Talk:Strait of Gibraltar crossing

Gibraltar Bridge

I see there was some confusion between the bridge and the tunnel, although the bridge is a conceptual structure and likely to remain so, it generates a lot of interest due to the Discovery TV programme about it and many people seem to think it exists ! I get endless inquiries for pictures of it on my Gibraltar website.

Also the title should be 'Gibraltar Bridge' and not 'Gibraltar bridge'

I've included a link to the tunnel project, and fixed the Gibraltar disambiguation page.

--Gibnews 16:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have wikified the article format. By any chance, do you know the name of the Discovery Channel programme? --Asterion^talk 23:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its 'Megastructures'. There are some references to the bridge in the tunnel article that need moving across - for some inscrutable reason the PC I was using yesterday would not do copy and paste properly. I had one guy who really insisted that it existed because he had seen it on TV :) --Gibnews 11:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect

I moved this title to Gibraltar Tunnel a few weeks ago. The accurate title is Gibraltar Tunnel as it is confirmed now that it will be a tunnel and not a bridge. As a consequence this article should be merged with Gibraltar Tunnel and then redirected. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tunnel is highly speculative, and the feasibility study simply a way of sucking up EU funds. There is a degree of interest in the bridge due to the Discovery channel programme. I think we should keep the articles seperate.

--Gibnews 19:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Gibraltar Crossing as used here and combining both articles? (Setting up redirects for both bridge and tunnel) Asterion^talk 20:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that highly speculative? Things have been already confirmed (Europe-Africa rail tunnel agreed, Spain and Morocco agree to rail tunnel under Gibraltar strait, Swiss plan tunnel under Strait of Gibraltar). Lombardi Engineering Ltd has already won the contract to design a railway tunnel. Preliminary studies should be finished by 2008. A 4.8-metre-wide service tunnel will be built first. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planning a tunnel is one thing, funding it and building it are another. The studies are simply a way of getting EU money, but nobody is going to pay for a tunnel linking North Africa to Europe.

That does not mean there should not be an article about it, as its a topic of conversation as is the bridge, which won't get built either. --Gibnews 15:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain to us Gibnews why do you think your analysis is not part of original research? How do you know it won't get built? Do you talk on behalf of Spanish and Moroccan officials? If so, than your analysis is quite contradictory to their official agreements! -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is immaterial, Wikipedia policy on future events is clear and sensible. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. At present there is a feasiability study into the proposed tunnel. Given that the Channel Tunnel is not profitable despite less challenging conditions, A big question is who would pay for a straits tunnel certainly not me. At present its no different the the bridge. If it ever becomes a serious proposition the Spanish Government will change the name to something else as they have attempted with the Bay of Gibraltar. In the meantime you may want to believe but there is no tunnel. --Gibnews 14:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess that it would not be called the Gibraltar tunnel since it would not terminate in Gibraltar. As for the bay of Algeciras, it is called that way quite simply because Algeciras is the largest town on the bay. Notice that Spain does not call the Straight of Gibraltar straights of Tarifa or Straights of Ceuta or the "Spanish channel":-). It has nothing to do with the nationalist silliness which you imply (a valid example of this would be the use of the "Arab gulf" instead of the Persian Gulf).

I also think the articles should be merged under a term similar to the Spanish one used "enlace fijo". --Burgas00 12:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the sort of sillyness that insists that the Frontier is a fence, or that removes Gibraltar from Spanish maps and roadsigns and insists that Parsley Island is Spanish soil ?

However, if there is a consensus to merge the articles, fair enough but they are both nonsense, whatever they are called. --Gibnews