Talk:Mumbai–Ahmedabad high-speed rail corridor

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, here, here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I edited

the last sentence of subsection “History”, to make it more idiomatic, at least to a native English speaker, such as I am. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Cost section

Removal of the Cost section should be considered. This project has started very recently. What's listed are estimates. Estimated costs are not facts. An encyclopedia entry needs to stick with facts only. Fatnred 21:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Mumbai Ahmedabad High Speed Rail.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Track gauge

I undid an edit which changed track gauge from standard to broad gauge without citing any sources.

The page High-speed rail in India states that the track gauge for all the new dedicated high speed lines is standard gauge, and I found one source which states the same. I haven't added the source as I am unsure if it is of sufficient quality or reputability for Wikipedia's standards.

standard gauge source: https://metrorailtoday.com/article/mumbai-ahmedabad-high-speed-rail-project-information-routes-fares-and-other-details

edit I undid: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mumbai%E2%80%93Ahmedabad_high-speed_rail_corridor&diff=1154178154&oldid=1153648294

If any of this is in error, feel free to revert my changes.

122.58.104.98 (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 3 July 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Mumbai–Ahmedabad high-speed rail corridor → India Bullet Train Project – The common name of the project is "Bullet Train Project". We should rename it because present name isn't common name, no one call it by this lengthy name. Tesla car owner (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Tesla car owner (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

References

There already exists a dedicated article for the Bullet Train project in India: High-speed rail in India, this title follows the standard naming convention used for such articles and fulfills Wikipedia article title guidelines. The Mumbai-Ahmedabad article is a dedicated article on the High-speed rail corridor between Mumbai and Ahmedabad and it isn't a descriptive article about overall high-speed rail in India. This article title also fulfills WP:CRITERIA so I disagree with the aforementioned title name change. Footy2000 (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: Not the same concept. Bullet trains refers to High-speed rail in India of which Mumbai–Ahmedabad high-speed rail corridor is only a part. It is the one being developed first, but there are seveeral other "bullet train" corridors sanctioned or in planning stages elsewhere. See the High-speed rail in India article. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  No one call it 'High speed rail' in India, everyone call it "Bullet Train". And the other projects are just proposals on papers, no electronic media reported about it, the current project was initially expected to finish till 2022 but now media is reporting it might finish after 2028, much later after claimed 2026 deadline. You have to consider the fact that in IND politician just speak lies and the other projects are just speeches nothing concrete step they taken on the ground. Common people call this project "Bullet Train Project" no one mentioned it the way title suggesting and in many article's name change discussion, I saw that majority editors want to keep common name rather then official name. That's why I suggested we keep common name not official name for the title. Tesla car owner (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  All high-speed trains are called as Bullet trains. And this is an article about a specific route. Only one is under construction at the moment, so it is obvious why media focus is concentrated on this route. Also, your edits to the article are gross misrepresentation of facts. I've reverted them once, and I hope you don't make them by reverting me again, because let this RM sort out first. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: There's 8 lines approved, with just this one under construction right now. If we move it, we'd just have to move it back once the other ones start construction. It's better to keep it here. Plus, it literally is the Mumbai to Ahmedabad high-speed rail corridor. The organization NHSRCL that's managing it also has the word high speed rail in it. Redflorist (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The two sentences after the project status timeline

"The National High-Speed Rail Corporation Limited (NHSRCL) has successfully erected the first steel bridge, measuring 70 meters in length, over National Highway-53 in Surat in Gujarat, for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High-Speed Rail Corridor.

This bridge is the first among the 28 steel bridges planned for the MAHSR corridor."

I think these two sentences were supposed to be a part of the project status timeline, but for some reason it didn't get moved into the correct spot on the bulleted list, possibly because the author didn't know how to properly do the formatting to do this. Since it doesn't have a source and doesn't mention any kind of date, I am not sure where to move those two sentences. In my opinion, it doesn't really make sense to have these two sentences be separate from the bulleted timeline, as this is a specific timeline event that has a specific date, which would then become outdated as more and more bridges get built. I'm thinking of 4 different options for what can be done with those two sentences:

1. Leave it as is and make no edit
2. Move the two sentences to the appropriate location on the bulleted project status timeline
3. Move the two sentences to somewhere else in the article
4. Delete the two sentences entirely

What do you all think about this? Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I did actually find the source for those two sentences. According to that article, the date was October 6th, so I could have made the insertion myself but I was hesitant to do so because of TOI's classification as a "no consensus source". Eventually, someone did move those two sentences, but they moved it to a location where it obviously doesn't belong (under November 8 when it should be October 6). Seeing that there has been no response in the talk page in many weeks, I decided to go ahead and just made the insertion myself along with adding the citation. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of the word "yen"

The word "yen" and the term "Japanese yen" is mentioned 6 times in this article (at the time of me writing this): 3 instances are capitalized and 3 instances are lowercase. This creates inconsistency, so I went to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, but I didn't see anything on the capitalization of currencies. After that, I looked at the Wikipedia page for Japanese yen, and saw that all instances of the term "Japanese yen" in that article had "yen" in lowercase, so I went ahead and made all instances of the word "yen" in this article lowercase as well. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Today I found this wikipedia manual which does seem to have an answer on how to capitalize currencies! Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Too glowing NPOV?

I read through the article and there's not a single mention of anything going wrong with this project, at least as far as I can tell. Construction projects always have problems. Has it just not been reported on or has it been getting removed from the article? Ergzay (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

"Project Status" Section

The "Project Status" section is excessively detailed and poorly sourced. Would it be worth shortening this section? The previous years could perhaps be summarised into a short paragraph each. 114.23.161.152 (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The way it was before, it was a very detailed timeline. I do agree with the fact that it was poorly sourced, but I think the Project Status section was written very well as a lengthy and detailed timeline (especially because I extensively edited the format but not content of that timeline), so I don't think it was necessary to shorten everything into paragraphs.

I would be in favor of bringing back the more detailed and lengthy timeline format that was already there. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"Launching Gantries"-Section reads like an advertisement

The whole section regarding the Launching Gantries seems to be written by or for the company that built them. It reads like a really long advertisement for the specific company, is not factual, has - in most part - little relevance to the article and its proportions are way to intense in contrast to the article as a whole. A few examples:

"The collaboration between NRS Bridge Construction India Pvt. Ltd. and leading contractors like Larsen and Toubro, as well as Dineshchandra R. Agrawal Infracon Private Limited, stands as a testament to the commitment to excellence in the field of bridge construction. The successful delivery of these packages underscores the technical prowess and dedication of NRS AS India [...]"

"NRS Bridge Construction India Pvt. Ltd., a distinguished subsidiary of NRS AS in India, has played a pivotal role in the success of the ambitious Mumbai-Ahmedabad High-Speed Rail (MAHSR) project. Specializing in the design and fabrication of launching gantries (LG) for Segmental Bridges, NRS has been a key contributor to several MAHSR packages, collaborating seamlessly with renowned contractors."

This clearly has no business being in a wikipedia-article, right? YannickBln (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, several sections read like straight PR / advertisement. I've added the advert template to the page. 219.89.31.196 (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted a large section of the article which contained the suspect wording. If you think the issue has been addressed, you could remove the advert template. 219.89.31.196 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)