Talk:Megaproject

message: Surely the Concorde project, which NASA scientist regard as being a greater technical feat than the Apollo missions, meets the criteria?
:Which NASA scientist are you speaking of? I am inclined to believe that a near-unanimous majority would agree that the join Aérospatiale-BAC STS program would hardly compare to the Apollo program in the terms of a technical feat, especially given how a rather large portion of the technology was based upon things learned from the American XB-70 Valkyrie project, (which was retired more than two years before the Concorde made its first flight) as is clearly illustrated by the numerous apparent similarities in their airframe design. Additionally, even if it weren't for the roots of the project in the XB-70, technologically it wasn't a huge advance over even some of the previous works of British Aeronautic engineering; as one example, the English Electric Lightning, first flown in 1954, had demonstrated a capability for supercruise just as the Concorde would later, as well as some performance numbers that are impressive even today. Lastly, given that as the page for the Concorde itself implies a total cost equivalent to US$920 million of its current time, it would fall below the US$1 billion mark defined in the very opening line of the article. Nottheking (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Concorde

message: I there's no source for either of these things.  I don't doubt that the former exists but if it is a "megaproject" worthy of note shouldn't there be an article on it.  And the secret underground base?? There's nothing about it in the airport article.  Is there any credibility to this at all?
Egads.  There's probably some good content buried in the last few sections, screaming to fight its way out, but right now it's just overwhelmed by all the original-research-ish sociology hogwash ("utopian frictionlessness"!?). Jpatokal 12:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wastewater plant & Secret underground base

message: I added the Jubilee line extension as an example of a megaproject. It was then removed as "vandalism". However it clearly meets the definition of a megaproject so I can see no reason that it could be considered vandalism. I am therefore putting it back in the article. If anyone thinks that it should not be there could they explain why in the talk page rather than simply deleting it? --83.216.157.38 12:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the definition of "megaproject" is currently so vague as to be almost meaningless, but I find it hard to consider an extension of anything previously existing to really qualify.  The entire Jubilee Line might qualify, but is there a reason why it's substantially different from all the other Tube lines, or other megaprojects? (It's a list of examples, not an exhaustive list.) Jpatokal 14:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Moscow spend $1,5bln+ on metro construction every year. Should then it be classified as megaproject? Building metro is a pretty expensive thing. If such a routine, but expensive thing will be considered as megaproject, then we have to add nearly all metro systems... Elk Salmon (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm editing the line. It's kinda facetous to list just an upgrade or extension to an existing Metro as a "megaproject." Just being $1US billion or more in cost doesn't really constitute that, otherwise we'd have to add hundreds of such projects every year. Basically, that line means that anything below it DOES get cut off, but being above it isn't necessarily enough. A megaproject should reperesent not just an engineering challenge but a largely unprecedented engineering challenge; challenges are common, and thrown at students in engineering school all the time. So no, the Jubilee Line Extension is most certainly NOT a megaproject, the London Underground itself IS, as it is the oldest underground train network, one of the largest, and filled with so many "firsts." Hence, I'm replacing the line to cite the Underground itself as a megaproject. Nottheking (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jubilee line extension

message: Is Apollo Program a megaproject? Is Trans-Siberian railway megaproject? Is Internet megaproject? Why the number of entries in the list is so limited and such major projects not included?--Planemo 17:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seriously question whether the Internet could be classified as a megaproject, given that it is not a monolithic creation, having had no clear point of "completion" in the past, no any sign of reaching such "completion" in the future. That, and virtually all parties towards the creation of the Internet are not working together, hence it would not really classify as a single "project." If we take the original creation of the Internet, then it would very much fail to meet the criteria for having a major impact or garnering massive media attention, as it didn't come into widespread use until many, many years later. In other words, its creation wasn't so much a project as an invention. And certainly, this list is not for "megainventions." Nottheking (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigh 

message: I fail to understand why the Vision Tower and North-South Bypass Tunnel in Brisbane are on this list of Megaprojects. There are many other tunnels and buildings being built in Australia that are of similar scale, but are not on this list. Furthermore, the impacts of these two projects on (Australian) society are small comapred to those of Parliament House and particulary the Snowy River Scheme, let alone the other megaprojects listed from around the world. I suggest that these Brisbane projects, though significant, are relatively small and certainly do not fit into this category. They should be removed from this list.The Purple Nazz 10:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Do it. Grant | Talk 10:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Megaprojects 

message: Does the genocidal "demolition" of a city really constitute a megaproject? Unlike most every other item on this article, the destructiion of Tenochtilan was undertaken in the spirit of destruction and plunder, not creation. The artificial islands used for farming around the city of Tenochtilan, on the other hand, definitely merit consideration for the status of megaproject.
Starsword333 (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You forget one project that was also undertaken with the express purpose of destruction, being the Manhattan Project. As distasteful as it may seem to you or others, Wikipedia's requirement for a neutral point of view dictates that solid criteria be followed, and not bias in favor or against particular projects based upon whether they were beneficial or harmful. In this case, we must rely purely on the completely neutral merits; in short, that the project was very costly, and had a major impact on the surrounding area. In these senses, as evil as destroying the center of another civilization may be to many, it verily fulfils the criteria of a megaproject. Nottheking (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demolition of Tenochtilan 

message: The M6 toll? You've got to be kidding me! 26 miles of 3 lane highway does not a megaproject make. It's not even particularly big for a road in the midlands. Come off it. Deleted, if someone thinks otherwise, please let me know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.152.138 (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  M6 Toll 

