issue

-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

One user provided this motivation, after which I advised them to not edit Ukraine-related articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for talking instead of threatening with topic ban and user block. The three edits I made (2nd-4th point above) all have the same argument worded differently. I see now that I should sooner start a discussion here instead of repeating the same argument. Mainly: international recognition is not synonymous with one United Nations General Assembly resolution. I think it's WP:SYNTH to have an internal link suggest the one from the other. A reminder: 93 countries did not vote in favour of the specific United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262. Another example: in UNGA resolution 72/190, 102 countries did not vote in favour of the Ukrainian view, not condemning the human rights situation in Crimea and not characterizing Russia as the occupying power. The situation is more complex. I now suggest linking Crimea instead to Political status of Crimea, since the political status of that territory is meant. Wakari07 (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I actually agree with edits by Seryo93.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
This is an article about a bridge. It is not an article about the conflict between Russia and the Ukraine (there are other articles for that) so we need to avoid detail on the dispute except where directly relevant to the bridge. The bridge is between Russia and the Crimea. There are two points of view concerning whether the Crimea is part of Russia. The wording (Russian-annexed, internationally recognised as part of Ukraine) gives both points of view. The wording (annexed by Russia from Ukraine in 2014) gives just the Russian point of view. Neutral point of view "requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, the wording "annexed by Russia from Ukraine in 2014" is not the Russian point of view. The Russian view is shown in the official treaty.[1] and in the related official press release.[2]Santamoly (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Accession_of_the_Republic_of_Crimea_to_Russia
  2. ^ The Republic of Crimea is considered to have acceded to the Russian Federation from the date of the Agreement’s signing. Beginning on the day that the Republic of Crimea accedes to the Russian Federation, two new constituent entities are formed within the Russian Federation: the Republic of Crimea and the Federal City of Sevastopol.
Yes, but it still omits something, noted in this diff. Annexation in itself may be a "non-isuue at all". For example, South Sakhalin was annexed by the Soviet Union in aftermath of the Soviet-Japanese War (part of WWII). It is therefore factually correct, to describe, say, Nogliki-Korsakov railway as "connecting Nogliki of Sakhalin Oblast (Russia) with Korsakov of South Sakhalin (annexed by the Soviet Union from Japan in 1945)". But given absence of any dispute about South Sakhalin this would be clearly WP:UNDUE and redundant detail. Crimea is different, in that Russia's claim is actively disputed and is routinely denounced internationally (going as far as to UN level, but not UNSC, for obvious reasons). And this is precisely the reason of most of present controversy surrounding the bridge. Here the note about international non-recognition is necessary. --Seryo93 (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Regardless, the statement was made by Toddy1 above that "annexed by Russia from Ukraine in 2014" is the "Russian point of view". It's not. It's the opposition's point of view. It's easy to mix up fact and fiction in political issues like this, so we ought to try to keep Wikipedia as close to fact as possible. Otherwise Wikipedia degenerates into fake information and propaganda. Santamoly (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
May I please remind that it is you who advocates removal of reliably sourced content, on the basis of your own original research that Ukrainians are not capable of building long bridges.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
With all due respect, there is "reliably sourced content" supporting both sides, but in THIS case, neither argument is relevant to the fact that this is an article about a BRIDGE. It's about an engineering achievement, and it's not about the political element. When an editor adds this silly, juvenile, irrelevant bit, the result is that the article is immediately dumbed down. It becomes just another collection of specious "facts", otherwise known as fake information. Santamoly (talk) 09:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
This issue has been discussed to death. Please just accept status quo before your attempt to delete stuff you don't like, and drop it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Where's the link to the dispute resolution? I fail to note (in a concise way, in the article) the tension between the de facto and de jure situation on the one hand, and between opposing viewpoints on the other. My take is that, de facto, Crimea is administered by Russia; but, de jure, there are opposing (nationalist and internationalist) viewpoints. Wakari07 (talk) 10:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • My 2 cents - internationally recognized is weaselish, and really is inappropriate in any case in which there isn't 99%-style level support for a position. In this case while it seems Russia is in the minority - there is a sizeable (some 20+ countries?) amount of countries that recognize the annexation, a large chunk of countries who purposefully do not have a position, and an even more sizable group of countries supporting Ukraine to some degree (mainly only in word). I would formulated this as - (Russian-annexed, disputed and claimed by Ukraine).Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
    • This wording would have worked with non-internationalized (i.e. "mostly bilateral issue", without much iterference from international community) dispute, such as Southern Kuriles, or if, in spite of Ukraine's stance on peninsula's status, Crimea were to be internationally (such as via UN GA resolution to that effect) recognized as Russian territory. Current case fits neither of these. --Seryo93 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
      Russia is an integral part of the "international community". With or without Crimea, it is the largest country on earth. By itself alone, it maintains a global strategic parity. <lol> Ignorance is strength.</lol> The Kosovo example has "partially recognised state and disputed territory" in the lead, acknowledging that it's a de facto state but also the fact that it's de jure disputed. Wakari07 (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda Style

