Talk:List of megaprojects

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

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: do not move. — ξxplicit 20:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of megaprojects → Examples of megaprojects —

--Mike Cline (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose you haven't provided a reason for the name change. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - rationale is thus: As this list is unlikely ever to be complete, the title Examples of megaprojects is much more descriptive of its content and purpose. Inclusion criteria need not change. The title Examples of megaprojects is a more meaningfull link on the Megaprojects and related article pages.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would still oppose, since other similar lists that are not complete and never would be are still called lists, and we even have a template to tag such articles, such as {{dynamic list}} . 70.29.210.242 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the move is necessary and oppose. I have never really seen a complete list on Wiki as well. Also, this article is a list in nature and should remain that way...Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. I would like to suggest that maybe a summary paragraph be added to Megaproject#Examples which highlights the biggest projects. The reader can then choose to click on the list.
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rationale for removing PROD[edit]

I think this list meets or will meet WP list criteria with some minor modifications (some I've already undertaken).

  • Improve the lead-in to establish specific criteria for inclusion IAW the definition of Megaproject. (Done)
  • Change the name to Examples of megaprojects (being proposed)
  • Adding an {{expand list}} hatnote (Done)
  • Add appropriate categories
  • Vetting each list entry to ensure it meets the critera, add sources where appropriate, and cross-reference this list and the megaproject article with the articles listed.

--Mike Cline (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dam suggestions[edit]

Nice page you have made here. I often edit and expand a lot of dam articles and I have some suggestions. There are a lot of dams that have cost or will $1 billion and over, particularly in China. In addition, many of them have received a lot of international attention. Problem is that there are a lot that can be added here. Are we trying to set a limit? Some that should be added (off the top of my head): Nurek Dam, Grande Dixence Dam, Grand Coulee Dam, TaSang Dam, Guri Dam, Jinping 1 Dam and Xiaowan Dam.

Renaming the section "Dams & Hydroelectricity Projects" may be useful as some projects have small or no dams but produce a lot of electricity. Ex. Jinping 2 Dam, Robert Moses Niagara Hydroelectric Power Station Also, this template may be a good side addition to the article: Template:Supertall.--NortyNort (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Done--Mike Cline (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have similar question concerning oil and gas projects. There is a significant number of fields developments exceeding $1 billion line and same applies to oil and gas pipelines. Therefore, before starting adding these, it would be nice to be sure that this is the only limit. Also, in addition to the hydroplants a lot of power power plants (and practically all nuclear power plants) exceed the limit of $1 billion. Beagel (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I am doing some additions to the dam section now...adding some of the big dam projects in the last 100 years. You're right, most large hydropower dams these days run over $1 billion dollars and China for example is building a ton of them. We would have an enormous list. I think the criteria for dams should include power produced, height, size (volume of dam), size of reservoir and controversy (environmental, social, etc.) I don't think the Katse Dam should be in the list when compared to other projects. With that, every dam has negative effects that form some sort of controversy whether local or international.--NortyNort (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NortyNort - Your points have merit and I would suggest that instead of merely adding a phethora of dam projects to this list, that instead you create a subordinate list entitled something to the effect of Dam and hydroelectric megaprojects and establish subordinate but more specific inclusion criteria as you suggest above. As long as that criteria is consistent with megaproject criteria, your new list fits into and supports this list nicely. That way, your new list could be linked to this list via a {{main}} hatnote and this list could limit its dam entries to a handful of the most prominent dam megaprojects. As of now, there are 34 lists of dams but they are all (I think) based on geographic location, not megaproject criteria.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, we have some lists that sort of fit that bill (List of hydroelectric power stations, List of world's tallest dams, List of largest dams) and each encompass the major projects. I think the list can stay within the page, what I added is just about the max, maybe a few more and remove a few. A general criteria I can think of is that the dam or project creates over 1000 MW, is unprecedented like the Three Gorges or was enormously influential on future dams like the Hoover Dam. I will work on the list within the page and place a little blurb next to the project name justifying its entry. --NortyNort (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible criteria method for inclusion/exclusion?[edit]

I originally posted this over at the original article for megaproject; after cleaning/clarifying it a bit, I'm posting it here as well.

The main problem I see is that there's no clear criteria for what is and isn't a 'megaproject'. As a result, we have numerous entries that are of questional value to the list, with their main merit simply being "it cost over $1US billion." If that were the only qualification required, than the individual construction of most ships of the US Navy would qualify; the total cost of building and fitting most modern frigates, destroyers, and nuclear submarines routinely exceed the $1US billion mark.

Hence, I'm of the opinion that what's needed is some clear criteria being used. Here, I went over the relation between the cost of a project and its significance, alongside three potentially far-more-useful factors:

  • Cost: As I mentioned above, a major problem here is editors including the sheer number of projects that merely pass the $1US billion mark, without including any further merits. Rather, I think that the cost of a project alone isn't a qualification, but a sign that would note the existence of real qualifications. Inflated for 2010 US dollars, famous historical megaprojects like the Apollo program and the Space Shuttle program both surpassed $100US billion easily. And most other famous projects came in at over $10US billion in modern currency, or just under it. Hence, I'd suggest keeping the following benchmarks in mind, perhaps:
  • $100US Billion: Almost certainly a megaproject; it passes the annual GDP of 2/3 of the world's countries, the national budget of all of ~22 governments, and the defense budget of every country short of the USA. Anything this expensive will naturally be widely-known just from the scale of the project, and would certainly involve massive engineering & logistical challenges, and leave a massive impact for decades to come. Make sure it's an actual project in question, rather than something that isn't a distinct project, such as merely a combined operation or plan. (such as the design operation of a large business, governmental agency, or other entity)
  • $10US Billion: Likely a megaproject; this is a massive undertaking even for most governments and massive multi-national corporations. Granted, at this level it's not automatic on its cost alone. However, if the other factors grant it significance, it's likely most would consider it a megaproject.
  • $1US Billion: Likely not a megaproject. And just because a project passes this mark means it's realy a megaproject; look toward other qualifying factors that would work into here. Projects of this scale pop up by the day, and usually only affect their local municipality, and often aren't particularly noteworthy to anyone not living nearby. (e.g, most airport and metro projects) Projects of this cost being megaprojects would be the exception, not the rule; most, I'd imagine, would classify because they fall into the category of big science. Otherwise would require some form of extraordinary impact or challenge involved
  • Impact: Lots and lots of projects are started, (and completed) with most of them having a relatively minor impact, such as only affecting a specific element of a single city's infrastructure. (such as water or transportation) This really isn't all that much of a megaproject, with a few rare exceptions due to their significance from other factors. At the opposite end from simple municipal projects that merely have a high price tag are those that really do change the world, even if they don't cost quite all that much; many big science projects, like the LHC and ITER, would definitely qualify here. Transportation projects might qualify if they happen to seriously change a major transportation route in the world, such as the Channel Tunnel; the Panama and Suez Canals would be even more prominent examples, having become cornerstones of international sea trade.
  • Engineering Challenges: One defining characteristic of a megaproject is the sheer audacity of it. In many cases, the project attempts to produce something for which there is nothing similar. Of course, this should likely be considered in the context of the project, as something that was incredibly bold in its day might be commonplace now, such as examples like the London Underground and the Hoover Dam. Other modern projects may not necessarily be technically challenging, but could be entirely unprecedented, such as the King Abdullah Economic City
  • Public Attention: Real megaprojects tend to stand out in the media, be it for good attention or, very often, bad attention; generally international, and perhaps more importantly, persistent attention throughout the bulk of the duration of the project until its completion. (and often afterwards) The media will cover significant advancements, and more keenly, on any setbacks the project suffers. Clear examples from recent memory would be the LHC, the SDI, and Boston's Big Dig). Setbacks in all of those received multi-national attention.

