Talk:Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor

Untitled

Just curious.... is this bridge complete?? http://www.newsgd.com/prdcorner/newsspeeches/200704170042.htm suggests it is.... Junglizt1210 21:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor. 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/20070325152608/http://www.hyd.gov.hk/eng/major/road/projects/6759th/index.htm to http://www.hyd.gov.hk/eng/major/road/projects/6759th/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928010955/http://www.hyd.gov.hk/eng/major/road/projects/6759th/Paper.pdf to http://www.hyd.gov.hk/eng/major/road/projects/6759th/Paper.pdf

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) 18:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 January 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus in this discussion that the bridge and the corridor are equivalent, and/or no consensus to limit the scope of the article to the bridge alone, and thus no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Further discussion on merges and splits can continue as necessary outside of this move discussion. Dekimasuよ! 18:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor → Shenzhen Bay Bridge – The Hong Kong government apparently refers (Chinese version) to the bridge as "Shenzhen Bay Bridge (formerly known as the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor)". Press releases from 2007 call the bridge "the Shenzhen Bay Bridge (also known as the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor)". The Chinese Wikipedia and Cantonese Wikipedia each have one article for the bridge (with the title "Shenzhen Bay Bridge") and one article for the controlled-access highway (with the title "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor"). Jc86035 (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

All the citation in the RM are primary source. How about SCMP? Matthew hk (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: SCMP's internal search shows about 28 results for "hong kong shenzhen western corridor" and about 20 results for "shenzhen bay bridge". I've excluded results from before the bridge opened, since the bridge wasn't called the "Shenzhen Bay Bridge" during its construction phase.

There are no articles from 2019 which mention the bridge. Of the three 2018 articles, none use "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor". One page is a letter to the editor. In 2017, four articles used "Bridge" and one article used "Corridor"; the sole article containing "Corridor" uses both names ("also known as the Shenzhen Bay Bridge").

Phrase	Year
	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
"shenzhen bay bridge"	4	1	0	2	0	0	2	1	0	0	4	3
"hong kong shenzhen western corridor"	5	5	2	1	2	2	2	1	1	4	1	0

The numbers don't add up to the totals because some articles are counted twice by the website. Overall, to me the usage seems to be infrequent and somewhat erratic, although there definitely seems to be a reversal between 2016 and 2017. Jc86035 (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

So we can't tell which one is absolutely more common. However, it seem Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor have a more clear context as a cross-cities road, while Shenzhen Bay Bridge did not. Matthew hk (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: Likewise, "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" doesn't clearly indicate that the article is about a bridge.

Given that the more common name isn't totally clear, I think if the Hong Kong government has decided to call "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" the former name (and has updated all of its data and publications to reflect that) then the article title may as well be updated to reflect that change. Jc86035 (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The context of the "road/bridge" was often refer as a "cross-border/cross-cities" infrastructure, instead of normal bridge. Just like "Huanggang" in Hong Kong Chinese media, is referred to Huanggang Port instead of Huanggang, Shenzhen area. Yes sometimes in Chinese language media a term "Shenzhen Bay" is used, but it was referred to the cross-border/cross-cities checkpoint. It may be helpful if digging out the gazetted official name (in the talk page of zh-wiki version of the article, the link to government gazette is dead). Also, zh-wiki they raised a question, is "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" refer to the bridge only or the bridge and the cross-border/cross-cities checkpoint. Just like Lantau Link which consisted of Tsing Ma Bridge and Kap Shui Mun Bridge. Matthew hk (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

For example, an article from SCMP in 2018, [1], was about Shenzhen Bay Bridge and Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, the two transport infrastructures that linking Hong Kong to surrounding cities. I doubt there is any news report to refer Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor in a context that not related to cross-cities function. By context, despite "Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge" did not have any word of "cross", it have the name of the cities in it, just like "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor". Matthew hk (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: Regarding "context [...] related to cross-cities function", several of the SCMP articles – including 3 in 2017 – mention the bridge because they mention or are about traffic accidents that occurred on the bridge. For the fatal accident on 22 May 2017, Now TV, Sina, and Apple Daily all use "深圳灣大橋", Ming Pao uses "深圳灣公路大橋", and The Standard uses "Shenzhen Bay Bridge". SCMP uses "the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor, also known as the Shenzhen Bay Bridge". The Hong Kong Free Press doesn't have an article on the incident. Jc86035 (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

