Talk:2023 Odisha train collision

Requested move 5 June 2023

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Strong community opposition to this request. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Odisha train collision → ? – Still does not need year, and perhaps "collision" isn't consistent, as Tempi train crash uses "crash". 90.255.15.152 (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 20:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Premature close

• @User:Nythar: I do not think this is an appropriate close. Editors are allowed to start RMs without any alternate title specified. Such RMs are expected to find a proper title by considering all possible cases without being pointed to any specific direction. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  This IP has taken to starting move discussions without a good understanding of relevant policies (see their contrib history) (even once denying that they had started a failed move discussion, which is technically incorrect). In their move request above, they stated "2023 Odisha train collision → Odisha rail disaster – Consistency", even though WP:DISASTER specifically states "Try to avoid the words disaster, tragedy and crisis because this characterization is too subjective." (You can also see their other move discussions if you're interested.) It does not appear that this user is constructively starting move discussions, which, in addition to the fact that they didn't specify an alternate article title, led me to close the above discussion. If you believe this discussion has potential, you're of course more than welcome to re-open it. Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this page title needs discussing. Closing two RMs on the same day they were opened is premature. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

They withdrew their first RM. Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

In an attempt to try to bring some common ground to the naming discussions, I have now put a "Consensus" template at the top of this talk page. Hopefully those requesting moves can first catch up on existing best practices and consensus before repeating some of the same issues. - Fuzheado | Talk 20:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I've reopened the thing as you're allowed "?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.255.15.152 (talk • contribs)

• Oppose any move. The year should be included per WP:NCE. It has been resolved above not to call this a "disaster". "Collision" is better than "crash" as it reports accurately that more than one train was involved. A crash might also involve falling from a bridge or into a river. WWGB (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, per WP:NCE we should not use the year. WP:NCE#Road and rail states train wrecks should be named according to the "where and what" convention, not the "when, where and what" convention. --woodensuperman 12:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  As mentioned below, I have restored the section in "Road and rail" that said using the year in cases of disambiguation was valid. Somehow in 2015 it was unilaterally removed without discussion. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  That seems an uncontroversial restore to me as it would be common sense to disambiguate by year! But as below, it is not needed in this case as one is a derailment and the other is a collision. Hatnotes would be sufficient if there is any confusion. --woodensuperman 14:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support move to Odisha train collision as we should not be usung the year per WP:NCE#Road and rail. --woodensuperman 12:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem with that is it's not Odisha's only notable train collision. The Jajpur derailment also took place there. Hence if Odisha rather than Balasore is in the title, we need to include the year. I'd say that there isn't a common name for this crash & that Balasore train crash would be a better title for reasons of accuracy & concision. Collision doesn't specify multiple trains being involved. A train crashing into a vehicle or a collapsed bridge could accurately be described as a collision or a crash. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

If that was the case Odisha train collision should have been at a disambiguation page or included as a hatnote, so that this was clear. However, a derailment isn't the same as a collision, so a hatnote on this article stating For the derailment in Jajpur, see Jajpur derailment would do. I maintain my support to a move. --woodensuperman 12:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. It caused me to look down the rabbit hole and I found out in 2015 a line in that section advising that using the year was OK for disambiguation was taken out without explanation. I have restored that guidance and documented it here: Special:Diff/1147157764/1158830242. It also better reflects the reality of our current practices, which is a mix of undated and dated titles, depending on the situation and the need for disambiguation. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, keep current title. If we consider the when, where, and what:
  • What - Probably the easiest determination – we should avoid "disaster" as per WP:DISASTER so collision is fine.
  • Where - As established earlier (see Consensus note), the news outlets inside and outside India use "Odisha" in headlines in the vast majority of cases and not "Balasore."
  • When - Because Odisha is the preferred "where," we see it is a very big state of more than 40 million people. That's bigger than most European countries, even ahead of Poland. So without a year, "Odisha train collision" is too ambiguous without the 2023 year qualifier. As per the recent clarification in WP:NCE#Road and rail, this disambiguation function is a valid reason to add the year.