I think that it might be prudent that all future additions should come with an argument, at least in the edit description, (a talk page post would be better) arguing on merits similar to these as to why the project qualifies as a megaproject. Meanwhile, I'll be applying these criteria and review some of the existing entries; if I get the time, I'll review all of them, and post my own arguments as for why or why not they should remain on the list. Of course, I'd welcome every single bit of constructive feedback and help; I was disappointed to see that my original invitation never met any replies. Nottheking (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Sydney Harbour Bridge made a debt only fully paid off in the 1980's, and had public interest through the roof. Allowing for inflation, the cost was over $500 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.149.128 (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stratford City/ Olympic Park, London[edit]

Is there any reason not to have Stratord City/ Olympic Park, London under "Planned cities and urban renewal projects" heading? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemnt (talk • contribs) 18:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like quite the project and probably deserves to be on there. The Stratford City article doesn't have much on cost and controversy. Then again, this list isn't maintained well and is indiscriminate.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are both right, Stratford City should be on the list (and I have added it), and yes, this list is very indiscriminate, especially considering the number of missing citations. Zarcadia (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cost estimates vs time[edit]

Is the US $1 billion cost threshold (or any other amount chosen) based on a point in time? Obviously the amount becomes a smaller proportion of (say) GDP as time progresses. Perhaps it should be defined as the cost threshold referenced to a particular year (e.g. 2000?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.124.168 (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with this list is that there are no strict criteria on inclusion and most entries have no citations, so until that is rectified the question of thresholds is moot. Zarcadia (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, once cost starts being discussed, I would like to suggest using http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ to find out the prices of older megaprojects (if said projects already have a nominal cost we can cite). Mauri96 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List or Tables[edit]

We should choose either list format or table format and be consistent about its use. RJFJR (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monuments, Religious Buildings and Statues?[edit]

What about the largest Cathedrals, Mosques, Temples, and Megachurches? Not to mention giant statues and monuments? -- 24.215.246.114 (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power plants[edit]

I'm surprised that Nuclear power plants are not featured more in the article, see List of cancelled nuclear plants in the United States. Johnfos (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Scrapped Projects?[edit]

Should we get rid of projects that were never completed? Many projects from Asia were proposed, especially during the property bubble of 2002-2008, but few were completed, for example. Many have been cancelled or have seen no progress in years. -- 24.215.246.114 (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis[edit]

Isn't this just one big synthetic list? Many of the things listed aren't actually described as "megaprojects" by sources, and the criterion at the top of the list is so vague as to be useless: "Extremely large-scale investment projects. These are sometimes also called "major programs.""
What purpose does this list serve? I realise that some editors might enjoy making lots of edits cataloguing articles in their preferred areas (mostly transport), but how does this list benefit readers? bobrayner (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried removing a very long unsourced list. This list was reinserted with the comment "The citations are on the articles linked. If you feel some should be removed, do so.". That edit obviously fails WP:BURDEN, but let's play along for a bit; perhaps the articles themselves show that they're megaprojects. Let's count:
  1. Abraj Al Bait Towers. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  2. American Dream Meadowlands. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  3. American Museum of Natural History. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  4. Antilia. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  5. Aon Center. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  6. Bank of America Corporate Center. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  7. Bank of America Plaza (Atlanta). Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  8. Bank of America Tower (New York City). Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  9. Berlin Hauptbahnhof. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  10. Bibliotheca Alexandrina. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  11. Boeing Charleston Factory. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  12. Boeing Everett Factory. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  13. British Library. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  14. British Museum. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  15. Buckingham Palace. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  16. Burj Khalifa. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  17. Canton Tower. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  18. Chrysler Building. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  19. Citigroup Center. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  20. Cleveland Union Terminal. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  21. CN Tower. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  22. Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  23. Cuatro Torres. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  24. Disneyworld. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  25. Eiffel Tower. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  26. El Escorial. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  27. Empire State Building. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  28. Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  29. Forbidden City. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  30. Gateway Arch. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  31. Gran Torre Santiago. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  32. Grand Central Terminal. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  33. Grand Egyptian Museum. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  34. Great Pyramid of Giza. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  35. Hungarian Parliament Building. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  36. Jakarta Tower. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  37. India Tower. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  38. Jin Mao Tower. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  39. John Hancock Center. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  40. JPMorgan Chase Tower. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  41. Kingdom Tower. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  42. Library of Congress. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  43. Lincoln Center. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  44. Louvre Museum. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  45. Mafra National Palace. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  46. Marina Bay Sands. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  47. Merchandise Mart. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  48. MetLife Building. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  49. Metropolitan Museum of Art. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
  50. Millennium Dome. Article does not mention the word "megaproject".
Out of the first 50 on the list, none of them have articles claiming to be a megaproject. Zero. There's no point in checking any more; why waste time on such an obviously fallacious idea? Synthesis is, clearly, a serious problem here. I have removed this unsourced, synthetic content again. bobrayner (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now the article has been unilaterally moved to List of projects costing over 1 billion US dollars - a rather arbitrary change but I suppose it makes scope easier to manage - and more swathes of unsourced content added back in. Seriously, if you want to add lots of stuff to an article and somebody challenges it, you're going to have to provide a source. bobrayner (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK I fixed it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well OK, you win. I never liked the megaprojects title anyways, so I just took this as an opportune moment to change it. Later, I'll be collapse these long lists on this talk page, but leave them for now please. I do not want this list to become citation hell is why I feel citations on the article is good enough. To my mind it look like a useful list for browsing wikipedia, which is what such lists are for, and you just gutted it because you do not like it. I still think common sense should apply. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A billion dollars is a lot more tangible than "megaproject", so scope is now much more manageable, but I'm concerned that the bar is still a bit low. (Putting every billion-dollar project on here would make it extremely long; in reality we would have to accept a list that is merely very' long, and rather incomplete). How about several billion? bobrayner (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed items[edit]

