Jump to content

Talk:2022 Morbi bridge collapse

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

500 missing?

[edit]

Can somebody correct this, please? The News Minute only said that 500 people were probably on the bridge when it collapsed. TOI said 300-400. It can't be said that all of them are missing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NO 500 are not missing. By any account, only 400 people at most were present at the bridge and still, it is cited with caution because some say as low as 250-300 were on the bridge. So 500 missing is just not possible Ankraj giri (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
only 400 are missing not more than 400 and 145 are reported dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.79.106 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Length of closure

[edit]

In one paragraph, we have:

The bridge had been closed for two years before the incident... It had been closed for repairs for six months.

Which is correct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked the sources, the former was not supported, so I have removed it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of “lakh”

[edit]

I don’t know how common its usage is but it did confuse me when I first read it Seeing how it may be an uncommon term to non-Indians, I’m going to ask if it should be used or not, as it may confuse others as well 2601:19E:4380:B320:88D1:5D3C:1145:F09B (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a footnote to explain the meaning of lakh. WWGB (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: MOS:COMMONALITY is an exception to MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN; since both "two hundred thousand" and "two lakh" are used and understood in India, we prefer "two hundred thousand" as it is common to all varieties of English. One of the COMMONALITY examples discusses this exact situation, where it says ten million is preferable to one crore. BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong way round - TIES is the exception to COMMONALITY, if it was the other way around then TIES would be completely redundant as it could never apply (specific is always an exception to generic, not vice versa). It would also mean the functionality to display and link lakh in {{INR convert}} would not exist. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONALITY only applies when there is vocabulary common to all varieties of English; this usually isn't true in situations where TIES would otherwise apply. In addition, if TIES is the exception to COMMONALITY, then why does COMMONALITY tell us to use ten million instead of one crore? BilledMammal (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is speaking generally - in general purpose articles with no particular connection to India we absolutely should use ten million instead of one crore, but articles written in Indian English are an exception to this - if they weren't then the only place lakh and crore would be used would be direct quotes and the articles about the terms. That is clearly not the case, see e.g. the use of lakh in the featured article Mother India#filming (permalink to promoted revision). Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also MOS:INDIA You may use the Indian numbering system of lakhs and crores but should give their equivalents in millions/billions in parentheses. Use a non-breaking space in such circumstances, e.g.: 21{{nbsp}}crore and always link the first occurrence of the word. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Your interpretation appears to be that MOS:RETAIN is overruled by MOS:COMMONALITY, but MOS:TIES isn't? That doesn't make sense to me; using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable doesn't limit its applicability to situations where there are no strong national ties. BilledMammal (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:RETAIN is not in a strict hierarchy with COMMONALITY and/or TIES because it speaks to retaining the first language version of the article, not the specifics of what that language version is. TIES overrules COMMONALITY, RETAIN is a reason why the version with TIES is the correct one. In a situation where a local or global variety of English is equally correct and the global variety was the first applicable version RETAIN would speak to the exclusion of things like lakh and crore. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that, but I also think this is all largely irrelevant - the example provided is that we use ten million instead of one crore. If you still disagree I think an RfC would be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The example provided is clearly talking about the generic situation given that other sections of the manual of style explicitly permit local varieties of English where appropriate, and specifically permit the use of lakh and crore in articles relating to India. I don't think we need an RfC to confirm that MOS:INDIA applies to articles about India. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, you don't to start an RfC for every disagreement over a trivial matter. Especially when the matter has already more or less been resolved in the style guide: MOS:LAKH. – Uanfala (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of MOS:LAKH suggests that using lakh here is discouraged. Thryduulf, do you still object to converting ₹4 lakh to ₹400,000 based on that guideline? BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of MOS:LAKH says that its use is fine (if correctly linked) in appropriate circumstances, and MOS:INDIA makes it clear that this is an appropriate circumstance. So given the sources use Lakh, yes I do object to changing it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened an RfC below. BilledMammal (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How high is the bridge above water?

[edit]

How high is it above water? Did the height play any role in the deaths, or they occurred for some other reasons? --CopperKettle (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I was traveling the world for the first time about 20 years ago, I crossed that bridge several times while in Morbi. If I remember correctly the height of that bridge was around five to eight meters, not much more; 10 meters at most. HTH. 2001:9E8:2441:6000:B581:4B33:C37C:2CB6 (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[1] says "60 feet" (18 m) but it's not clear if that's height of the structure or height above the water. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably the height of the tallest piece/ truss of the bridge, I suppose; again, it's just my personal remembrance, but it didn't appear that high to me, even less high than most pedestrian bridges I ever crossed in my hole life (57 yrs right now c-:<). 2001:9E8:2468:3300:79F5:1E77:3366:DB7A (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced and added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! And this is odd. 15 meters is not very high. Too bad there are so many deaths. --CopperKettle (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waghji Thakur

[edit]

The article on Morbi says the bridge:

was built by Sir Waghji Thakur (then the Thakur Sahib of Morbi) to connect Darbargadh Palace and Nazarbagh Palace (later Lukhdhirji Engineering College) in 1880.