It may be that in the future the accident is recognizable with a different label. Until then, this is the best one prescribed by our policies and guidelines. – Fuzheado | Talk 17:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Point of information: Originally, the Jajpur derailment article was called 2009 Orissa train derailment and stayed for its first 2 years before being renamed. [1] One could argue that the current name is non-ideal especially since it removed "train." However, a quick perusal of these articles in Wikipedia show we are all over the place in terms of consistency with "derailment" or "train derailment." Category:Derailments by country – Fuzheado | Talk 18:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That new title is better because it's much shorter & more precise. Derailments are usually of trains. There's a great deal of inconsistency in our titles of train incidents. Words used in titles include accident, crash, collision, derailment, disaster & tragedy. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose moving. WP:NCE#Road and rail says "article titles can contain the year if needed for disambiguation". It is not needed here, but I saw a lot of train incident articles with a year in the name, and, unfortunately, this kind of bad things may happen in the same place more than once. Evilfreethinker (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  You are WP:CRYSTALBALLing that. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  To be clear, WP:CRYSTAL is about article writing and unverifiable speculation. It is not a prohibition on using experience and judgment for article titles, which is what WP:NCE asks of us. - Fuzheado | Talk 18:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Opppose move to any Odisha in name. Would you name a train disaster in San Diego California train collission? No, it would be named San Diego train collission. Therefore move to Bahanaga train collission, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Road and rail. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  FYI: We have 2023 Ohio train derailment. The associated discussion not to move the page to something more specific can be found here: Talk:2023 Ohio train derailment#Requested move 6 April 2023. Again, the size of the closest associated point of interest makes a difference, and what the WP:RS news outlets use to refer to it. San Diego is a lot more recognizable than Bahanaga, a small village that seems to have a population of less than 600. As shown above, the vast majority of news sources are using "Odisha" whether they are inside or outside of India. A review of WP:COMMONNAME may be useful. – Fuzheado | Talk 16:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCE#Road and rail. Jajpur derailment should be renamed to include Odisha in the name as that way this name would make much more sense. –Davey2010^Talk 18:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

left and continued?

Two unreserved coaches and the brake van of the Bengaluru–Howrah Express were derailed. The remainder of the train, which included the engine and 20 coaches, left with its passengers and continued to Balasore, where a further damaged coach was detached.

This causes more question than it answers. Please rewrite this to clarify: did the remainder really just keep going, as if nothing happened, or are you talking about stopping and then starting again? Did the train crew not even realize they had lost the end of their train? Who made the decision to leave?

CapnZapp (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

According to latest eyewitness reports, and you can corroborate this from other valid articles from reputed publications, the Yashwantpur-Howrah express driver and passangers felt a massive thud and a shake when the accident happened, however since only the last few bogies of the train were affected, they didn't realize what had happened. The train did stop further away from the accident spot, about 100 meters or so, and people got out and saw that the accident had happened. Some stranded and not very injured passengers from the Coromandel express also boarded the other train and reached Howrah where they were provided first-aid and transport was arranged to take them to their homes/destinations. Now exactly when did the Yaswantpur-Howrah express leave after stopping is not very clear, but I agree, the information currently mentioned is a bit misleading and should be reworded.

Lawdeer (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Deadliest crash

At the end of the lead description it is stated that the incident was "India's deadliest railway crash since the Firozibad rail collision." The linked article lists a death toll of 358 (>400), which would make it considerably less deadly that the 2023 Odisha train collision. 89.64.27.101 (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2023 Odisha train collision/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 11:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kiwiz1338 (talk · contribs) 10:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

In its current state, it's going to be a failure. I'm willing to hold it if Magentic Manifestations you're ready to fix these issues? Kiwiz1338 (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kiwiz1338 Thanks for taking it up. Based on your comments, I do not find any major issues that cannot be fixed outright. Will address the concerns and revert accordingly. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks Kiwiz1338 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Magentic Manifestations, I'll read over it a few more times and try to get another editor to have a look. There may be more issues to resolve before a possible pass. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kiwiz1338 I am ok with you taking time going through it if you have concerns or engaging in getting help if not sure. Regarding a second opinion, you would need to request or engage with experienced reviewers specifically asking for help as normally second opinion tags are not addressed, given the huge backlog of GA reviews required in the first place. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I’ve been asked to have a look over the shoulder:

• There was a mix of date formats in the prose but given that I have a script that fixes those issues, that’s been dealt with.
• Some sentences are missing direct articles (a common problem in Indian articles).
• Is "neighboring" correct Indian English or is it missing a "u"? Also "criticized ".
• Despite the head-on collision – no, that was not a head-on collision.
• The lead uses the phrase cancellation of more than 40 trains, while is says at least 48 trains were cancelled. I suggest that the body's prose should be adopted for the lead.