Here are some suggested items to be added to the list. All of them are obviously large scale projects, most over a billion dollars. Anyone with common sense could see they a really big. But, wikilayers are blind and need a reference to support inclusion on this list. If it is cited on the linked article, that suffices, otherwise a citation must be on this page. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff removed
Most of these should be added back in and the list broken apart into smaller lists. 199.200.223.3 (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name and viability of this list[edit]

I'll be honest, I am not a big fan of this list. "Megaproject" is somewhat subjective and it is hard to determine (and source) precisely what a megaproject is. I worked on the dam and hydropower section sometime ago and included dams that are big, expensive, create massive reservoirs and/or have a huge social/environmental impact. There are numerous dams over $1 billion around the world and most large dams nowadays cost over that figure. I think the list could grow significantly. What I have seen over the last year or so is editors placing projects on the list that may or may not be a "megaproject". Often I think the editor leaves it up to their own judgment, like myself. In turn, I don't police this article much and I don't think it serves as an accurate and informative tool as well.

I also am leaning towards putting this article up for deletion. The criteria is problematic and we can include a small list in the main article. Thoughts, please.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All we are trying to have here is a list of big projects. All it takes is: look at a project; is it really big? Put it on the list. It just takes WP:COMMONSENSE. It shouldn't need a cittation. But Wikipedia has grown to where there is no common sense, just demands for citations and wikilawyering. In that kind of enviroment we cannot have a list like this. There are no documents, articles, or books that track megaprojects. There is no way I can put the Great Wall of China on this list, because there is no way to cite that is was a megaproject, dispite the fact that it obviously belongs on the list. Well it is a shame, because it is a nice list for browsing wikipedia. Go ahead and put it for deletion. Just put it out of its misery before the wikilawyers beat it to death. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is a great list to research major projects around the world by sector.--NortyNort (Holla) 19:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Agree that the list is useful and enjoyable, but a title and delineation using financial quantity might fend off the treacherous wikilawyers who ruin all of our fun. I propose that the article could be re-titled to "List of Megaprojects worth over 10 Billion dollars". Or 100 billion. Use 2010 dollars so ancient/archaic projects don't get deleted and update to current dollar value every few/several years. Other ideas - create separate lists (List of megaprojects in Texas/Australia/Hungary/etc, worth over 1/10/100 billion dollars/euros/bitcoins/rutabagas, list of megaprojects in the ancient world, list of proposed megaprojects, and so on) If separate lists are created, perhaps this page could be simplified, and use it to link to the other more specific lists proposed in my previous sentence. Much more can be done with this, although it would require a lot of work - still, please DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE, JUST IMPROVE! It is lists like this that make Wikipedia a place where many of us enjoy coming to again and again. Felt (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that either deletion, or a higher bar ($100 billion, perhaps) would be a great improvement. Either option would eliminate lengthy, incomplete, unreadable lists; reduce the number of factual errors; and save a lot of editors' time. bobrayner (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could we, at least, agree on a higher bar? $10 billion? $100 billion? I'd be happy with either. bobrayner (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That could cut legitimate megaprojects out not to mention a lack of inflation estimates for old projects. I agree with Richard-of-earth above. The only problem is that we need editors to monitor the page, specifically someone with good knowledge of that sector.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No _PRPOSED_ or theoretical megaprojects?[edit]

