Talk:State Highway 87 (Karnataka)

Jayadeva flyover, UP contractor etc.,
The project has long been complete. What are you harping about??!! Read the following lines from the link you yourself have cited!!!


 * ''The work was awarded during the first week of Feb 2003 to M/s. UP State Bridge Corporation at Rs. 1756.59 lakhs, with the scheduled date of completion as 30.04.2004. This prestigious project got delayed due to several factors and was granted extension of time upto 28.02.2005, by addressing issues of payment of differential cost of re-inforcement steel etc. The total progress of the work accomplished till Aug 2004 was around 21% and the project has since been completed in a record five month period.

'' Stop insulting mine and everyone's intelligence.

TO THE ADMINS
I would like to bring to your notice the uncouth editing behaviour of certain editors both on this page and on the Bangalore Infrastructure page. All their edits seem to be coloured by a certain stance of a certain section of the media. And even when concerns are raised about the article by people like me, they are continuing to ignore it and proceed with their jaundiced edits. I have been telling them that first of all, these articles are 'current' affairs and hence unencyclopaedic. and even if it was encyclopaedic, sources that are inordinately old cannot be accepted. for example even on this page they have cited something that is more than 1 year old and claiming it to be current information. This is extremely rude of them. and also they are citing sources like, www.bangalorepotholes.com and projectmonitor.com etc which are far from notable, especially the former. I could go on about their unethical behaviour, but i hope you get the idea.

ya...i forgot to add the ids of the users...there have been many who are directly guilty and others who keep supporting them wherever and whenever they can flouting every rule of civility, objectivity and good faith on the WP. user:gumballi on this page, AreJay on the Bangalore infrastructure page, and then there are others like Arvind, Sundar, Rama's Arrow etc.,.

Clarification needed
Recently the conditions of the road have been the subject of articles in the The Times of India [1], The Hindu [2], and the Deccan Herald [3].
 * the sources are 2-3 years old. This is too long a time frame for an article that talks about the current condition of the road(or atleast i hope it does).  cite sources which are more recent, more current.Sarvagnya 08:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Hindu article is from last June, and the Deccan Herald article is from last August, that is 7 months ago, not 2-3 years. --BostonMA 21:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

'''It was not ready to cope up with the ever increasing traffic. The road had the unique distinction of having the highest number of pot holes.'''
 * pray, tell me, who counted the number of potholes? what was the final count?  what is the bangalore record? what is the all india record? what is the world record??Sarvagnya 08:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The BDA website cites the increasing traffic in this area. The statement on potholes has been rephrased. --User:Gumballi 12:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

'''The electric poles lined up on either side of the road only made matters worse. In 2003 the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board laid down a water pipe along the road, which left the road in a deteriorating state.'''
 * cite source(s)Sarvagnya 08:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is true. Too bad the BWSSB/BESCOM do not publish their goofups on the web :) I will try and see if I can find any newspapers who have covered this. --User:Gumballi 12:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * VERY FUNNY!! BUT SORRY, KEEP YOUR ORIGINAL RESEARCH TO YOURSELF AND READ YOUR GRANNY BED TIME STORIES.  AM NOT INTERESTED.  NEITHER IS WIKIPEDIA.
 * AND BY THE WAY, LET ME KNOW IF YOU COME ACROSS ANY PUBLIC OFFICE WHICH PUBLISHES THEIR 'GOOFUPS'ON THE WEB. ESPECIALLY IN INDIA.  I DONT KNOW WHERE YOU ARE FROM, BUT YOU SEEM TO BE FROM SOME UTOPIA WHERE GOVT OFFICES PUBLISH THEIR 'GOOFUPS ' ON THE WEB.  SO PLEASE LET ME KNOW.  AM WAITING.

