Talk:Danyang–Kunshan Grand Bridge

Well by convention we don't always start an article with the definitive article, rather just the name of the article, but some people do it that way. The information about the GWR is needed since it adds additional detail not included in the first sentence, which is part of the WP:LEAD, which is a summary only. The lead is supposed to duplicate what's in the rest of the article. Granted this article is still brief, but we need to say according to who it is longest bridge, and which category and date it was included, and it's awkward to get into those details in the first sentence of the article - but we still need to say why the bridge is notable in the first sentence. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SeeWP:BRD - you made a bold edit, I reverted, now we discuss. See above. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that rather than answering my question where I asked it you've answered it here, and in the meantime continued to revert without using edit summaries. The first one was extremely discourteous, the subsequent ones even more so. Now, we do not start articles ungrammatically, and the definite article is required here. See for example Channel Tunnel, Forth Bridge, Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, Öresund_Bridge, Sydney Harbour Bridge, Chirundu Bridge, Friendship Bridge (Paraguay–Brazil) etc etc. Also we do not need to include the details of the reference in the article text. It is fully specified in the citation. The text says what the fact is, the citation says where it came from. The article is a stub and does not have a lead, so it is quite absurd to insist that there should be a single sentence which re-states exactly what was already in the first paragraph.

In future, you can avoid getting into edit wars by simply using edit summaries and explaining yourself when you revert someone. And if you answer a question somewhere other than where it was asked, it would be courteous to mention that. 200.104.181.183 (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also we do not need to include the details of the reference in the article text.

I disagree. Calling it the "longest bridge in the world" is a subjective statement and not an objective fact. It's only the longest within the rules defined by Guinness. See the top-note in Longest bridges in the world for more background on this. It's critical that readers understand it is being called the longest by Guinness, it needs to be spelled out in the main body of the text and not just in a footnote. This is not a minor point. And as I explained above the best way to do that is the way I had it. The best way articles are written is they start with broad statements in the opening and lead into more detailed later, thus repeating information. Just because this is a short article doesn't mean we throw out good practices. As for the definitive article I don't care and had already restored it to the way you wanted it, not sure why your still arguing that (your edit comment suggests you didn't notice that I restored the "The"). As for courtesy, sure whatever I could have left edit comments and responded on your talk page, but I discussed it on the article discussion page which is where we are supposed to discuss article content issues, you could have equally taken the time to look here (if not already seen it on your watchlist). So now we know where the discussions are happening and that we have an ongoing edit dispute. I look forward to working with you to resolve this. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]