Talk:Mexico City Metro overpass collapse

Suggestions for improvement
The article has been nominated to appear at ITN. I've opposed solely on quality grounds. Referencing is excellent, well done. However, the article needs better structure. Suggest that


 * Background
 * Bridge collapse
 * Rescue efforts
 * Aftermath
 * Investigation

might be a good structure. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've restructured the article according to your recommendations. Many of the sections still require expansion, but, after that, the article should be good to go. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 12:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - it's already up! Mjroots (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , oh, alright then lol. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 12:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Technical details about the repair
This tweet by the transport authority provides some explanation about the repair works done, maybe it will be useful if a graph is made based on these. --Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pieceofmetalwork, how would you propose the tweet be used in a graphic? I believe if we can find an image which is royalty free to be included in the article, that would be informative and add value to the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

What does it mean?
In the section Background, it says:
 * Before the crash it had showed signs of decline and there were general concerns with the overall system. In March 2020, two trains collided in Tacubaya station after the driver did not follow the protocols causing the train to run out of brakes.

I don't know what "decline" means here - fewer passengers? "Concern" - for the passenger number? Safety and maintenance? Why are the decline and the concern in the same sentence? Also, what does it mean to "run out of breaks"? Did the train fail to break early enough to stop before it hit another train on the line? Or did the brakes wear out because of poor maintenance? (Then it is hardly the driver's fault, at least not exclusively?) The sources probably answer my questions; I haven't perused them. But I think the article itself should be clearer on these points.--Nø (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You know, typical dilapidation? Wear and tear? Basically what makes Detroit or The Bronx dingy areas? Skippy2520 (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The official version (about Tacubaya) was that for around 7 minutes the driver (and other people) entered the train several times. The train had the automatic braking system active, but it had to be changed to manual per protocols. The air brake system ran out of air and caused the train to go reverse from Observatorio to Tacubaya. It was propelled by a slope and reached 70 km/h before crashing the parked train. Most of it is at Tacubaya metro station. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 00:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I see my concerns have now been addressed in the article - thanks!--Nø (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"overpass" vs "viaduct" title
I am moving the page back to Mexico City Metro overpass collapse per WP:RMUM as a bold, undiscussed move. It seems most English sources refer to it as an "overpass", and even the few that use "viaduct" also include "overpass". "viaduct" seems over WP:PRECISE for the title. Feel free to initiate a formal WP:RM request if there are objections.—Bagumba (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bagumba as overpass is the more commonly accepted term and less prone to confusion. It also complies with WP:MOS under "Opportunities for commonality". Jurisdicta (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "An overpass ... is a bridge, road, railway or similar structure that crosses over another road or railway", says the article in question. That's not an accurate description of this lengthy section of elevated track, which runs down the middle of Av. Tláhuac above the median, rather than crossing it at right-angles as our own definition of 'overpass' would have it (take a look on Street View). A viaduct, in contrast, is "a specific type of bridge that consists of a series of arches, piers or columns supporting a long elevated railway or road", which is closer to what's going on here. It does sound a bit recondite, though, a bit 19th-century. And plenty of news sources are calling it an overpass. More discussion/alternatives needed? Moscow Mule (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Tláhuac's median is not infinite (like, let's say the one at Manuel Ávila Camacho Boulevard that is officially called an elevated viaduct), it is chopped by several streets and avenues. In any circumstance, most sources call this bridge an overpass, so WP:COMMONAME applies. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 19:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, looking at Google Maps, the elevated bridge passes over many intersections, which makes it reasonable that the portion in question could be an overpass. Overpass is what most sources call it, and barring an obvious, detectable error, it seems like WP:OR to consider it otherwise. It is technically a viaduct, but I wonder if that is a term that is common in non-technical English for this type of transit bridge. I'dl defer to sources and use overpass..—Bagumba (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can also refer to the picture here to see the intersections in crosses near Olivos.—Bagumba (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Image got updated?
File:Incidente Línea 12 Ciudad México 2021.jpg is the image currently in the infobox. It currently depicts the scene at nighttime. However, when I was last editing it, it was a daytime image. I am sure of this because I checked the other Wikis I wrote the articles to. But I don't see the old image in the Wikimedia Commons page's history. What's going on?? Skippy2520 (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: It's at the bottom, with the same title but with "(2)" after it. It must have gotten moved. This is kind of confusing and I don't think it's very good, because the new File:Incidente Línea 12 Ciudad México 2021.jpg is dark and hard to see, which is the same problem with the old image on this article, File:AccidenteMetroCDMX20210503.png. I'll ask on Commons. Skippy2520 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Both files were uploaded under the same page, which is incorrect as every image needs its own page. You can find them at . And don't move pages around solely because you want attention. Doing so will get you blocked. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 00:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems an editor overwrited the original with a new version ("Marcia Beatriz Einsfeld uploaded a new version of File:Incidente Línea 12 Ciudad México 2021.jpg"), and then a Commons admin moved that new version to a new filename w/ "(2)" (""Sreejithk2000 moved page File:Incidente Línea 12 Ciudad México 2021.jpg to File:Incidente Línea 12 Ciudad México 2021 (2).jpg without leaving a redirect"). It all might be moot, as those files got nominated for deletion for licensing concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Can we please stop adding "at least"?
This is the most overdone word ever and its become far too overused. 24.138.192.89 (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You already proposed "so far" and "to date", and people decided to change them back to "at least". This is something you can't control. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 19:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Those proposals suffer from MOS:DATED. Typically use "at least" because the statement remains true even if the counts increase before the next edit.—Bagumba (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Girder supporting beam

 * You added the hyphen back saying "it's a beam that is supporting a girder, no? therefore a girder-supporting beam". From my layman understanding, a girder is a type of support beam.  So I would treat this like "laptop personal computer", not "laptop-personal conputer".  Is there a different convention in the construction industry? My mis understanding is that it was a girder itself that broke, not some other beam that was itself supporting a girder (Earlier, she said it appeared a girder had given way on the overpass. )—Bagumba (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant "understanding", but my point seemed to get across anyways.—Bagumba (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going off something I read in the LA Times story, but after reading it again I have realized I made a mistake (I thought it was a vertical beam supporting the girder that had failed). Yes, a girder is a horizontal beam, and in this case, it is suspected that a girder is what cracked and failed. I will attempt a fix now. — Goszei (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For once, it's not me misreading something. Cheers. —Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Incidente Línea 12 Ciudad México 2021 (2).jpg (discussion)
 * Incidente Línea 12 Ciudad México 2021.jpg (discussion)

Missing people
According to the city's government, those reported missing "surely" are not related to the accident as they disappeared "3/4 days" before the collapse (one of them disappeared 6 months ago). All of them were commuters of the line so that's why they were reported as such, according to the official statement. I don't know how to include this, or if the current info should be removed. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 18:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)