Such should be section here or a ;ink to it in "see also" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.157.98 (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/centres/bt/Pages/default.aspx
    Triggered by \bsbs\.ox\.ac\.uk/centres/bt\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More sourcing problems[edit]

I tried removing more unsourced stuff. That was reverted by Takeaway, who suggested that the linked articles have sources. That doesn't satisfy WP:V, but anyway I thought I'd go along with that, and sampled five at random. None of the five target articles used the word "megaproject". This makes a mockery of verifiability. I have removed the section again. No wonder we have problems with listcruft. bobrayner (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earthandmoon, do you have any sources for the content you added here? bobrayner (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because wikipedia doesn't use the word "megaproject" makes it a non-megaproject? LOL! - Takeaway (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You too have restored huge volumes of unsourced content. I don't doubt that you're a competent editor, so you must have read WP:V. Why do you feel you are exempt from it? bobrayner (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summaries said "sources provided per linked articles". Firstly, that fails WP:V; but secondly, the linked articles don't even call these things megaprojects. Did you deliberately use a false edit summary each time you broke policy, or was it an accident? If it was an accident, I would be happy to fix it for you. bobrayner (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Takeaway...? Do you realise that your edits fail WP:V and that your edit summaries are false? Why did you do that? bobrayner (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Takeaway...? Your edit summaries said "sources provided per linked articles". Firstly, that fails WP:V; but secondly, the linked articles don't even call these things megaprojects. Did you deliberately use a false edit summary each time you broke policy, or was it an accident? If it was an accident, I would be happy to fix it for you. bobrayner (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello too. You seem to be in a hurry to get a list changed that has been there for ages. I was gone for a bit and busy too, and could only access WP through a mobile device which I found too bothersome for a lengthy reply. Yes, I understand WP:V and no, I don't think I have violated WP:V because of WP:CSC which, as I read it, only requires verifiability in a list for red-, or non-linked content. I also find blanking a whole section, without actually verifying if the content listed is correctly in there or not, a bit lazy. Ideally, one should view each item and then either keep it or delete it as seems to be happening now. - Takeaway (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, as for the Wikipedia article not using the word "magaproject" in an article: since when is wikipedia a source for when something is a megaproject or not? If anything, one should set clearly defined criteria for what can be listed here and what not instead of relying on what editors on a wikipedia article happen to say. - Takeaway (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And errrr Bob, per the above I don't think that my edits are false. - Takeaway (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I really don't think they are false. - Takeaway (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The verifiability policy is quite specific:

Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. ... The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.