The discussion above tends to confirm that this article is a good example of the increasingly popular Wikipedia Propaganda Style. It would be better if it weren't, but it is. Santamoly (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The ways to try to force the closure of the above discussion are: an ad hominem "May I please remind that it is you who advocates..." [5] and a circular reasoning "Please just accept status quo before your attempt to delete stuff you don't like..." [6]. This is also not my view on how to cooperate on building this encyclopedia. Wakari07 (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Also noting this revert of someone else's edit before the un-revert a full 21 minutes later. I have serious reservations about even trying to edit someone else's statements. One could be tempted to see it in a soccer context, as a failed attempt at Combination Game, followed by a lame Schwalbe. Wakari07 (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Unlike you, I make mistakes and then correct them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I was told in my childhood that a dinosaur also needed 30 minutes for a sensory signal to reach its brain. Wakari07 (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Stability

Google "Crimea Bridge Collapse" and you'll find a number of articles in prominent news outlets (such as Newsweek) about the bridge's stability. Shouldn't these be included in the article, much like Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge#Substandard component fabrication and related project management issues? Calbaer (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2018

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.

The result of the move request was: move. General consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: supporting arguments include the name of the bridge (WP:ASTONISH), the fact that the Moscow bridge is more commonly referred to as Krymsky Bridge and not Crimean Bridge, page views (usage) and that the bridge in Crimea is going to remain the more significant topic in the future. Opposing arguments cited the age and history of the bridge in Moscow. For a topic to be considered the WP:PTOPIC, both usage and long-term significance are considered. Consensus in this discussion is that the usage of the bridge in Crimea prevails over the history of the bridge in Moscow. feminist (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Crimean Bridge (Crimea) → Crimean Bridge – This could strike some people as a slightly odd title, now the bridge has been built it could strike people as the primary meaning, most people would expect the Crimean Bridge to be in Crimea. The bridge in Moscow should be a hatnote. PatGallacher (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, I do not yet see a difference that this is the principal value. the bridge in Moscow had this name for ages.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the grounds of Wikipedia:Recentism. The one in Moscow is mentioned in War and Peace; rather like London Bridge it has been replaced a number of times since it was first built. The one in the Kerch Straits that is being built 2015-19 has far more current news stories than existing one in Moscow - but that is just because it is new.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    It is not uncommon for bridges to be named after far away places. For example, Hungerford Bridge is in London and is about 70 miles from Hungerford. Similarly Waterloo Bridge is also in London, about 200 miles from Waterloo (a village in Belgium).-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    True, but there is no other Hungerford Bridge with an article on Wikipedia, and the only other Waterloo Bridge is in a village in Wales, surely less important than the one in London. PatGallacher (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:OVERPRECISION and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There is no other article titled "Crimean Bridge", but even if we consider Krymsky Bridge, this bridge gets 50 times the pageviews. - Station1 (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Per Station1 and WP:2DABPRIMARY. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This is the primary topic. Disambig is unnecessary. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Despite being new, I think that the Crimean bridge has taken over the PRIMARYTOPIC from the Moscow one, as evidenced by pageviews, and it's going to stay there. Add to that the truly awkward disambiguator and put WP:2DABPRIMARY in the mix, I think that the balance heavily tips to the move. No such user (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Question If this change is made, what will happen to the disambiguation page now at Crimean Bridge?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
    It will get deleted per WP:2DABS with a hatnote just to Krymsky Bridge. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New bridge under construction

The photo of the bridge in May 2018 shows a new bridge under construction. Please add details in the article.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

In the lede it says "The bridge complex provides for both vehicular and rail traffic". In the photo the part for road vehicles has a deck, and the part for rail traffic does not. Does that explain it?-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The Crimean "Bridge" is, in fact, a "transport link" (Russian: транспортный переход), consisting of two physically separate parallel bridges. But WP:RS treat them as a single entity. So, both bridges shown there (on photo) are parts of the "Crimean Bridge" transportation link - which is the topic of the article. Hence, photo is accurate. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Photo is accurate, however, it looks to me like there is a bridge under construction in the photo, but it may be nearing completion by now.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Try reading the article. The lead section says "Construction of the bridge commenced in May 2015; the road bridge was opened on 16 May 2018 while the completion of the rail link is scheduled for early 2019.". Does that not answer your question? — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Alleged impact

Some editors seem to believe that if a statement is made by Russia, it is the truth; whereas if it is made by countries opposed by Russia, it is an allegation. This is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy on neutral point view.

So one editor added "Ukraine and the US have alleged that" into the start of the section on disruption to shipping.[7] Now another editor wants to stick alleged into the heading as well,[8] saying that "the body of the section explicitly mentions these as allegations".[9]

But what about all the crystal-ball gazing claims that the bridge will improve the economy of the Crimea? The claims have citations, but are worded in such a way as to suggest that the Crimea is benefiting from Russian annexation. They create undue bias to the Russian government's point-of-view.

I have moved the word "alleged" from the heading "disruption of shipping (to Ukraine)" to the heading above that "economic impact".-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Not from annexation, but the construction of the bridge after that, compared to annexation without the bridge. It is not, on the whole, controversial (specific claims may be) Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Longest bridge in Russia

@Smeagol 17: If you have any sources that prove that most of the Crimean Bridge is in the territory that was Russian before the annexation of the Crimea, bring them. You tried to refer to the treaty of 2003, but it confirms completely the opposite - that the Kerch Strait is joint waters of Russia and Ukraine. However, when I pointed this out, you continued to undo my editing. Otherwise, if you follow your logic about internal waters, we must write that this is the longest bridge in Ukraine.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not against writing that it is the longest bridge in Ukraine (with the usual clarifications, of course). In fact, it was written here in the past, but got removed for some reason. Also, why should I provide sources for your claim? (As I said, you claim the waters were "outside Russia", but joint waters are inside Russia (and Ukraine) by definition.) Or provide the internationally recognized maritime border in the strait, and we will put a ruler to it) Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not against writing that it is the longest bridge in Ukraine (with the usual clarifications, of course) Then why are you against similar clarifications regarding Russia? If the waters are joint, obviously they are not “Russian”. So, Antarctica is not Russian, although Russia has the same rights there as other countries.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Antarctica belongs to no country, but the strait belongs/belonged to both Russia and Ukraine. So, Antarcica is not Russian, but the strait is (and Ukrainian). The clarifications I spoke about are the usual ones abot the current status of Crimea, not a claim that Ukrainian territory ended in Kerch before the annexation. Smeagol 17 (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Until now you offer no "clarifications" that would suit you, so let me write simply "Ukraine" instead of "Russia" without "clarifications" - so it will be good for you?--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
If you wish. Those clarifications are alredy given once in intro, so you probably can skip it here (not what I would have done, but...). You can write "longest in Russia and Ukraine" (better with citation for Ukraine, I think, because it was already removed once). I was against your footnote, because it is not really supported by sources or international treadies. Also, please read sources more carefully before you remove them. Smeagol 17 (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The question regarding "longest in Russia" is hardly separable from issue of status of Crimea. Why? Because most of the bridge is within Crimean administrative boundary. And so, it depends on whether we count Crimean part of bridge in assessing "longest or not". If we do, then certainly, but if we don't - then the bridge is not the longest in Russia. Taman-"Tuzla Spit remnants" section is only 4,5 km long (value is for road bridge, but I doubt that corresponding rail bridges section's length is radically longer). Which is shorther than President Bridge in Ulyanovsk Oblast. So, a qualifier may be needed ("longest bridge within de facto Russian territory", maybe) Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, some clarification is needed.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Seryo93: But as I said, all of Kerch Strait is uncontrovesially (jointly) in Russia (and Ukraine). So talking about the administrative boundary of Taman oblast in this dispute is a bit silly - that border has no international significance. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually, there is a dispute about strait. Russia considers it entierly Russian (since both of its shores, Crimean and Krasnodar Krai, are asserted to be Russian territories), whilst Ukraine views it as Russo-Ukrainian. And so the border is disputed as well. Russia considers Crimea-Kransodar Krai border (which lies between Tuzla Island and "Tuzla Spit remains") to be administrative border between Russian subdivisions (Republic of Crimea and Krasnodar Krai), whilst Ukraine considers the border to be international one, separating Russian (Krasnodar Krai) and Ukrainian (Autonomous Republic of Crimea) national territories. The 4,5 km part I talked above lies within undisputed Russian territory (within Krasnodar Krai), the rest of the bridge lies in Crimea. And so, there are two ways to assess whether the bridge is longest in Russia
  1. Entire bridge length (both Crimean part of it and "Taman-Tuzla Spit remains" part) should be taken into account. In this case it is certainly the longest bridge in Russia.
  2. Only "undisputedly-Russian" part of the bridge ("Taman-Tuzla Spit remains" section, which lies in Krasnodar Krai and is 4,5 km long) should be taken into account on the issue. In this case, Presidential Bridge is longer than "Russian section" of the Crimean Bridge.
Since the border (not "of Taman oblast", but between Crimea and Krasnodar Krai) is of contested status (administrative vs international) it is still useful to clarify, that "longest bridge in Russia" applies only when we count it as longest bridge in de facto Russian territory. And such clarification is already made. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Seryo93: Not really re: "Ukraine considers the border to be international one, separating Russian (Krasnodar Krai) and Ukrainian (Autonomous Republic of Crimea) national territories", at least right now. Ukraine does not claim a specific border in the strait as it had not officially tried (yet) to get out of 2003 treaty. Nor was there any delimitation. Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, Tuzla Island is within boundaries of Crimea republic and anyway, Ukraine explicitly claims that said island is Ukrainian territory (which means that most of the bridge is located in disputed territory, as shown above). So, the Crimea dispute also applies to Tuzla. While Ukraine indeed, not tired (yet) to get out of 2003 treaty, there is still a dispute about strait status, directly stemming from Crimean dispute. Russia sees Kerch Strait as internal Russian strait (and therefore, fully regulated by the Russian legislation), whilst Ukraine claims that strait is at least "shared" per 2003 agreement, and, moreover, Ukrainian authorities announced recently that they will seek change of Kerch Strait status to make it international, doing so explicitly to rebuff what they regard as "Russia’s speculations concerning the status of the Kerch Strait as an internal strait". So, the Crimean dispute still affects the issue. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Seryo93:I do talk about "at least shared" part. So, right now even Ukraine has not officially denied that (all of) Kerch Strait is partly Russian (Tuzla island notwithstanding, but it is a small part of the bridge). Smeagol 17 (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
