Talk:2018 Kerala floods

Displacement Counts

I'm not sure where the 85,000 figure came from - but the source linked as well as this source claim over 200,000 displacements now. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Updated to 280,679 evacuated as on 21 July.  Tharikrish  10:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Odisha fire personnel for rescue 01.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of image related to red alert

As per this source, red alert has been withdrawn from all districts in Kerala, which renders the image related to red alert districts outdated.So I suggest it to be removed from the article (it could be replaced with another flood related data). --A plane user (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2018

The article says the total number of death is 350+. It is actually 200, per the latest news. What is the source of 350+ ? Lord Woldermort (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2018

This page contains incorrect/stale information about the Indian states that have contributed to the relief effort. The up-to-date information is here:

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/kerala-floods-heres-all-those-who-extended-helping-kerala-rescue-operations-sos-5313147/

TL;DR, The relief map is both incorrect and politically motivated. By now most Indian states including Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh have announced relief for the Kerala floods. The map depicts otherwise.

Please do not foment inter-state trouble. Remove the map. Dmohantyatgmail (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Indian politics, so let's get an RfC in here.

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.

---

Topic: What, if any, corrective actions should be taken on the relief map? (- Dmezh (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC))

• This RfC appears to be moot. There is no relief map in the article anymore, and there is a table showing that the named states have contributed relief. I suggest closing this RfC. Dmezh, if that would be OK with you, could you please do it? HLHJ (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; I'll close the RfC. Dmezh (talk)

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.

8,00,000

I believe this number in the lede has an extra comma that could be removed. --131.169.89.168 (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Samf4u (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Funds received

Crores, Cr ( as well as Lakhs) will not fly. I request everyone to use million/billion or write the numbers in full. Also, Rs should be INR.  Tharikrish  10:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Kodagu

Why is the article only focusing on Kerala? Kodagu district in Karnataka has been equally affected by the same flood, causing 16 deaths with another 39 people missing. See [1]. But there is absolutely no mention of Kodagu anywhere in the article! 1.39.146.2 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is specifically for Kerala -- the floods there have gained much more media attention because of the sheer scale of destruction. You can create a new article covering the floods in other states including Karnataka, or one specifically for the floods in Karnataka. The former may be a good idea: According to the August 17 figures, the floods have caused a considerable number of deaths in several other states: Uttar Pradesh (191), West Bengal (183), Maharashtra (139), Gujarat (52), Assam (45), and Nagaland (11). utcursch | talk 17:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"Bold text"

The first paragraph just says "bold text" (in bold). I think this was a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.137.161 (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, some user had broke the wiki markup. Brandmeister^talk 10:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the permalink to the revision with "Bold text", in case anybody wants a reference. Sʀᴇᴇɴɪᴋᴇᴛʜᴀɴ I (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Final paragraph of lead

I think the final paragraph of the lead section should be removed from the lead and made into a separate section. This is because

• it is about a political controversy and not about the flood itself and
• it does not seem to have sufficient importance to be in the lead section.

A one-sentence summary may be enough in the lead. Jose Mathew (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Someone has reverted my edits to this paragraph. Here is why I made the edits in the first place:-

• The paragraph originally started talking about the MEA position, without explaining what the controversy was about. The very first line was "Responding to the controversy regarding the issue of rejecting foreign assistance ... ". This may confuse readers unfamiliar with the situation.
• It was a bit strangely worded for a Wikipedia article and may have violated our encyclopedic style guidelines.
• Some phrases (e.g. "in line with the existing foreign as well as domestic policy", "domestic resources and efforts") did not make sense.

I am reverting the reversion while maintaining the other edits since made to the paragraph. Once again, I feel that this paragraph should be removed from the lead section. Please share your opinions. Also, please do not make further reversions without giving an explanation on this page. Thanks. Jose Mathew (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I move this paragraph to the section on response and did a few edits to clarify the situation. Tharikrish  18:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Jose Mathew (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Quality scale

I have changed the quality under WikiProject India (link at top of page) to C as I felt it satisfied the requirements. But since this is an ongoing event and there is no clarity on several key points (cause, extent of destruction, relief works, aftermath etc.) I do not think it would merit B. Can somebody please cross-check against the quality scale? Jose Mathew (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. C class should be fine. I also added the importance as High. Tharikrish  12:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

July or August?

The main article mentions that the floods started in August, while the sidebar states that it started in July. Most of the news articles online about this subject have a publish date of August. I don't want to change the sidebar immediately without verifying it here in this talk page. Please let me know, thanks! Sʀᴇᴇɴɪᴋᴇᴛʜᴀɴ I (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

GA Nomination

@Path slopu: You have not made a single edit to the article, but still nominated it for GA. That's not how it works. I have reverted your edit. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

MOS:COMMONALITY

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.

---

MOS:COMMONALITY specifically states: " For an international encyclopedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable. Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. For example ... ten million is preferable to one crore (Indian English)."

