Talk:Belgrade bypass

sections rework

I will write up some stuff here, and then that will be put into the article, to replace the current sections.

• Section A - 9.7 km long
  • connecting the Belgrade-Novi Sad highway (E75) on the north and Šid–Belgrade highway on the west (E70)
    • Batajnica - Dobanovci - not started

• Section B - 37.3 km long
  • connecting E70 with the southbound Belgrade-Niš highway (E75), 37.3 km long - partly finished (from Dobanovci to Orlovača)
    • Part 1: Dobanovci - Surčin, 7,8 kilometara - done
    • Part 2: Surčin - most na Savi, 4,9 kilometara - done
    • Part 3: Most na Savi - Ostružnica, 4,9 kilometara - done
    • Part 4: Ostružnica - Orlovača, 7,7 kilometara - done
    • Part 5: Orlovača - Avalski put, 5,4 kilometara - worked on
    • Part 6: Avalski put - Bubanj potok, 7, 4 kilometara - not started

• Section C - 22 km long
  • crossing the Danube across a new bridge.
    • Bubanj potok - most na Dunavu - petlja Pančevo - not started

(LAz17 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)). http://www.blic.rs/beograd.php?id=107197 (LAz17 (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)).

How is that significantly different from the current information, except for detailed parts of section B? (And I think those parts are too detailed, by the way). No such user (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, section B is the only different part. It is more detailed and looks better, I think. Right now it looks like a big pile of stuff, so I thought that it would be good to go towards something that is more readable. What do you think? (LAz17 (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)).

Disagree. For the start, WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists favors the plain paragraphs over bulleted lists, and I tend to agree with that; your version breaks the text into too small chunks. Also I think that detailed listing of the parts is an overkill: why should a reader care about 5 km sections, which are of interest only to designers and builders? Once (if ever) they complete the road, that info will become totally irrelevant, so why would it be relevant now? No such user (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's OK to me. Plan of sections you proposed is stated in Serbian wiki also. Wile E. Coyote (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Who are you replying to? If to Laz, please un-indent your text. In this way, it seems that you actually agree with me (which seems unlikely, from the contents of your post). No such user (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for confusion. Wile E. Coyote (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I figure that people might be interested in knowing how much is complete. Having it like this makes it easy to go to the map and see how much was done. I would think that the current passage/text does not read easily? It is a question if even sections are needed once it is complete - it might be just one entire thing? (LAz17 (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)).

IMO it's better to have sections now, because it'll not be completed in near future. Wile E. Coyote (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belgrade bypass. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419143005/http://www.tanjug.rs:80/videodet.aspx?galID=53300 to http://www.tanjug.rs/videodet.aspx?galID=53300

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Belgrade bypass. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071113002049/http://www.bgdnovine.com/arhiva/broj08/tema.html to http://www.bgdnovine.com/arhiva/broj08/tema.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091207135944/http://www.bankwatch.org/newsroom/documents.shtml?x=2039570 to http://www.bankwatch.org/newsroom/documents.shtml?x=2039570

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)