but that is uncited and I can find no confirmation online. Perhaps a Gujerati speaker might find something in that language? Or does it need to be removed from there? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added Waghji Ravaji (Q115033050) Shyamal (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The bridge connected Darbargadh Palace with Nazarbag Palace, these were the residences of the then-royal families." from this source. -Nizil (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added.- Nizil (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morbi Bridge

[edit]

Why has the name of the bridge been changed? What are the sources for the new name? The edit summary given by User:BilledMammal was "Disputed construction dates", which hardly explains. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To "Morbi bridge" from "Jhulto Pul"? To match the use in reliable sources, and to match the article title. BilledMammal (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article title does not determine the name of the bridge. Plenty of sources use "Jhulto Pul" (or variant spellings). which sources refer to the bridge by that name? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the name "Jhulto Pul" has now been removed from the article altogether. Why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was removed by Ravenpuff with the Summary bridge name unattested. Which is very odd given that the name of the bridge is in lots of reliable sources. I wont add it back just yet though but I'm not going object if someone else does. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, when Ravenpuff did that the name had already been detached from its citation (which clearly says "It is a popular tourist attraction known locally as Julto Pul..."), by BilledMammal, in the edit mentioned above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

135 or 141 deaths

[edit]

There seems to be disagreement about which is the correct figure, and it's been haphazardly changed in various places by various people at different times, but never properly discussed. All of the following have been published in the last 24 hours

Is this a case where we need to give both figures with a sources disagree note? Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that TracyMcClark has changed it all to 135 with the edit summary one should actually read the given sources. Given that per the above we have sources citing both figures the exact same words could be used to revert the edit (although if it is reverted then it should be done with a less snarky edit summary). Two of the references currently used in the article (both dated 31 October) have the 141 figure in their title so there needs to be at least some mention of it in the prose somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said given sources as in provided sources in the article. Why some news outlets still go with old numbers is for you to figure out. I already did just by researching all the sources provided in the very same section the number is given right here in the wp article. Really don't know what is so hard to understand.--TMCk (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TracyMcClark if you look at the start of this section you will see that I have done the research and both figures appear equally current. If you read the comment in which I pinged you, you will see that the article cites sources with both figures. The only thing hard to understand is your attitude. Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you only want to pick a fight so please stop pinging me.--TMCk (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want a fight, I want the article to be clear and accurate to the sources. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: ₹4 lakh or ₹400,000

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There seem to be some disagreements over the interpretation of a manual of style guidance, specifically MOS:LAKH and what "contextually important reasons" means when displaying currency in a SEA-related article. While participants are correct that further discussion might be warranted in the appropriate talk pages over that aspect, the current wording allows editors some liberty over choosing what they believe would be best for readers. While one could say there is no consensus, with the !votes divided between A and B, with most of them using MOS:COMMONALITY and MOS:LAKH as key reasons for their choices, one could also say there is a rough consensus to retain the status quo of showing "₹4 lakh (US$5,000) ({{INRConvert|4|l|lk=on}})" Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 02:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


After discussion on my talk page, I've ammended the close to say there is no consensus, which means the result is essentially the same when it comes to how the numbers are presented in the article. The difference here is that this means the arguments for the current version (or the exclusive use of lakh) are not strong enough to override the cited MoS guidelines, but there is also enough pushback against B that retaining status quo seems to be the most suitable case. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 01:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Which numbering system should this article use to represent the ex gratia payment to the next of kin?:

  • A: ₹4 lakh
  • B: ₹400,000

12:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Survey

[edit]
"An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the ... English of that nation."
and follow for the currency format the guideline MOS:INDIA which says:
"For monetary figures, you may use the Indian numbering system but also give their US dollar equivalents in parentheses."
So in this case use ₹4 lakh with the US$ equivalent in parentheses for the general reader. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC) (mos:ties comment added 10:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
  • A but using {{INRConvert|4|l|lk=on}}, which is the correct way to do this, per MOS:LAKH: Provide a conversion to Western numbers for the first instance of each quantity (the templates {{lakh}} and {{crore}} may be used for this purpose), and provide conversions for subsequent instances if they do not overwhelm the content of the article. For example, write three crore (thirty million). When converting a currency amount, use the exchange rate that applied at the time being written about; the {{INRConvert}} template can be used for this purpose. Not sure why this needs an RFC, when there's already an established guideline for this. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong Venue: Norms of how to write specific currency should not be changed for one particular article alone. MOS:CURRENCY shall be followed.
    Any discussion needed to change MOS:CURRENCY should be held on that talk page and not here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • B: MOS seems pretty clear. "Sometimes, the variety of English used in an article may suggest the use of a numbering system other than the Western thousands-based system. For example, the Indian numbering system is conventionally used for certain things (especially monetary amounts) in South Asian English. This is discouraged in Wikipedia articles by WP:Manual of Style § Opportunities for commonality." (MOS:LAKH) The use is not outright deprecated, but it is discouraged. There ought to be some specific reason to use a form discouraged by the MOS. MOS:TIES is not a pass for using local forms that may run afoul of MOS:COMMONALITY: It is a justification for using a local form relevant to the topic of an article over a form local to somewhere else when there is not a common form. (For example: There is no universal date format. An article about South Africa ought to write dates in the day-month-year format employed in South Africa, rather than in the month-day-year format common in the United States. Acceptable spelling varies by country. An article about the United States ought to spell the world colour ‹color›. '13 March 1984' is perfectly intelligible to US readers, and 'color' is legible to South African readers. They do not violate commonality.) Without some specific reason to use crores & lakhs, the more widespread forms should be employed. Pathawi (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Specific reason is that lakh/crore is the only numeric system used in India, at every level from primary schools to universities to official government documents. No one uses hundred thousand, or million here. By removing "lakh", it becomes illegible to a good section of Indians, despite it perfectly being English. All major English dictionaries consider it so. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @CX Zoom: That is an extraordinary claim, similar to claiming that a good section of Americans can only understand 400,000 when it is written as 4 hundred thousand. Do you have a source for it? BilledMammal (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that Americans can only understand 400,000 when it is written as 4 hundred thousand.. Indian will understand 400,000 but will find that to be "incorrect". I'm saying that a majority will not understand "hundred thousand", because it just does not exist here. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying that a majority will not understand "hundred thousand", because it just does not exist here. Then I don't understand your objection because no one is suggesting that we use 4 hundred thousand.
    Indian will understand 400,000 but will find that to be "incorrect" Looking at India's largest English-language newspaper 400,000 is widely used which suggests that Indians won't find it to be incorrect. BilledMammal (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Each instance is either 1) 400000 (no comma at all) OR 2) events occurring outside of Indian subcontinent, like COVID cases in US, Brazil, something in Mariupol, Ethiopia, etc. Check how many of them are actually about Indian topics, and repeat that search with "4 lakh" and check the same. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an Indian newspaper, written for an Indian audience; I don't believe the location of the event is relevant to whether using numbers instead of Lakh and Crore is seen as incorrect.
    The articles that Google claims uses "400000" actually use "400,000", including articles about events occurring within the Indian subcontinent. See the following examples: 1, 2, 3 - this uses "Rs 4,00,000" in the title, but "Rs 400,000" in the body)
    To oppose this proposal what you need to demonstrate is that MOS:COMMONALITY is incorrect, and that there are no alternatives to crore and lakh that are part of Indian English, but the usage of alternatives in the Times of India demonstrates the opposite. BilledMammal (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This misses both the point of the cited MOS sections & that of the comment. Stating that crores & lakhs are used in India & that the page deals with a tragedy that transpired in India is effectively an argument from MOS:TIES. MOS:TIES does not conflict with MOS:COMMONALITY: It directs us toward one valid argument for a particular preference in cases when there is no common form. Here, the use of digits provides a common form. Pathawi (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: People brought up MOS above, which indeed appears to be supportive of B. And I'm all for amending that part of MOS, in favour of MOS:TIES. I really wonder what proportion of readership on this article comes from outside of India and what comes from within. It is like forcing SI units or dmy dates on US-related articles, for it would make little sense to the primary reader demographic. Using auto-convert templates from Indian system to western seems better as is used when Imperial units are written as primary over SI. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @CX Zoom: MOS:TIES also supports B, due to the MOS:COMMONALITY exception. BilledMammal (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that mean we are going to replace every instance of imperial units at US-related articles with metric units? When we gain consensus to do that, I'll support option B, for if we can cater to Americans to avoid terms that are meaningless to the average them, we can cater to Indians to avoid terms that are meaningless to average us. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:COMMONALITY doesn't apply to units, because many Americans find metric units meaningless. The relevant guideline for units is MOS:UNITS. BilledMammal (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ^ That, what you just said. For most Indians hundred thousand, million, billion is meaningless. By replacing it with Anglo terms, you're making it illegible to a majority of readers. Moreover, lakh is a valid word supported by English dictionaries. It is not some kind of non-English word being inserted for no reason. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal isn't to use 4 hundred thousand, it is to use 400,000? BilledMammal (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good luck enforcing that as the primary readership of this article is Indian, it'll be reverted sooner or later, leading to an edit war over something as trivial as a comma or just the literal word lakh using {{INR Convert}}. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "For most Indians hundred thousand, million, billion is meaningless." That just isn't true, though, or they would have great difficulty understanding anything written non-locally that had to do with science, engineering, economics, or any other subject that used large-ish numbers. There's no evidence of such a massive communications failure. "Indians can only understand lakh" is a bogus and tiresome claim that borders on racist.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am Indian myself? And I know what me and my peers prefer or not? And not prefering American English over traditional Indian terms isn't us being inferior to the whites. In fact, perhaps the opposite. As for large numbers, scientific notation exists which is what all our science, engineering (which I'm pursuing right now btw) study materials use. And it is a fact that millions, billions aren't understood by many, which is fine just as an American might not know what a śūnya is. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • B, since it's intelligible to everyone (even if not the first choice of readers in India). If option A prevails, then at least do it with a conversion template, as Joseph2302 and Shyamal illustrated above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Morbi_bridge_collapse&oldid=1204399743"