MOS further states that if any contradiction arises with MOS detail pages, which MOS:INDIA is, that MOS takes precedence:

This is a matter of policy at Wikipedia:Consensus § Level of consensus: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a wikiproject cannot decide that a Wikipedia policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." And: "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages." Subordinate pages include MoS detail pages, style essays, and the Simplified Manual of Style.

Based on this, I have changed the people count in the first paragraph of the lead to use the more common and more universally accepted terminology. This does not affect any of the contextually-relevant currency amounts in the article. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:MOS specifically states

Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason. … Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.[c] Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable. Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted

see the MOS for the respective footnotes.

The entire article uses million in parenthesis. Considering that fact and the WP:MOS guidelines I am again reverting to match the consistency of this article.

അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The existing style was "one million" for five years until you changed it in June without substantial reason. This was reverted by an administrator, which you then re-reverted. So I am reverting it back to the established format. If you feel the article readability benefits from this change despite MOS guidance then please gain consensus on the article talk page. Celjski Grad (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Celjski Grad The entire article uses million in parenthesis what part of this you don't understand? Or are you also considering to remove the INRconvert template from an Indian related article? In anyway your argument can't suffice for changing the existing style. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Not at all. Monetary values in core and lakh (with conversions) are contextually relevant, while numbers of things in a format that not all speakers are familiar with are not. Indeed, MOS does discourage the use of the Indian numbering system entirely, but I am not suggesting the whole article be changed, just the non-monetary amount in the lead.

"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."

Celjski Grad (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

A third opinion has been requested at Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. Celjski Grad (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Responding to third opinion request. Million rather than crore or lakh seems obviously preferable. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Celjski Grad; MOS:INDIA states You may use the Indian numbering system of lakhs and crores but should give their equivalents in millions/billions in parentheses. (Emphasis mine.) MOS:COMMONALITY states For an international encyclopedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable. (Emphasis mine.) The use of Crore for currency seems acceptable, as the currency would require localization anyway. A count of people, however, gains nothing from the use of a regional unit. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS this[2] is the version of the article before the user made changes. There it is provided as About ten lakh (a million) million within parenthesis concurring with MOS:INDIA as pointed out here by EducatedRedneck. None here wants to remove million, it is already there in parenthesis. @EducatedRedneck But also note MOS:COMMONALITY applies to international encyclopedia. This is an Indian related article, not an international one. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Celjski Grad@EducatedRedneck@IOHANNVSVERVS MOS:RETAIN says When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another.

What exception do @Celjski Grad find to change ten lakh (a million) to a million when this article has strong national ties to Kerala a state within India that uses Indian Numbering System? @EducatedRedneck @IOHANNVSVERVS What ambiguity exists when the Western numbering system is provided in parenthesis? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As I was pinged, I will respond. അദ്വൈതൻ seems to have missed the point of my remarks. MOS:INDIA says "may", as in it is an option. MOS:COMMINALITY specifies a preference for the international standard. And regardless of the subject of this article, Wikipedia remains a global project, for an international audience, and therefore MOS:COMMONALITY applies. Put another way: what is the benefit to having the lakh and crore there? I've been a teacher and worked in government and can attest that members of the public get confused about the silliest things; I can easily imagine someone thinking "Ten lakh, and one lakh is a million, so... ten million?!" They'd be wrong and foolish, but that just makes the reader human.

I can see the argument for MOS:RETAIN, but the problem with that argument is the line in MOS:RETAIN: When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. (Emphasis mine). I believe there is a clear consensus emerging here. I think if you are firmly convinced that this represents a misapplication of policy, it would be good to start a discussion at the village pump for guidance on how to proceed, perhaps including a clarification of policy. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2024 (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.

Lede Punctuation

@PadFoot2008 I'm somewhat confused by what you're doing and saying. Your first edit changed the passages

On 16 August 2018, severe floods affected the south Indian state Kerala, due to unusually heavy rainfall during the monsoon season. It was the worst flood in Kerala in nearly a century.

to instead read

On 16 August 2018, severe floods affected the south Indian state Kerala, due to unusually heavy rainfall during the monsoon season It was the worst flood in Kerala in nearly a century. (Citations omitted)

I reverted, saying they should be separate sentences. You then made another edit, with the edit summary No they aren't, it is pretty obvious that a period was used by mistake instead of a comma. But you (correctly) changed the period to a comma in the following sentence, without modifying the one I'd reverted. Am I missing something? Was your first edit a mistake? If so, why did you respond as if I'd objected to the new edit rather than the old one? I'm very confused. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck, sorry, I meant to correct

Over 483 people died. and about one million people were evacuated, mainly from..

to

Over 483 people died, and about one million people were evacuated, mainly from..

I must have accidentally removed the period from the prior sentence. I've fixed it in my most recent edit. PadFoot (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 Oh, good! I was worried I was missing something obvious and messing up your attempts to improve the article. Thank you for explaining, and for correcting that sentence. I confess I didn't notice it, but now that I have, I doubt I'd be able to read that passage without my eye twitching in grammarian indignation. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)