Here and here you added large volumes of content which did not have sources. It fails WP:V. The WP:CSC guideline that you found obviously does not overrule WP:V; it does not exempt you from providing sources. LOL! bobrayner (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still no source? bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again I've been busy outside of Wikipedia. :)
You always ask for "still no source", such as in your edit summary here. I see that with every removal of an entry, you use this phrase but why not tag the list with the "unreferenced" template? Isn't the usual procedure that one first tags an article or a section of an article asking for sources or such? And only after a while asks "still no ....?" instead of immediately blanking a whole section or removing an entry with "still no...?"?
How I interpret WP:CSC, the sentences "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group." defers verifiability to the linked article itself. Only Red-linked articles or non-redirect articles need to be sourced in the list. For instance, the edit where you removed the entry AT&T Stadium] with your phrase "still no source", actually costs, if one takes the trouble to actually open the article, $1.41 billion in 2014 dollars. This amount is sourced in the article. You do seem to agree (as seen here below under section "Full protection") that projects that cost more than $1 billion are eligible for inclusion. It's therefore a bit perplexing, at least if one accepts my interpretation of WP:CSC, why you removed the entry. As for the fact that the word "megaproject" does not feature in the AT&T Stadium article, it also doesn't feature in the article about the Great Wall of China, which, in my opinion at least, can be seen as a megaproject. Although no actual costs are cited for the Great Wall, one can safely assume that it would be a multitude of billions of USD if corrected for inflation. Similarly for the Hollandic Water Line. It has been estimated in 2008, that between 1815 until the last renewal of the fortifications in 1940, almost 50 billion Euros have been spent on this military project which stretches over a length of 85 kilometres. I would assume that this too can be seen as a military megaproject. - Takeaway (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I see that you've been deleting a huge amount of content during this discussion on what actually WP:CSC entails with your, now standard, edit summary "still no source?" without actually having ever placed a tag there, or anywhere else on this list, asking for sources. - Takeaway (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it okay now to revert all the content that you removed, Bob? - Takeaway (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can comply with policy, go ahead, with my blessing. If you can't, don't. bobrayner (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What a pity that you didn't adhere to WP:USI Bob, but instead deleted all those contributions by fellow editors because you didn't understand WP:CSC. Unfortunately I haven't time to go through the whole edit history and restore your content deletions. Anyway, it's only Wikipedia so no real harm done to anyone when absolutely fine content is removed for the wrong reasons. - Takeaway (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that an essay - which says that unsourced content can be removed - somehow overrules my policy-based removal of unsourced content, I can only be grateful that you're going to walk away from this mess.
If at any point in the future you feel able to comply with policy, feel free to come back and help clean up. bobrayner (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surprising how you can always ignore what is stated in WP:CSC. The content isn't unsourced, it only requires you to actually open the linked article and read the sources there but that seems to be too much trouble. - Takeaway (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection[edit]

I have fully protected the article for five days due to an edit war. It seems that participants may disagree about the verifiability of the list inclusion criterion. At present the list is said to include anything that satisfies the following:

  • Projects that cost more than US$1 billion and attract a lot of public attention because of substantial impacts on communities, environment, and budgets
  • Projects can also be "initiatives that are physical, very expensive, and public"

If these are your criteria, you should verify that they are satisfied, per WP:V. If this evidence can't easily be obtained, perhaps you could change the criteria. When agreement is reached, the protection can be lifted. If the war continues when protection expires, consider reporting it at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better served using categories?[edit]

Most megaprojects will be notable. I think most people agree with this. Further, the definition of a megaproject having capitalization >US$1,000,000,000 is a moving target, and will likely rise over time (used to be that US$20,000,000 was considered a lot of money).

My thinking is that it might be better to use a set of nested categories like Category:Megaprojects of capitalization greater than $1 billion which would contain Category:Megaprojects of capitalization greater than $10 billion which could contain a higher denomination category later. There could be sub-cats such as Category:Aerospace megaprojects of capitalization greater than $1 billion, for instance.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems[edit]

I can see that there has been simmering discussion about this for years, but something should really be done about this article to standardise the presentation and make sure everything is verifiable and more complete, as well as being comparable without getting into WP:OR. I would suggest that projects that are not substantially complete should be removed. Anything that isn't a single "project", ie. a war, or programme should certainly be removed. I think that the article could stand to be split into sub-articles, because, for example, an aircraft development project has almost nothing to do with an urban redevelopment project and comparing them here has little added value IMO. There's also the standard issue of not accounting for inflation, which is a massive problem for these kinds of lists. However, I'm not sure how to deal with it short of finding a comprehensive listing that already does account for it, and even then it would quickly become dated. I will endeavour to make some improvements in conjunction with the newly revambed List of transport megaprojects. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do software projects count?[edit]

I was thinking about the amount of time and effort that goes into various software projects. It seems like enough to consider them 'megaprojects'.

The Linux kernel was worth $1.4 billion in 2008. Fedora was worth $10 billion. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/sites/main/files/publications/estimatinglinux.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooberpatrol66 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'd say the Linux kernel and Wikipedia are worth mentioning 174.202.170.181 (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article possibly contains original research.[edit]

It looks like this list contains a lot of original research on which projects are an actual megaprojects.