And this "partially" is exactly the locus of dispute. If Kerch Strait is entierly Russian (as Russia claims and as in fact is), then there aren't any problems at all with "longest bridge in Russia" statement, but if it is only partially Russian (as claimed by Ukraine and backed by the UNGA position on Crimea), then aforementioned issue arises. Arguably, it may, nevertheless, be regarded as "longest bridge of Russia" (not necessary "in"), but given absence of sources with such statement it is still better to retain "qualified ″longest in" variant. And Tuzla Island status is relevant here because it means, that only "Taman-Tuzla Spit remains" part is located in undisputed area (as it is shown in OSM map). Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Seryo93: By my understanding of the treaty, this "partially" refers not to some geogaphical part of the water of Kerch strait being Russian and other part Ukrainian, but like coffe with milk being partly milk, partly coffe - so "all" of Kerch Strait (water only) is partly Russian and partly Ukrainian (or better said it is both fully Russian and fully Ukrainian). Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Does it seem to me alone that there is some sort of sophism?--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
This is just my understanding, I am not a lawyer. Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I see the point, however it is hard to agree with interpretation that 2003 treaty meant complete absence of Russo-Ukrainian border there. For example, prior to 2014 there was Ukrainian border outpost on Tuzla Island[10] but not Russian. Moreover, even taking into account 2003 Tuzla island conflict, one should keep in mind that Russia was inclined to withdraw its controversial claim on island in exchange for retaining right to allow/deny passage of ships (apparently, third countries' ships) through Kerch–Yenikale Canal. Only after 2014, when said island (along with entire Crimea republic) was annexed by Russia, did Russian position change, evolving into what I would call "partial" (or, maybe, "selective"?) application of 2003 treaty. Russia is willing to consider Sea of Azov shared waters and did not oppose negotiating border delimitation there, however, it is categorically rejecting any "shared status" of Kerch Strait, which, as Russian Foreign minister claimed back in 2014, "can no longer be the subject-matter of these negotiations, as you know". Instead, Russia claims that "Russia has complete sovereignty over the Kerch Strait as the only coastal state in that region". Needless to say, that such Russian claims are as disputed as its general claim on Crimea. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course, there was still a dispute because of Tuzla island, and now because of Crmea (this is also about that, partly, as Tuzla counts as part of Crimea), but regarding the water part of the strait, there is no official position right now that denies it is at least partly (in that milk coffe sense) Russian. In other words: there was a undeliminated (land) border there, but no maritime border. Smeagol 17 (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Hard to agree. On what basis? If both Tuzla Island and Kerch Peninsula are Ukrainian territories (as it was before 2014 and, as Ukraine claims, they still are), then we have one baseline - one which puts Kerch-Tuzla part of KEC fully under Ukrainian jurisdiction (and Russia was inclined to agree with that maritime delimitation before came 2014 and de facto Russian Crimea with it). If Tuzla is not part of Ukraine but Kerch Peninsula is (as Russia apparently attempted to claim in 2003, but subsequently backed away from that position) - then we have another baseline, one which makes that section of KEC Russo-Ukrainian. And finally, if both Kerch Peninsula and Tuzla Island are Russian territories (as Russia claims and as it is in fact now, but disputed by Ukraine and UNGA), then KEC is a Russian canal, and entire Kerch Strait is completly Russian one without any traces of Ukraine's sovereignty. Territory matters, because it directly affects baseline - and with it, maritime delimitation. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Eh, baseline defines territorial waters in general, but the 2003 tready explictly overrides that by it's very nature. Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
And yet, negotiations on Kerch Strait delimitation contiuned and in 2012 Russia agreed to "Ukrainian variant of delimitation"[11]. Which meant, that maritime boundary in the Kerch Strait (note subtitle in this article) was agreed and that Russian waters ended between Tuzla Spit and Tuzla Island - as they were before 2014, when entire strait de facto became Russian. 2012 agreed boundary was the last undisputed boundary in the area. Since 2014 it has gone in fact, but new, post-2014 de facto delimitation remains disputed: Ukraine doesn't agree to purely Russian status of the Kerch Strait (because this means acquiescence to 2014 loss of Crimea with recognition of Russian sovereignty over it). Russia, on the other hand, disagrees with anything other than full Russian sovereignty over the strait (because other variants will undermine Russian claim on Crimea). Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is that in 2012 there was a plan for a future tready with deliminated water that also solved Tuzla dispute, but before that (and so, now) 2003 threaty with no water bouundary still applies. Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
2012-envisaged agreement would merely confirm pre-existing practice, with some "sweeteners" for Russian withdrawal of "Tuzla claims" (the access-controlling rights I mentioned above). Basically, for entire (post-?) Soviet years, Ukraine owned the Kerch-Yenikale Canal and envisaged agreement will merely confirm status quo.... So was pre-2014 situation. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