'''In 2003, work on a flyover near the Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology was started. This was expected to ease the traffic congestion to some extent. However poor planning and government apathy has left the flyover project uncompleted.'''
 * what was the due date for completion in the first place? is it still incomplete? cite source(s).Sarvagnya 08:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * shows the original completion date and the revised completion dates.
 * gives the current status of the project --User:Gumballi 12:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

'''In early 2005, UP State Bridge Corporation, the contractor who had undertaken the project fled the scene citing insufficient payments and cost escalations. The government has then retendered the project. Further delays are expected.'''
 * again, is this information current? cite source(s).Sarvagnya 08:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The contractor didn't fled the scene, however the contract was terminated since both the sides had disagreements --User:Gumballi 12:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * finally, this issue is not even encyclopaedic. see  for a similar discussion.
 * I see that this debate has been ongoing. We should wait for some conclusion out of that and then decide on the current article. --User:Gumballi 12:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Infrastructure woes
Removed the paragraph about alleged infrastructure woes, coz not a single verifiable, notable source was cited. No place for original research on WP &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarvagnya (talk &bull; contribs).

Removing content
Removing original research is an important and praiseworthy editorial task for Wikipedia. Sometimes editors add facts to Wikipedia which are verifiable, but do not add references in the article or mention verifiable sources in the talk page. This is an acceptable practice. Because such material has no visible sources, any editor has the right to remove that material. However, to avoid unnecessary friction, it is best to state one's concern about a lack of verifiable sources before removing the material, and to wait a period of time, for example 48 hours, between expressing concern about sources and actually deleting material. Exercising this courtesy reduces conflicts between editors.

I am restoring the deleted text. If sources are not provided within 48 hours, please feel welcome to re-delete that text. --BostonMA 15:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Enough is enough!!
Removed the following because of the reasons given below

'''STOP CITING BULLSHIT LINKS. FOR ALL I KNOW, A WWW.BANGALOREPOTHOLES.COM COULD BE YOUR OWN SITE!!...SOURCES SHOULD BE 'NOTABLE'...NO PLACE FOR ORIGINAL RESEARCH ON WIKIPEDIA Sarvagnya 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)'''
 * The road was one of the most potholed in Bangalore[5].

'''ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Sarvagnya 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)  OUTDATED INFORMATION. THIS INFO IS MORE THAN 1 YEAR OLD. GIVE CURRENT INFO OR DONT GIVE ANY INFO!! Sarvagnya 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)'''
 * The electric poles lined up on either side of the road only made matters worse. In 2003 the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board laid down a water pipe along the road, which left the road in a deteriorating state.
 * However poor planning and government apathy has left the flyover project incomplete[6]. In early 2005, the BDA terminated the contract with UP State Bridge Corporation, the contractor who had undertaken the project.

'''OUTDATED INFO AGAIN!! AND WHERE THE HELL DID THE CONTRACTOR CLAIM 'INSUFFICIENT PAYMENTS'??!!! STOP BLUFFING!! Sarvagnya 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)  AND WHO THE HELL TOLD YOU THAT FURTHER DELAYS ARE EXPECTED!!! DID YOU DREAM SO??? Sarvagnya 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)'''
 * BDA cited inordinate delays as reason to terminate the contract, while the contractor cited insufficient payments and cost escalations.
 * The government has then retendered the project[7]. Further delays are expected.

'''WHAT DETERIORATING CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE!! FIRST THING - ROAD ALONE IS NOT INFRASTRUCTURE!!! STOP THIS BULLSHIT NOW!! Sarvagnya 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)'''
 * Adding to the deteriroating condition of infrastructure, Bannerghatta Road has witnessed a lot of Real Estate development, including the tallest resedential complex in Bangalore - L&T South City

contradicting statements!
Adding to the deteriroating condition of infrastructure, Bannerghatta Road has witnessed a lot of Real Estate development. you are contradicting yourself,if infrastructure is deteriorating why are the real estate development speeding up? --Jayanthv86 09:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because people are moving from the country side to the urban areas and hence there is a demand for real estate / housing. Just a thought.  --BostonMA 11:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent conditions?
Recently the conditions of the road.... This sentence is no more valid. I am going to remove it. Let me know if anyone has objection. Thanks - KNM Talk - Contribs 03:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No objection. Feel free to remove it.

Requested move

 * 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: uncontested move. DrKiernan (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Bannerghatta Road → State Highway 87 (Karnataka) – Request made by user:Rsrikanth05 on 1 September 2012 using template:movenotice on the article page. No reason given in the edit history -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The same requester has proposed a similar move at Talk:Mysore Road; the objection being that the current article title is biased towards how it's known in Bangalore/Bengaluru and is known by different names in the towns along its route. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2012 (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.