I tried to google a few things from the Aerospace section and here is what I got:

  • Rockwell B-1 Lancer - only this article and some amateur youtube slideshow of B-1 images are calling it a megaproject
  • Boeing 2707 - only some blogspot article and wikipedia clones / references to this list
  • Lockheed L-2000 - nothing beyond copies of this list
  • McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet - nothing beyond copies of this list
  • Chengdu J-20 - as above.
  • KH-11 Kennan - as above, no sources calling it a megaproject, though at least this one has quite decent section about costs
  • Tupolev Tu-160 - nothing beyond copies of this list, the fact that something is largest doesn't automatically make it a megaproject
  • Dassault Rafale - mostly mentioned in a context of India purchase, not as the fighter itself... better than most, but still I don't see how it made it to the list as a fighter itself (as opposite of the tender), even more so considering that the Indian tender is still an open case

None of the articles this list links to contain words "mega project" or "megaproject" (in almost all cases they don't even contain word "mega" alone). There are no sources backing any of these. It all looks like someone did a huge dose of original research. See: Wikipedia:No original research for the policy on cases like that. If noone can ensure verifiability of the items on the list - they should be removed sooner rather than later (considering just how long some of this info been hanging around here). SkywalkerPL (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last table in this article is messed up[edit]

I don't know anything about editing Wikipedia, so hopefully someone is alerted to an edit in this Talk page. The section labeled "South Asia" underneath "Planned cities and urban renewal projects" contains the tables for the rest of the regions. 67.149.110.240 (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of megaprojects. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of megaprojects. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

original research...[edit]

"This article possibly contains original research. (September 2015)" I saw that in the template on this page. please note that Wikiversity (Wikimedia project) can have original research, so if some of that research should be removed from this article, please consider moving it to wikiversity. limitless peace Michael Ten (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Disaster Cleanup' section needs cleanup (and a better focus)[edit]

The disaster cleanup section is ironically a disaster in and of itself. I went to the effort of adding sources to the section along with costs associated. However, on reflection, I am unsure of the relevance of some of the entries. I believe the focus of that section should be ONLY on disaster cleanup/relief efforts that center around a central project such as Chernobyl and its confinement building or Deepwater Horizon and the cost of plugging the hole and cleaning up the oil. The cost should not include more general expenses like financial compensation, cost to the economy, and scattered repairs or rebuilding across more that one site. The reason for this is that we already have an list article that handles the wider costs of disasters, List of disasters by cost, and so this section should contain examples of cleanup in which there is a clearer centralized project needed rather than general relief and rebuilding. My plan is to wait and reflect a bit more, and then gut the section down to those items that meet the described specifications and update the costs to reflect this more more narrow perspective. Hwamplero (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Standardizing cost figures across all tables[edit]

Associated with each project should be the cost at completion (or estimated if not yet completed) in the currency provided by the source(s). There should also be an additional column for inflation adjusted cost which should be further converted to USD after the inflation adjustment. This will allow for some (albeit flawed) level of comparison between projects.

Care should be taken to compare multiple sources and provide a cost range if there is significant deviation. Care should also be taken to isolate the cost of the project from connected projects as best as is possible. Costs provided here should generally match those provided in similar lists like List of transport megaprojects or the project's own article. If the article on the subject lacks a cost figure, one should add the figure to the individual article first and monitor the page before adding it here.

Items for which a cost cannot be easily ascertained and for which the cost is likely close to a ~1bn USD threshold should be removed unless of massive historical or cultural importance.

I know that this has been brought up several times, but I do intend to work to update sections and I hope others will help as well. Hwamplero (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Objective Evaluation of Overall Success of Project[edit]

Some sort of objective evaluation of overall success of the completed projects (Cost, Schedule and Performance) would add great value to this list. Having said that, I appreciate how difficult it is to objectively evaluate the overall success of massive projects that run to completion. The comment above about standardizing cost figures mentions providing a cost at completion so, together with original estimate, this can help with assessment of the Cost dimension (assuming there were no huge changes in defining what constitutes "completion"). The actual vrs scheduled project completion date could also be provided (again assuming there were no games played in defining what constitutes project completion) for assessment of the Schedule dimension. Finally, the overall Performance of what was built could receive a comment. This is a tough one to be objective about but perhaps some sort of search of published comments from those who operate the facility and those who use the facility. This is all a very tall order but would add great value to what is already a valuable list. 65.92.234.42 (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_megaprojects&oldid=1203660571"