But then what about 2003 tready? Would't it take precedence over "practice"? Smeagol 17 (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"Russia does not have any legal reasons to insist that the Kerch Strait should be partly under Russian jurisdiction [emphasis mine - Seryo93]. Likewise, Ukraine has fewer grounds to claim the Tuzla split as being part of its state territory. If Russia were to recognize Ukrainian territorial claims on Tuzla split [and as we know, this recognition was forthcoming, see 2012 statements above - Seryo93] Russia would be fully dependent on the willingness of Ukraine to regulate navigation in the Strait. Dubious terms such as “Master of the key to the Strait” employed by Ukraine, do not exist in UNCLOS and are not known to customary international law" (Alexander Skaridov (2014). "The Sea of Azov and the Kerch Straits". In Caron, David D.; Oral, Nilufer (eds.). Navigating Straits Challenges for International Law. Leiden : Brill Nijhoff. p. 236. ISBN 978-90-04-26637-7.), and also a point above: "Applying the above-mentioned provisions to the Azov Sea-Kerch Strait case we have to acknowledge that there are no known baselines adopted along the Azov sea coast; there is no pre-existing delimitation agreement, and because coastal states already decided that the Sea of Azov is their internal waters— there are no EEZ or continental shelf spaces. Even so, the relevant coasts to be taken into account in the delimitation needs to be determined. Once Ukraine and Russia have established the relevant coast, baselines need to be identified as the basis for any other calculations because baselines are the starting point from which each maritime zone is to be determined and mapped [emphasis and underlining is again mine - Seryo93]" (same source, pp. 228-229). So, as of the pre-2014 situation we have clear RS which write, that no "coffee with milk analogy" works here: there was a necessity of determining coasts (and 2012 sources say that it was actually done - in Ukrainian favor, - only "technicalities" remained) and that Russian acquiescence to Ukraine's claim of Tuzla Island automatically meant, that Kerch Peninsula-Tuzla Island part of KEC became Ukrainian waterway.
This was, of course, how it was before 2014 — in that year Russia managed to regain Crimea and thereafter reigns both on the peninsula and in the Kerch Strait. But Russian claims of Crimea (and, accordingly, of full sovereignty over the Kerch Strait) are disputed, and such dispute means that we cannot write "longest bridge in Russia" in "WP voice" without qualifier of this being de facto Russian territory. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I actually managed to find a source with a claim akin to "″longest bridge of Russia″ (not necessary ″in″)": Extending 19 km (11.8 miles), the project, which will be two separate parallel structures - one for road and another for train traffic - will be the longest bridge Russia has ever built.... This is fairly accurate and apparently undisputable statement (since the bridge is indeed constructed by Russia, regardless of the status of Crimea), so I wrote this statement into main text of the lead. As for the controversial claim of "longest in Russia", that one is moved into a {{efn}}-footnote, out of main text. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