the bridge is exclusively for cross-border use. Also, for the context, this wiki article seem about the whole complex, while the news articles which reporting the road accident, seem referring to a component of the complex, which isolate the bridge and cross-border check-point as two components. The mini-bus in the accident, was indeed on the way to the check-point on the bridge. Matthew hk (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: The checkpoint is referred to separately as the Shenzhen Bay Port / Shenzhen Bay Control Point, isn't it? Most of the article concerns the bridge and not the port area, although obviously they're closely related so the articles have to mention each other. I don't think the port area was part of the Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor project. The EIA permit refers to the project scope of the bridge (then the Shenzhen Western Corridor; Chinese name is the same) as "a new expressway" (see figure 1). I don't think the port area facilities were constructed by the Hong Kong government, in any case.

I don't think the fact that one of the names indicates that the bridge crosses the border has anything to do with which title the article should use, since both of the names are/were officially designated names. Jc86035 (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose then. The citation on this article was about Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor (despite the citation was about the construction project within the Hong Kong boundary i.e. part of the construction of the whole infrastructure), while the wiki article was about the whole infrastructure. The bridge is one of the component. Despite some content had forked out as Shenzhen Bay Port / Shenzhen Bay Control Point, RM is not the right venue to discuss on changing the scope of the article to another (narrow from the whole infrastructure to a component the bridge). Also, the name is not a obsolete name as it was used interchangeably in the media (for context of road accident, it seem more precise to use "bridge", but for the context of cross-cities, more precise to use "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor"). Matthew hk (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Matthew hk: I wouldn't base my decision solely on that page. The only term on the page which could conflate the bridge with the port area facilities is "vehicular boundary crossing", and if you change that to a more specific term then the page is unambiguously about the bridge. The project description is "Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor is a 5.5-kilometre long dual 3-lane carriageway of which the Hong Kong section is 3.5-kilometre." There's nothing in that sentence about the port area. Furthermore, if "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" also referred to the port area, then its length wouldn't be exactly the same as that of the "Shenzhen Bay Bridge" because about 1 km of road inside the port area would presumably also be counted as part of the corridor. (For what it's worth, the length of the mainland section from the end of the longest slip road is about 2.1 km. The reason that the road is incorrectly(?) labeled as "Kong Sham Western Highway" in OpenStreetMap is because of this changeset.) Jc86035 (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" is an official name (or was the official provisional name of the project or whatever wording) AND common name. Shenzhen Bay Bridge may be an official name (the gazette link was broken so i can't tell) and common name. Based on WP:Article titles there is some criteria and we usually not using official name per WP:Official name, unless official name also a common name.

We can't tell which one is more popular, but "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" qualify Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision criteria. It may somehow not conciseness as there is other cross-cities corridor and we can't make up a concise name for the article. Matthew hk (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

And it is off-topic for the error of open street map. And here is a Legislative Council document, it specially stated " Shenzhen Bay Bridge (also known as the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor).", showing the two names in official record are worth to state together, and by other criteria above, to me "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" seem more suited to the criteria .

Also for the context. the cross-border check point is an end-point of a road "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" aka "Shenzhen Bay Bridge", it is a nightmare or pure math problem to define a point is part of the line or not. Also, it would be nightmare to self-define wiki article "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" is for the Hong Kong section only, which Highways Department stated "The Shenzhen Bay Bridge is an additional cross boundary link from Shenzhen to join up with Kong Sham Western Highway on the Hong Kong side. It is a 5.5km dual three-lane carriageway (Hong Kong section is 3.5km whereas the Shenzhen section is 2km)." (Yes it apparently use the name "Shenzhen Bay Bridge" as seem official name) Matthew hk (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok i dig more source. While Highways Department only stated the infrastructure as Shenzhen Bay Bridge as well as only stating the length of the bridge, People's Daily of the mainland China, stated "深港西部通道工程由深圳湾公路大桥、口岸工程和接线工程三部分组成" , clearly stating the Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor have "Shenzhen Bay Bridge, port/check-point and connective roads" as components. Matthew hk (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Matthew hk: Haven't we already established that multiple English-language and Chinese-language sources colloquially and formally refer to the bridge as "Shenzhen Bay Bridge", that usage of "Shenzhen Bay Bridge" has probably increased in the past two years, that the government started preferring "Shenzhen Bay Bridge" around the road's opening, and that the government has deprecated the use of "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" and has replaced the term's usage throughout its documentation (or at least the Lands Department and Highways Department both have)?

Following your reasoning, Light Rail (MTR) could be titled "North-west Railway (MTR)", since the latter is still legally its official name (due to the Mass Transit Railway (North-west Railway) Bylaw (2007)), and "North-west Railway (MTR)" is arguably just as recognizable, natural and precise as "Light Rail (MTR)" is. The only differences in the two cases are that "Light Rail" is unambiguously the common name and that "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" seems to be officially deprecated.

The "end point" of the bridge structure is several hundred metres inside the checkpoint area; what I meant by "about 1 km of road inside the port area" (which is incorrect and not what I meant, sorry) should have been "about 1 km of road inside the checkpoint" (i.e. some length of at-grade road in addition to the 2 km on the bridge inside the port area). I don't think I've said that "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" should be taken to refer only to the Hong Kong section of the bridge ("Hong Kong section" meaning the 3.5 km from Ngau Hom Shek to the middle of Deep Bay/Shenzhen Bay).

The Legislative Council paper is from April 2007, which is after the government started using the name "Shenzhen Bay Bridge" and probably some time before the government stopped using the name "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor".

Regarding the People's Daily article, I'm pretty sure the Wikipedia article has always been about the road/bridge; at no point does it state that the port area is part of the subject described by it. The OSM changeset claims that the Mainland refers to the entire link, including the checkpoint and Kong Sham Western Highway, as "深港西部通道", although I haven't found anything to show that this is or isn't the case. Route 10 also ends at the coastline and not inside the checkpoint. As such, and given that there are already separate articles for the components of the checkpoint, it would make more sense to have the article be about the entity referred to by both the Mainland and Hong Kong as "Shenzhen Bay Bridge"/"深圳灣公路大橋"/"深圳湾公路大桥". Jc86035 (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The existing citation (yes i changed the zh-version to en-version of the same document) in Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor#Chinese and Hong Kong Immigration co-location is clearly about the Shenzhen Bay Port, which according to People's Daily, was part of the Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor, while Shenzhen Bay Bridge is another component of the corridor. RM is not a place on splitting the wiki article or chopping the content of the wiki article for the sake of RM. Matthew hk (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, i already said don't bring the bull shit of another community project to wikipedia, they can't be reliable source for the content of wikipedia. "Kong Sham Western Highway" according to Highways Department, start from Ngau Hom Shek, end at Lam Tei . Matthew hk (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: The existence of the section doesn't mean that the port area is part of the "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor". It makes sense that the section's in the article because a third of the bridge is inside the port area, although I think the section doesn't clearly indicate its relevance to the rest of the article (or at least it doesn't from my POV – that the article is and was always clearly about the road, and is also not written as well as it could be). The entire section was added by Ngchikit in this 2011 edit. If the article were about the port area as well as the bridge then the lead section wouldn't start with the claim that the subject of the article is the road; and it wouldn't say "It connects Hong Kong with the border crossing facilities [...]", since this indicates that the article is about the road, and that the border crossing facilities are not part of the road.

The reason I brought up the OSM changeset in the previous comment is that if the user is not incompetent – and per WP:AGF I have assumed they are competent – then they have stated a claim (i.e. that the Hong Kong government defines or used to define the term "深港西部通道" differently from the mainland government) which is very useful here for clearing up what means what, but which I haven't been able to verify or to show to be incorrect. This makes sense in the context of their edits/changesets, because all three of them (two of which I reverted in January) were to label the entirety of Route 10 and some of the roads inside the checkpoint as "Kong Sham Western Highway". Jc86035 (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And as a note. the connection road which People's Daily was taking about, is the road in Shenzhen that connect the infrastructure to the main road of Shenzhen , not talking about Kong Sham Western Highway. Matthew hk (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

RM is wrong venue of splitting the article. Shenzhen Bay Bridge is a component of Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor, the existing article is about the corridor except the length figures are wrongly referring to the bridge only. For the sake of the article, it is not worth to split the article. Lastly, "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" is the common name that fit more to the criteria. Matthew hk (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: The government of Hong Kong, in 2007 and in 2008, stated 5.5 km as the length of the HK-SWC, or "the Shenzhen Bay Bridge (also known as the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor)". The Highways Department still says that the length of the Shenzhen Bay Bridge ("formerly known as the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor") is 5.5 km. Thus, the two names are almost certainly regarded by the Hong Kong government as referring to the same dual three-lane elevated controlled-access highway between Lau Fau Shan and Shekou.

Hence, I don't think this would result in splitting the article. There have been two separate articles since 2008, and three separate articles since 2011 (when SchmuckyTheCat apparently gave up on edit warring an IP which was persistently re-creating Shenzhen Bay Port).

Regardless of what access roads the People's Daily article was referring to, there is clearly some discrepancy between the Mainland definition and the Hong Kong definition of "深港西部通道" (given the indication that the Hong Kong government was using HK-SWC and SBB interchangeably in 2007). Jc86035 (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If it would be better to treat the bridge and the HK-SWC (defined for the purposes of this paragraph to be the bridge, the border crossing and the connecting roads in Shenzhen) as separate entities, then perhaps it would be preferable to create a new article at Shenzhen Bay Bridge and reorganize the three existing articles. However, regardless of whether it would be preferable to split the article, and regardless of whether the topic of the existing article is effectively changed, the correct procedure would still be to use WP:RM, since an administrator would need to move the existing article to preserve the page history, and a discussion would have to take place to determine consensus. One of the possible outcomes of this discussion (and the originally proposed outcome) is that this article needs to be moved over an existing redirect, necessitating the RM tag; and there is nothing that indicates the consensus reached for an RM cannot be "article to be split" or "moved and modified slightly to fit new title" rather than simply "moved" or "not moved", so it would be inappropriate to prematurely end the discussion through a closure on procedural grounds. Furthermore, this talk page is almost certainly the correct page to discuss splitting the article or changing the article's subject. Jc86035 (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Determine the scope and name it appropriately. What is the article supposed to be about? If it's the corridor, merge everything here including the two border articles. Why are there three articles for one border? If it's only about the bridge, name it after the bridge. I don't think there is sufficient notability for three independent articles for one border road and associated customs building. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

yes, the components of the corridor are not notable individually (by WP:GNG standard) but the whole infrastructure as a whole is notable. (the bridges in Lantau Link are individually notable because it was somehow the world longest by their type as well as publications reporting it). Despite it was conflicted in the source material (between Hong Kong material and Mainland material) the Port (the border check-point) is part of the corridor or not , but by common sense airport terminal for certain is part of the airport, also railway station as terminals/stops of a railway, certainly part of the railway. The legal definition of the bridge and the port are defined as two parts, due to port is entirely inside Shenzhen. Hong Kong had to lease some area for the Custom and Immigration Departments as exclave. However, it does not mean the two parts can function individually. Matthew hk (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

And for the record, despite the main function of Kong Sham Western Highway, was connecting Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor to the existing Hong Kong road network, Kong Sham Western Highway also served the function as an access road to Ha Tsuen. Matthew hk (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk and SchmuckyTheCat: I don't think the port articles would fail the GNG, particularly if they were merged into one article. Both Huanggang Port and Lok Ma Chau Control Point have their own articles, despite being adjacent to and permanently connected to each other. That the parts couldn't function individually has no bearing on whether they would pass the GNG, although it would warrant their merger into a larger article. Jc86035 (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Those two should also be merged to a single article. I think having one article per border crossing is normal across the project. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Here is another source to prove "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" is not an obsolete name and in fact still one of the common name since the opening of the infrastructure in 2007. The leaflet was published by OFCA, a government agency that not relate to transportation , so it is in between primary and secondary source. Yes in the source it also listing Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor and Shenzhen Bay Port as two items, making it became another conflicted source material on whatever the Port is part of Corridor or not, but it is not the matter of RM. Matthew hk (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

And yet more press release were dig out to prove the port is part of the corridor , while bridge is only one of the components of the whole Corridor (2003 People's Daily, HK Government press release on entrust Shenzhen "the construction of the boundary crossing facilities of the Hong Kong side at the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor") Matthew hk (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew hk: From http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr14-15/english/panels/tp/papers/tp20150717cb4-1306-4-e.pdf: "Upon commissioning of the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor, the Transport Department has numbered the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor [sic] as Route 10 and renamed the road linking North Lantau and Yuen Long being conceived as Route 11." Is Kong Sham Western Highway considered part of the HK-SWC?

If the name isn't obsolete, then the issue is instead that the Hong Kong government inconsistently uses the term "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" in at least two and possibly three or four different ways (bridge, bridge+port, and bridge+highway and/or bridge+highway+port). "Shenzhen Bay Bridge", at least, has a much less ambiguous meaning. Jc86035 (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I made a statement again. By the proposal of Shenzhen to Central Government in year 1996, the whole infrastructure called Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor, consists of The Port at that time without a name (now called Shenzhen Bay Port) and a bridge (always call Shenzhen Bay Bridge). The Hong Kong Port Area during construction stage , the area was refer as "boundary crossing facilities of the Hong Kong side at the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor", which use "of" , "at". Hong Kong government have authority to name the bridge and the bridge only, which in the gazette, the name is the same as the provisional name of the construction stage: Shenzhen Bay Bridge. Bridge and port are essentially one construction project and function as one. People cannot across the border without using the bridge and port (May be people knew teleporting to the port? or use the bridge but illegally across the border?). Also by context, road accident is happened on the bridge, so "on Shenzhen Bay Bridge" is more precise name which media is used. But for the context of crossing the border, "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" should be used. And yet, media sometimes just use Shenzhen Bay Port for the context of "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor". For context, this wiki article is not about the bridge only, but "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor", and it is more precise and recognizable for Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor .

• For box in box in box in box in box articles. Shenzhen Bay Port may survive as a sub-article of "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor". But no need to fork out Shenzhen Bay Bridge, unless GNG source is dig out for the bridge such as for the architectural feature (which road accident is not an in-depth coverage). Also Route 10 (Hong Kong) consist of many part and some part even scrapped from building, so Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor and Kong Sham Western Highway can survived as the sub-article of Route 10 .

Shenzhen Bay Port should cover "Shenzhen Bay Port Shenzhen Port Area" and "Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area", which the latter contained Shenzhen Bay Control Point.

• Other box in box in box in box articles, such as many similar articles about Yuen Long is the problem set by other editors in the past. Wiki articles actually need WP:GNG, forking out the same content 5 times made people more difficult to understand and navigate. Matthew hk (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

And Kong Sham Western Highway is ALWAYS NOT part of Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor . Hong Kong government submitted the funding of Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor AND Deep Bay Link (now known as Kong Sham Western Highway) to the Legislative Council. Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor (which consist the bridge) currently only connect to Kong Sham Western Highway, but in the feasibility study, there was a spur line start around Ngau Hom Shek, and via the shore of Deep Bay, anti-clockwise to the South (to Tuen Man).

It is not that relevant of bring other set of box in box in box in box articles to the RM as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Huanggang Port and Lok Ma Chau Control Point cannot compare to "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor". "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" consist of the Bridge and Port (and built by Hong Kong AND Shenzhen government), but Huanggang Port and Lok Ma Chau Control Point are built separately . Lastly, use NPOV not Hongkongism of claiming the ownership of the Corridor as Hong Kong only. Source material from Shenzhen , despite in Chinese language, still call it "Western Corridor" as of 2019. While Hong Kong media, in English and Chinese, since 2007 opening of the Western Corridor, still use Western Corridor or use it along with Shenzhen Bay Bridge in interchange for the same context. Matthew hk (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

For the new legco doc, Route 10 existed long before the construction stage of the Corridor . By design, The plan of route 10 consist of Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor AND Deep Bay Link (i.e. Kong Sham Western Highway) AND Yuen Long to Lantau Island section, and possibly from Lantau to Hong Kong Island. However, the planned road from Yuen Long to Lantau, was rejected by Legco (the funding of Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor AND Deep Bay Link AND Route 10 (Yuen Long to Lantau) was submitted on the same day). It is bad wording to "rename" Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor to Route 10, but by laws, Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor and Kong Sham Western Highway can only be official member of the route 10 only after they are constructed. So i believed it was a typo on making route 10 equal "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor", instead, the context is "Hong Kong–Shenzhen Western Corridor" is named as part of route 10, while old planned Route 10 (Yuen Long to Lantau section) was renamed Route 11, the context was explaining the name of Route 11, but not about how many part of route 10. Which the Chinese version of the same document had a clearer wording. Matthew hk (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.