That’s it. I’m happy with the other components of the review. Schwede66 20:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Schwede66. Ping @Magentic Manifestations just to make sure you have seen it. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66 Thanks for the additional comments. My take on these comments below:

1. Date format issue has been dealt with. No issues here.
2. Have fixed whatever I can find.
3. Neighboring and neighbouring are both used in Indian English, though neighbouring is preferred (for obviously British reasons!). Have changed it anyways.
4. Modified the sentence to remove the head-on part
5. Yes, it was a miss. Changed it now for consistency.

@Kiwiz1338, These have been addressed as well! Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

What about "criticized"? Schwede66 10:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Changed! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kiwiz1338 Hi! Request you to complete the review appropriately. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Magentic Manifestations I'd add the abbreviation for Odisha Disaster Rapid Action Force next to it in the Emergency response section for consistency. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll update my review comment template tommorow as it's getting a little late for me now, cheers. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kiwiz1338 Have addressed your last comment as well. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kiwiz1338 Still awaiting the closure of the review! Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Multiple grammatical errors in the lead and body. Such as suffered from misuse of funds and these could impact the quality of maintenance. There is no grammatical error here and the sentence is correct grammatically with uniformity in tense. "Could" is used as past tense for an event that might or might not happen. Despite the railway authorities said that the accident was not a reflection of the safety issues in the system Tweaked it assisted by other government agencies and 'the' general public. changed Uses of current tense in the body of the article, need to be changed to past tense. See MOS:TENSE. The use of "loco" needs to be replaced with "locomotive" as some readers may not understand the term loco. There was only one such instance. Have linked appropriately. Include the time of the event in the MOS:OPEN added as per the suggestion
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	In the crash section, first paragraph, the Train no:12841 is unreferenced. It is clearly referenced in #7 Second paragraph in the crash section Three of the derailed coaches from the Coromandel Express careened into the adjacent track and whip-lashed the tail end of the SMVT Bengaluru–Howrah Express, crossing on the down line at the same time. Two unreserved coaches and the brake van of the SMVT Bengaluru–Howrah Express derailed. is very unreferenced Added additional citations to reference the accident description + details of derailed coaches In the victim section, there is no mention of the 33 passengers of Howrah Express in reference Tweaked it Mention of search dog in Emergency response, unreferenced Added
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio detector is fine
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, although I think something missing should be included. You should mention in the victims section of deceased bodies being given and/or claimed to the wrong familes Added
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	As this was the first time I have heard or read about this collision I believe everything was understandable, even without prior context. {{GATable/item|4||3=At first I thought Political columnist Apoorvanand stated that the accident was used as an opportunity to demonise Muslims. In the aftermath of the train crash, posts by various accounts known for spreading Hindutva and BJP propaganda, started circulating messages blaming Muslims for the accident on different social media platforms and WhatsApp groups. was WP:UNDUE. But looking at the sources, even the Odisha Police made a statement regarding social media posts, so I think this aspect deserves a mention. Speaking of that, you could mention Odisha Police's comment on it. This will add WP:BALANCE I tend to agree on it. But as these kind of statements always end up in discussion on controversial subjects, persisted with it. So adding the police comment, which might lend some counter view to it.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring but just recently undergone a few major edits
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Reverse image searching finds no link to any copyrighted source. Tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Great diagram in the crash section I must say. Looking at the diagram having read the crash section, I could picture it. I would, however, move this image down, having it next to the text starting At about 19:00 hrs IST, the Coromandel Express was supposed to pass. As this is what the diagram is trying to show. I would also remove A_scene_from_interior_part_of_inverted_Coromandel_coach_after_the_tragic_accident.jpg Both done.
	7. Overall assessment.	In its current state, it's going to be a failure. I'm willing to hold it if Magentic Manifestations you're ready to fix these issues? @Kiwiz1338, I have addressed your comments. Do let me know in case of further clarifications. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

1 July 2024 second review

You have fixed the issues raised by Schwede66 and I. Here's the second review following that.

One aspect that could have failed the review the second time was 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. The reverts seemed to be from the same IP though and the last was 3 days ago.

Thank you Magentic Manifestations for your help getting this article to GA. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

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.