No causeway "in between"

The causeway is "a track, road or railway on the upper point of an embankment across "a low, or wet place, or piece of water"". The Crimean Bridge is not a causeway for most of its part. Initially, back in 2014, there was a design (in Russian), that envisaged construction of transportaion link with the following sections:

  1. parallel road and rail bridges between Tuzla Spit and Tuzla Island
  2. road and rail causeways on Tuzla Island
  3. combined (physically combined, two-tier structure) road-rail bridge between Tuzla Island and Kerch Peninsula.

This design was scrapped, however. It was decided, that road and rail bridges shall be parallel and continuous and that overland parts shall be also based on pillars (опоры), not on embankment - out of concerns for ground unstability of Tuzla Spit and Tuzla Island. This means, that most of the 19 km "transportation link" (Russian: транспортный переход) are, indeed, bridges (overland parts may, however, be regarded as sort of viaducts, but since viaducts are one of types of bridges, that doesn't affect overall conclusions much). Most, but not all, however - for example, road bridge is 17 km long, followed by approx. 2 km causeway on Kerch shore. See also this website, which gives 19 km "total construction length" (Russian: длина перехода в границах проектирования), 16857,28 m road bridge length (and it is actual bridge length, remaining ~ 2 km are causeway, as shown in Interfax source before). Likewise, rail bridge length (18 118,05 m, rounded to 18,1 in WP article) also seems to be actual rail bridge length.

Therefore, I had to revert recent "causeway additions". Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

If we begin with the definition of causeway - "A raised roadway, as across water or marshland." (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language - New College Edition 1976) - then the greater portion of what is being called the Crimean Bridge is, indeed, a causeway. Only those sectors immediately adjoining the spans over the deeper waters of the shipping channel can reasonably be called a "bridge."Moryak (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Map view problem

Does someone know why the red line on the embedded map not cover the entire bridge? I tried to correct trough openstreetmap, but no luck. The problem: it shows not the entire btridge, but two outers (map elements) - south of the arch, and south of the Tuzla island. The russian version does not have this problem. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever solved this. Could you tell what you did? Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I just copied Ruwiki workaround approach via {{Crimean Bridge infobox map}}. Nevermind why OSM highlights only part of bridge, however... Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. The (small) problem with this (and ru version) is that it now does not show "Crimean Bridge" when you click on the red line, as it did before. Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Fixed (and in ruwiki too). Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Cool, but the name is unclicable. Maybe I will make it plain text. Smeagol 17 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Done. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

the train is already working

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEF6vkHs-oI&t=123s

--204.197.178.36 (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Website field not working

Now it shows most.life most.life most.life]] Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The Ominous Threat- Valid or not?

So, an website http://crimeanbridgedown.com.ua/ with a countdown timer that ends in May 9th and the words "Russians who moved to Crimea after its occupation in 2014, you still have time to leave the territory of the sovereign state of Ukraine!" have appeared

It's obvious that this is an threat that the bridge will be attacked someway, somehow. Is this threat noteworthy enough to be added as an example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:54A1:829C:CDD7:4598:9546:7E6C (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

This is just speculation that something could happen and probably falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. If something does happen (in which there would be a lot of news on it) then it can be added. Mellk (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
It's not a reliable source WP:RS. You'll need a third party such as a book, newspaper etc to comment about it in order to include it. Without that it would be Original Research WP:NOR. Please have a read around Wikipedia's policies around content to learn more. Alex Sims (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crimean_Bridge/Archive_1&oldid=1169337993"