message: There are numerous megaprojects stubs, lists and sublists on Wikipedia; it appears to me that these need to be rolled together and cleaned up. As mentioned above, they also probably need to be pared down; a reasonable criterion might be requiring a reliable source to have referred to the project in question as a megaproject. Jminthorne (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megaprojects on Wikipedia 

message: This article looks like a list article to me (with the exception of the megaproject paradox section at the bottom). I propose splitting the "list-y" majority of the article into a new article, List of megaprojects, so we can begin applying a standard criterion to inclusion of projects to the list and compiling all the scattered lists that are on wiki already. The remaining prose material on this page could then be expanded to an encyclopedic article about megaprojects in general (with a also link to the list of course). Jminthorne (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed rename 

message: The examples turned from a few representative examples into a (long) list of megaprojects, so I split it off into List of megaprojects so this article can focus on what a megaproject is and how they are created. RJFJR (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: I'm confused. How does optimism bias deserve a mention in the See also section? Are we saying that megaprojects are by definition susceptible to optimism bias? I'm removing the link, its placing in the article seems awfully POV. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the problem at least in part comes from spamming of Flyvbjerg references as detailed here. Much more cleanup is needed. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  optimism bias 

message: From a newspaper guy, the first two paragraphs of this story strike a consistently anti-megaproject tone. Not to say that any of the assertions are untrue, it's just that this reads like a college term paper on the economic downsides of huge public works projects. 
The intro graf comments on optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation are placed to high in this article, and should be included in their own section. The "curious paradox" is opinionated. If included at all, it should be lower in the story. In addition, the parenthetical comments at the top of the second graf should be removed. They are unprofessional and imply bias. 
A simple cut and paste reorganization would go a long way toward removing the appearance of bias from this article. I think the entire second graf needs to be sanitized, but I don't want to argue with whoever wrote it. 
Here's a reorganization proposal: 
A megaproject is an ... expensive, and public. 
(Cut 3rd sentence move to below) 
(Cut 2nd paragraph move to below)
Megaprojects include ... transportation projects. 
Investing in megaprojects in order to stimulate .... Act of 2009. 
(***New Section: "Criticism"***)
(Insert third sentence) Care in the project development ... and schedule forecasts. 
(Insert second paragraph here.) The logic on which many of the typical  ...
→I agree with the above.  As a casual reader, I found this article completely unhelpful, as its bias was clear to me immediately.  It seems to have been edited by some of the authors cited for anti-megaproject articles, so I have added a COI warning to the page.  I do not know enough to edit the page fully, but anybody can see the COI and bias.
→199.107.16.121 (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article reads biased...  

message: There are no other programs designed to evaluate large, complex and long-term plans, like RiskAoA.  Or maybe there are, let's talk.GESICC (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it very hard to believe that "there are no other programs designed to evaluate large, complex and long-term plans" for projects that cost more than a billion dollars. Are you saying that all projects that cost more than a billion dollars use RiskAoA? If that is true then why is it so incredibly difficult to find reliable secondary sources about RiskAoA? If it is not true, then what other decision support systems do megaprojects use? Those are the questions that I would like to see answered. Biogeographist (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Knock yourself out looking.  But usually these are planned through agglomerates of bids and proposals, evaluations, if they are done at all, they are ad hoc, and I think you'll agree, that an accounting program, assuming one is used, is not planning, and by then it's too late. That's why they are such a mess.  I can't show you something that doesn't exist, and other tools, to the best of my knowledge, don't exist.  As to secondary sources, ISO 31000, COSO Enterprise Risk Management, FRM, Luftwaffe, and British Standards used to have references even endorsements to it, but it is Distribution B, and they are not supposed to have it; those links dried up, or were dried up (I don't know for sure - you can see some dead links on previous versions of RiskAoA).  There are a few secondary sources, MITRE, AFMC/AC, and AFRL/XPT, AFRL/SEI are different organizations, AFRL is huge, the biggest problem is once a technology is approved for use in the DoD, people use it, not write about it.  It meets all notability as I wikiread it. V/RGESICC (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't intend to spend much time looking at this point, but I hope that other editors will take up the task. We are discussing the notability of RiskAoA on its talk page. Biogeographist (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

text: For other editors who wish to research this topic: Searching on Google Scholar for the following keywords returns some interesting and relevant results: risk management "multiple criteria decision" OR "multi criteria decision" megaprojects. Biogeographist (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight

message: Wow, just wow. This is jam-packed with OR and essentially boils down to criticism. Especially egregious is:
*"electricity for everybody (who can pay), road access (for those that have cars)" - undue weight on people it doesn't benefit
*"However, just like the old megaprojects, the new ones also foreclose "upon a wide variety of social practices, reproducing rather than resolving urban inequality and disenfranchisement"." - says who? This shouldn't be in Wikivoice
*"more and more megaprojects are being proposed despite their consistently poor performance against initial forecasts of budget, schedule, and benefits" - says who? is this a quote? 
*general undue weight to the opinions presented by Flyvberg and Megaprojects and Risk - are there alternate views?
This article is in desperate need of a full rewrite, as from what I (a reader who doesn't know anything about engineering) can tell, this appears to just be a regurgitation of Flyvberg's views. A History section would be especially welcome - when did civilisation progress enough for megaprojects to be considered? Could the Pyramids of Giza be considered megaprojects? The Sagrada Familia?
Couruu (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Accounts representing Flyvberg have been aggressively editing this page (and others like it) for some time - it is a real problem. I would support a full rewrite. MrOllie (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR and UNDUE running rampant