This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
bridges and
tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Referring to the crew members as just "workers" is a clear violation of
WP:CASTE remedies and reaffirms caste-based discrimination. Even if the miners were Dalits or from an untouchable caste, this article should not refer to them with this coded language. Even if they’re the lowest caste on the spectrum (
manual scavengers), the article should be neutral in the language used. Does not matter if they are in India, this is a national story.
2605:8D80:407:1C65:3872:CAB1:D0F7:2357 (
talk)
14:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)reply
We are using workers as a neutral term. All 41 of them were not miners so it can't be used. Also workers does not discriminate according to the Indian caste system and is used widely by online reliable published sources.
Leoneix(
talk)03:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)reply
As more info becomes available, a breakdown of the rescued personnel should be included: engineers, foremen, special skilled machine operators, other miners, helpers, etc.
71.230.16.111 (
talk)
07:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Details needed
The headline-news media had more information about the details of the rescue (size of shafts, etc) than this article. Some photos showed a vertical shaft (thru rock? likely a boring machine) not from an auger going thru the collapsed rubble. Brand/supplier of machines? Geologic conditions in mountain?
71.230.16.111 (
talk)
07:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your ongoing efforts, but I am still confused by this article. If 200 meters from the entrance is the begining, what was the extent of the collapse, and what was the total tunnel length completed prior to the collapse? When were the 3 small pipes inserted or drilled and in what directions? "Two tunnel boring machines with an auger bit" doesn't make sense; the TBM article doesn't mention a type that is followed by an auger bit, which in moderate size is usually an alternate method for vertical shafts into softer ground or horizontally in soft self-supporting layers like chalk or coal. Was the auger for the 6" shaft? Was the vertical shaft finished/used?
71.230.16.111 (
talk)
23:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Total length of the tunnel in mentioned in the construction section. And vertical drilling was not completed and the same is noted in the article while providing details about the final extent of drilling. Regarding other concerns, I have to take a look in sources.
Leoneix(
talk)03:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply