Talk:2022 Morbi bridge collapse

2773:: 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 788: 464: 443: 302: 2757:: 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 Knowledge articles by WP:Manual of Style § Opportunities for commonality." ( 556: 532: 319: 2479:. which also jibes with Johnbod's "Or Rupees in lakh's and USD equivalent in Western format." But never, never the unvarnished B, which gives me the heebie-jeebies, makes me go into delirium, renders me semi-comatose, if not removed from my sight, so ugly it is. 140 people have died on he bridge and some Wikipedians are thinking about their comfort of comprehension. Really, they can't look up 274: 672: 2973:. 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. 1935:, 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. 638: 3110:"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 682: 219: 764: 371: 350: 1767:. 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 2791:

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

1785:

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

1188:

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

3015:

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

1886:

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

1068:

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

2696:

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).

2119:

Guys, there really is no need to resort to the highest level community feedback process in order to resolve every minor quibble. Here, both options are fine, but if you want to absolutely go the extra mile, then it will probably be best to use lakh for the rupees amount (because that's how monetary

2590:

and FORCELINK. Readers should not be forced to click on the link to understand the article and simply being an article about India is not sufficient to mean that Crores/Lakh must be used unexplained. Also agree that a full RFC should not be necessary here. I dislike conversion to US dollars as it

2239:

I also agree that there was no need for an RFC, especially given the reasoning for using Lakh has been repeatedly explained with reference to multiple sections of the MOS and other policies/guidelines. There is no need for changes to COMMONALITY (or LAKH or TIES for that matter) for the reasons

1151:

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

2876:

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.

1804:

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.

2150:

or strengthen it. Regarding your suggestion, I don't think it is ideal because the number of rupees offered is relevant, and that format hinders comprehension for most readers. If we want to include the figure in lakh then I think "₹4 lakh (₹400,000; US$ 5,000)" would be required.

2198:

Come on, no-one is saying that. Indian readers can still understand 400,000, just like Western readers can understand 4,00,000. It's about the greater or lesser familiarity with the format. Large currency amounts in India are almost universally expressed in lakhs and crores, see

2165:

Well, you can't exclude either of the two systems without inconveniencing a large group of readers. Your initial preferred option (₹400,000), for example, will hinder comprehension for Indian readers, and they probably represent the largest group among this article's audience. –

1020:

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

1359:

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-:<).

1045:

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

2777:‹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. 1683:

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

1328:

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.

2553:

for and the currency. It is incoherent to represent malformed currencies and is unreadable and unintelligible–certainly not the purpose of an encyclopaedia. The conversion to USD using the INRConvert will provide the commonality —

3143:

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

1649:

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.

2935:

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

153: 835:

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

950:

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

3083:

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

2092:

excludes that as appropriate context; it mentions the possibility that editors may interpret the ENGVAR used in an article as supporting the use of lakh and then states that this is incorrect and discouraged.

3177:, 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. 3311: 2303:

But only with "their equivalents in millions/billions in parentheses". That means the only acceptable option if using "lakh" would be "₹4 lakh (₹400,000)" which is just options A and B combined.

1713: 1361: 1330: 1152:

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.

952: 1720: 3051:^ 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, 820:

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. --

3251: 1486: 2412:

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more

1096:

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

2891:

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.

2120:

amounts are expressed in Indian English), but then immediately give the Western-readable equivalent, and that's probably easiest to understand in USD terms. Set it to something like "

2075:

As repeatedly explained, this is an article about India, written in Indian English, using sources that use Lakh. I don't know what a more appropriate context there could possibly be?

147: 3135:

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,

2913:

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.

2039:

and the sources. This is an article about an Indian topic, written in Indian English, based on sources which use Lakh. See also my more extended reasoning in the section above.

3261: 620: 610: 425: 2835:. 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. 1343: 3306: 3291: 3216: 2240:

explained and ignored previously. As long as lakh is linked there is no need to repeat the rupee value, but I have no issue with including an equivalent in another currency.

2903: 2894:

The articles that Google claims uses "400000" actually use "400,000", including articles about events occurring within the Indian subcontinent. See the following examples:

3231: 415: 44: 3276: 3236: 2438:, or B. Or Rupees in lakh's and USD equivalent in Western format. Ok, now I look at the actual article I see it does that already (with odd spacing), so lakhs are ok. 1635:. 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. 1435:

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?

3226: 1207:

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:

572: 391: 1431:

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.

3256: 2697:

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.

1732: 596: 2817:

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?

2095:

Appropriate context would be where the units the figure is expressed in is relevant to understanding the topic. It is not relevant here, but it is relevant at

3316: 2948:: 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. 1695: 1707: 79: 2895: 563: 537: 378: 355: 190: 3301: 3286: 2347:

But they won't learn anything, they'll just think "uh, big number" and move on - plus very few have even an approximate idea what a rupee is worth!

778: 2609:₹400,000 because it is understood by all. Conversion to USD (or any other currency) is unhelpful unless a date of the conversion is also provided. 1701: 3221: 2563: 3271: 3246: 754: 744: 514: 504: 3296: 85: 1569:

The article title does not determine the name of the bridge. Plenty of sources use "Jhulto Pul" (or variant spellings). which sources refer

2744: 865: 797: 652: 1979:, as "400,000" is common to all varieties of English, including Indian English, while lakh is rarely used outside of Indian English, and 168: 3321: 3241: 1666: 1617: 1589: 1545: 1451: 1392: 931: 905: 135: 1365: 1334: 956: 3281: 3188: 3125: 2969:: 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 2591:

centres a US POV, but there no clearly better options at present if a conversion is to be offered (which I am OK with ultimately).

2371: 480: 3136: 3266: 2567: 1738: 1069:

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

998:; since both "two hundred thousand" and "two lakh" are used and understood in India, we prefer "two hundred thousand" as it is 730: 99: 30: 2639:

An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the ... English of that nation.

2146:

I consider this to have wide-ranging impact; if there is a consensus for A, we will need a discussion about whether to limit

1865: 104: 20: 129: 3203:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1485:"The bridge connected Darbargadh Palace with Nazarbag Palace, these were the residences of the then-royal families." from 773: 648: 74: 3055:

is a valid word supported by English dictionaries. It is not some kind of non-English word being inserted for no reason.

1255:

makes it clear that this is an appropriate circumstance. So given the sources use Lakh, yes I do object to changing it.

330: 2655:

For monetary figures, you may use the Indian numbering system but also give their US dollar equivalents in parentheses.

125: 705: 695: 643: 471: 448: 252: 65: 1726: 2489: 2335: 1313:

How high is it above water? Did the height play any role in the deaths, or they occurred for some other reasons? --

185: 24: 3033:

doesn't apply to units, because many Americans find metric units meaningless. The relevant guideline for units is

2899: 2859: 1464: 175: 2268: 256: 199: 2740: 2503:

readers should not need to follow a link to understand a sentence if avoidable. In this case it is avoidable.

1525:

Why has the name of the bridge been changed? What are the sources for the new name? The edit summary given by

885:

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

861: 318: 2814: 2614: 2550: 2260: 2200: 2181: 1662: 1613: 1585: 1541: 1447: 1388: 1166:

I disagree with that, but I also think this is all largely irrelevant - the example provided is that we use

927: 901: 109: 1555:

To "Morbi bridge" from "Jhulto Pul"? To match the use in reliable sources, and to match the article title.

3074: 3042: 3006: 2918: 2867: 2822: 2508: 2222: 2189: 2156: 2104: 2066: 2019: 1824: 1791: 1560: 1406: 1318: 1274: 1238: 1179: 1142: 1059: 1011: 857: 3185: 3122: 2413: 1882:

There seem to be some disagreements over the interpretation of a manual of style guidance, specifically

841: 336: 141: 3070: 3038: 3002: 2914: 2863: 2850:

I'm saying that a majority will not understand "hundred thousand", because it just does not exist here.

2818: 2504: 2484: 2330: 2218: 2185: 2152: 2100: 2062: 2015: 1950:

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

1556: 1526: 1270: 1234: 1175: 1138: 1055: 1007: 2217:

Western readers can understand 4,00,000, but the proposal isn't to use 4,00,000; it is to use 4 lakh.

1345:

says "60 feet" (18 m) but it's not clear if that's height of the structure or height above the water.

3088: 2711: 2705: 2326: 1936: 1914: 1508: 1494: 1025: 853: 286: 3140: 2852:

Then I don't understand your objection because no one is suggesting that we use 4 hundred thousand.

2730: 2675: 2559: 2539: 2422: 2379: 2294: 2264: 2245: 2080: 2044: 1838: 1810: 1776: 1749: 1640: 1350: 1260: 1198: 1157: 1112: 1082: 1036: 825: 568: 260: 161: 55: 2723:: Norms of how to write specific currency should not be changed for one particular article alone. 571:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

479:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

390:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

301: 2610: 1653: 1604: 1576: 1532: 1438: 1379: 918: 892: 204: 70: 273: 2953: 2782: 2729:

Any discussion needed to change MOS:CURRENCY should be held on that talk page and not here. §§

2526: 2443: 2407: 2389: 2352: 2208: 2171: 2137: 1820: 1801: 1787: 1760: 1474: 1402: 1314: 1216: 51: 3180: 3117: 1401:

Thank you! And this is odd. 15 meters is not very high. Too bad there are so many deaths. --

837: 201: 787: 3030: 2998: 2945: 2910: 2770: 2765:

discouraged. There ought to be some specific reason to use a form discouraged by the MOS.

2700: 2596: 2500: 2147: 1980: 1894: 1504: 1490: 1126: 987: 2699:

Not sure why this needs an RFC, when there's already an established guideline for this.

2014:

to use lakh here, which are the only circumstances where it suggests it should be used.

1601:

I see that the name "Jhulto Pul" has now been removed from the article altogether. Why?

3193: 3157: 3130: 3103: 3078: 3064: 3046: 3025: 3010: 2982: 2957: 2922: 2886: 2871: 2844: 2826: 2801: 2786: 2749: 2715: 2679: 2671: 2618: 2600: 2571: 2555: 2530: 2512: 2494: 2456: 2447: 2426: 2418: 2401: 2397: 2383: 2375: 2356: 2340: 2312: 2308: 2298: 2290: 2280: 2276: 2249: 2241: 2226: 2212: 2193: 2175: 2160: 2141: 2108: 2096: 2084: 2076: 2070: 2048: 2040: 2023: 2001: 1941: 1919: 1842: 1834: 1828: 1814: 1806: 1795: 1780: 1772: 1753: 1745: 1689: 1670: 1644: 1636: 1628: 1621: 1593: 1564: 1549: 1512: 1498: 1478: 1455: 1410: 1396: 1369: 1354: 1346: 1338: 1322: 1278: 1264: 1256: 1242: 1230: 1220: 1202: 1194: 1183: 1161: 1153: 1146: 1137:

doesn't limit its applicability to situations where there are no strong national ties.

1116: 1108: 1086: 1078: 1063: 1040: 1032: 1015: 982: 975: 971: 960: 935: 909: 869: 845: 829: 821: 736: 602: 227: 463: 442: 203: 3210: 1100: 3152: 3098: 3059: 3020: 2989: 2977: 2949: 2881: 2839: 2808: 2796: 2778: 2724: 2522: 2476: 2466: 2439: 2348: 2204: 2167: 2133: 2123: 1996: 1470: 1212: 1070: 687: 1833:

I don't want a fight, I want the article to be clear and accurate to the sources.

1251:

says that its use is fine (if correctly linked) in appropriate circumstances, and

2271:." As for "Western readers can understand 4,00,000", it looks to me like a typo. 1990: 1233:, do you still object to converting ₹4 lakh to ₹400,000 based on that guideline? 2322: 1989: 1744:

Is this a case where we need to give both figures with a sources disagree note?

1002:. One of the COMMONALITY examples discusses this exact situation, where it says 915:

Having checked the sources, the former was not supported, so I have removed it.

2833:

Americans can only understand 400,000 when it is written as 4 hundred thousand.

2592: 2180:

I think the claim that Indian readers will struggle to understand numerals is

1122: 995: 677: 555: 531: 2690:

but using {{INRConvert|4|l|lk=on}}, which is the correct way to do this, per

279:

A news item involving 2022 Morbi bridge collapse was featured on Knowledge's

3034: 2647: 2393: 2304: 2286: 2272: 2036: 1252: 1190: 1092: 967: 280: 2263:

is conventionally used for certain things (especially monetary amounts) in

763: 671: 637: 251:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other 218: 2994: 2970: 2941: 2937: 2766: 2758: 2691: 2627: 2626:– For this article related to India use Indian English per the guideline 2587: 2546: 2289:

explicitly permits the use of lakh and crore in Indian-related articles.

2089: 2054: 2032: 2007: 1898: 1883: 1248: 1226: 1208: 1130: 991: 1987:. This is reinforced by one of the examples in COMMONALITY, which says 2906:- this uses "Rs 4,00,000" in the title, but "Rs 400,000" in the body) 387: 383: 3069:

The proposal isn't to use 4 hundred thousand, it is to use 400,000?

2663: 1904: 1819:

I feel like you only want to pick a fight so please stop pinging me.

703:-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the 2856:

Indian will understand 400,000 but will find that to be "incorrect"

1893:, with the !votes divided between A and B, with most of them using 2670:

with the US$ equivalent in parentheses for the general reader. --

1995: 1424: 850:

only 400 are missing not more than 400 and 145 are reported dead.

700: 476: 370: 349: 1985:

using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable

1135:

using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable

3052: 2667: 2480: 2471: 2325:

to learn a thing or two, especially as the Indians invented the

2128: 1908: 1901:

as key reasons for their choices, one could also say there is a

943: 2792:

being English. All major English dictionaries consider it so.

739:

in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

735:

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the

605:

in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

601:

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the

312: 268: 213: 205: 15: 2909:

To oppose this proposal what you need to demonstrate is that

1174:. If you still disagree I think an RfC would be appropriate. 786: 762: 300: 2862:

which suggests that Indians won't find it to be incorrect.

2370:

I've left a neutrally-worded note about this discussion at

2769:

is not a pass for using local forms that may run afoul of

1529:

was "Disputed construction dates", which hardly explains.

3145: 3114:" is a bogus and tiresome claim that borders on racist. 966:

I have added a footnote to explain the meaning of lakh.

2269:

Knowledge:Manual of Style#Opportunities for commonality

1927: 1764: 1106:

crore and always link the first occurrence of the word.

1074: 293: 2858:

Looking at India's largest English-language newspaper

2682:(mos:ties comment added 10:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)) 2416:

which may have interest in the topic under discussion.

160: 3312:

C-Class Indian history articles of Unknown-importance

1903:

rough consensus to retain the status quo of showing "

2549:- the context of the article is of India which uses 1864:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

567:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 475:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 382:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1874:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3252:C-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings 2646:and follow for the currency format the guideline 2586:- as argued above particularly with reference to 2475:(US$ 4,800) (i.e. {{INRConvert|4|l|lk=on}} per 1763:has changed it all to 135 with the edit summary 699:, which aims to improve Knowledge's coverage of 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2267:. This is discouraged in Knowledge articles by 1429: 883: 1229:suggests that using lakh here is discouraged. 2761:) The use is not outright deprecated, but it 1877:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 174: 8: 2329:that Knowledge's vaunted MOS uses to count. 1121:(ec) Your interpretation appears to be that 3262:Low-importance Disaster management articles 316: 3307:Unknown-importance Indian history articles 3292:C-Class Gujarat articles of Low-importance 3217:Knowledge articles that use Indian English 1931:, I've ammended the close to say there is 1765:one should actually read the given sources 851: 632: 526: 437: 344: 231:, which has its own spelling conventions ( 3232:Low-importance Bridge and Tunnel articles 581:Knowledge:WikiProject Disaster management 400:Knowledge:WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels 3277:C-Class India articles of Low-importance 3237:WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels articles 584:Template:WikiProject Disaster management 403:Template:WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels 2575:(amended 10:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)) 2483:on Wikpedia, that intellectually lazy? 2132:(US$ 4,800)" and then call it a day? – 1911:(US$ 5,000) ({{INRConvert|4|l|lk=on}})" 634: 528: 439: 346: 3227:Start-Class Bridge and Tunnel articles 2855: 2849: 2832: 2695: 2654: 2638: 2411: 2058: 2011: 1988: 1984: 1771:mention of it in the prose somewhere. 1632: 1362:2001:9E8:2468:3300:79F5:1E77:3366:DB7A 1331:2001:9E8:2441:6000:B581:4B33:C37C:2CB6 1171: 1167: 1134: 1133:isn't? That doesn't make sense to me; 1095: 1051: 1047: 1004:ten million is preferable to one crore 1003: 999: 953:2601:19E:4380:B320:88D1:5D3C:1145:F09B 2201:Indian numbering system#Current usage 1716:(who cite the police for this figure) 259:, this should not be changed without 7: 3257:C-Class Disaster management articles 3016:that are meaningless to average us. 693:This article is within the scope of 561:This article is within the scope of 469:This article is within the scope of 376:This article is within the scope of 3317:WikiProject Indian history articles 2408:WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification 1309:How high is the bridge above water? 335:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 2031:(but with appropriate linking per 1000:common to all varieties of English 737:project-independent quality rating 603:project-independent quality rating 14: 1193:applies to articles about India. 3199:The discussion above is closed. 2372:Knowledge talk:WikiProject India 680: 670: 636: 554: 530: 462: 441: 369: 348: 317: 272: 217: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 3302:C-Class Indian history articles 3287:Low-importance Gujarat articles 749:This article has been rated as 615:This article has been rated as 564:WikiProject Disaster management 509:This article has been rated as 420:This article has been rated as 379:WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels 3222:Knowledge In the news articles 2059:contextually important reasons 2012:contextually important reasons 1967:12:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC) 1075:permalink to promoted revision 1: 3272:Low-importance India articles 3247:Low-importance Death articles 3178: 3158:08:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC) 3131:16:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC) 3115: 3104:16:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 3079:16:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 3065:16:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 3047:16:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 3026:16:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 3011:16:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 2983:16:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 2923:17:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 2887:17:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 2872:16:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 2845:16:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 2827:16:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 2802:16:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 2787:16:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC) 2750:05:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC) 2716:13:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC) 2680:12:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC) 2619:13:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC) 2601:08:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC) 2572:08:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC) 2531:07:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC) 2513:06:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC) 2495:03:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC) 2448:03:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC) 2427:10:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC) 2402:03:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC) 2384:02:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC) 2357:03:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC) 2341:02:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC) 2313:03:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC) 2299:02:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC) 2281:00:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC) 2250:14:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC) 2227:14:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC) 2213:14:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC) 2194:14:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC) 2176:14:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC) 2161:14:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC) 2142:14:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC) 2109:14:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC) 2085:14:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC) 2071:14:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC) 2049:13:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC) 2024:12:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC) 1942:01:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC) 1920:02:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC) 1889:While one could say there is 1279:12:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC) 1265:11:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC) 1243:05:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC) 795:This article is supported by 771:This article is supported by 575:and see a list of open tasks. 483:and see a list of open tasks. 394:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 3297:WikiProject Gujarat articles 3194:07:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC) 2997:also supports B, due to the 2958:03:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC) 1843:12:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC) 1829:22:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC) 1815:01:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC) 1796:22:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC) 1781:19:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC) 1754:14:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC) 1671:16:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC) 1645:13:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC) 1622:13:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC) 1594:13:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC) 1565:20:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 1550:15:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 1513:06:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC) 1499:06:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC) 1479:07:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC) 1456:21:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC) 1411:02:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC) 1397:17:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC) 1370:17:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 1355:15:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC) 1339:15:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC) 1323:12:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC) 1221:20:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 1203:13:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 1184:12:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 1162:12:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 1147:11:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 1117:11:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 1087:11:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 1064:11:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 1041:11:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 1016:02:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 976:03:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC) 961:02:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC) 936:11:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC) 910:09:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC) 870:07:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC) 846:03:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC) 830:17:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC) 798:the Indian history workgroup 587:Disaster management articles 1887:would be best for readers. 881:In one paragraph, we have: 715:Knowledge:WikiProject India 489:Knowledge:WikiProject Death 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 3338: 3322:WikiProject India articles 3242:Start-Class Death articles 2406:The first bullet point of 1928:discussion on my talk page 1269:I've opened an RfC below. 755:project's importance scale 718:Template:WikiProject India 621:project's importance scale 515:project's importance scale 492:Template:WikiProject Death 426:project's importance scale 406:Bridge and Tunnel articles 25:2022 Morbi bridge collapse 2520:{{INRConvert|4|l|lk=on}} 2327:the decimal number system 794: 770: 748: 734: 665: 614: 600: 549: 508: 457: 419: 364: 343: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 3282:C-Class Gujarat articles 3201:Please do not modify it. 3139:. As for large numbers, 2321:So, it doesn't hurt the 1871:Please do not modify it. 1857:RfC: ₹4 lakh or ₹400,000 2944:does not conflict with 2551:Indian numbering system 2261:Indian numbering system 3267:C-Class India articles 2860:400,000 is widely used 2463:, ; I especially like 1633:bridge name unattested 1433: 887: 791: 767: 325:This article is rated 306: 75:avoid personal attacks 790: 766: 304: 100:Neutral point of view 3137:perhaps the opposite 2831:I'm not saying that 2662:So in this case use 1627:This was removed by 1071:Mother India#filming 257:relevant style guide 253:varieties of English 105:No original research 3141:scientific notation 2727:shall be followed. 2265:South Asian English 1866:request for comment 1376:Sourced and added. 990:is an exception to 774:WikiProject Gujarat 578:Disaster management 569:Disaster management 538:Disaster management 397:Bridges and Tunnels 356:Bridges and Tunnels 255:. According to the 2061:to use lakh here? 2010:, as there are no 889:Which is correct? 792: 768: 331:content assessment 307: 86:dispute resolution 47: 2748: 2605:My preference is 2576: 2486:Fowler&fowler 2332:Fowler&fowler 1994:is preferable to 1940: 1918: 1679:135 or 141 deaths 1631:with the Summary 1527:User:BilledMammal 1468: 1427:says the bridge: 1031:would not exist. 877:Length of closure 872: 856:comment added by 813: 812: 809: 808: 805: 804: 696:WikiProject India 631: 630: 627: 626: 525: 524: 521: 520: 472:WikiProject Death 436: 435: 432: 431: 311: 310: 267: 266: 212: 211: 66:Assume good faith 43: 3329: 3192: 3156: 3129: 3102: 3093: 3087: 3063: 3024: 2993: 2981: 2885: 2843: 2812: 2800: 2738: 2574: 2543: 2492: 2487: 2474: 2469: 2338: 2333: 2131: 2126: 1998: 1992: 1939: 1930: 1917: 1873: 1669: 1660: 1656: 1620: 1611: 1607: 1592: 1583: 1579: 1548: 1539: 1535: 1466: 1454: 1445: 1441: 1395: 1386: 1382: 1125:is overruled by 1105: 1099: 1030: 1024: 986: 934: 925: 921: 908: 899: 895: 723: 722: 719: 716: 713: 690: 685: 684: 683: 674: 667: 666: 661: 658: 655: 640: 633: 589: 588: 585: 582: 579: 558: 551: 550: 545: 542: 534: 527: 497: 496: 493: 490: 487: 466: 459: 458: 453: 445: 438: 408: 407: 404: 401: 398: 373: 366: 365: 360: 352: 345: 328: 322: 321: 313: 296: 276: 269: 224:This article is 221: 214: 206: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 3337: 3336: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3149: 3095: 3091: 3085: 3056: 3031:MOS:COMMONALITY 3017: 2999:MOS:COMMONALITY 2987: 2974: 2946:MOS:COMMONALITY 2911:MOS:COMMONALITY 2878: 2836: 2806: 2793: 2771:MOS:COMMONALITY 2537: 2501:MOS:NOFORCELINK 2490: 2485: 2465: 2464: 2336: 2331: 2148:MOS:COMMONALITY 2122: 2121: 1981:MOS:COMMONALITY 1973: 1944: 1937:Isabelle Belato 1926: 1915:Isabelle Belato 1895:MOS:COMMONALITY 1869: 1859: 1681: 1658: 1652: 1651: 1609: 1603: 1602: 1581: 1575: 1574: 1573:by that name? 1537: 1531: 1530: 1523: 1443: 1437: 1436: 1423:The article on 1421: 1384: 1378: 1377: 1311: 1127:MOS:COMMONALITY 1103: 1097: 1028: 1022: 988:MOS:COMMONALITY 980: 948: 923: 917: 916: 897: 891: 890: 879: 818: 720: 717: 714: 711: 710: 686: 681: 679: 659: 656: 646: 586: 583: 580: 577: 576: 543: 540: 494: 491: 488: 485: 484: 451: 405: 402: 399: 396: 395: 358: 329:on Knowledge's 326: 294:31 October 2022 292: 261:broad consensus 208: 207: 202: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 3335: 3333: 3325: 3324: 3319: 3314: 3309: 3304: 3299: 3294: 3289: 3284: 3279: 3274: 3269: 3264: 3259: 3254: 3249: 3244: 3239: 3234: 3229: 3224: 3219: 3209: 3208: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3108: 3107: 3106: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2907: 2892: 2853: 2752: 2733:Dharmadhyaksha 2728: 2718: 2684: 2683: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2632: 2631: 2621: 2603: 2577: 2533: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2457:user:Thryduulf 2450: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2285:But note that 2254: 2253: 2252: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2097:100 Crore Club 2093: 2057:, what is the 2026: 2002:Indian English 1972: 1969: 1965: 1964: 1958: 1947: 1945: 1923: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1860: 1858: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1786:to understand. 1742: 1741: 1739:Daily Guardian 1735: 1733:Business Today 1729: 1723: 1717: 1714:Times of India 1710: 1704: 1702:Indian Express 1698: 1692: 1680: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1522: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1465:Waghji Ravaji 1420: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1341: 1310: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1247:My reading of 1225:My reading of 1089: 947: 942:The usage of “ 940: 939: 938: 878: 875: 874: 873: 858:203.109.79.106 848: 817: 814: 811: 810: 807: 806: 803: 802: 793: 783: 782: 779:Low-importance 769: 759: 758: 751:Low-importance 747: 741: 740: 733: 727: 726: 724: 721:India articles 692: 691: 675: 663: 662: 660:Low‑importance 641: 629: 628: 625: 624: 617:Low-importance 613: 607: 606: 599: 593: 592: 590: 573:the discussion 559: 547: 546: 544:Low‑importance 535: 523: 522: 519: 518: 511:Low-importance 507: 501: 500: 498: 495:Death articles 481:the discussion 467: 455: 454: 452:Low‑importance 446: 434: 433: 430: 429: 422:Low-importance 418: 412: 411: 409: 392:the discussion 374: 362: 361: 359:Low‑importance 353: 341: 340: 334: 323: 309: 308: 298: 277: 265: 264: 228:Indian English 222: 210: 209: 200: 198: 197: 194: 193: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3334: 3323: 3320: 3318: 3315: 3313: 3310: 3308: 3305: 3303: 3300: 3298: 3295: 3293: 3290: 3288: 3285: 3283: 3280: 3278: 3275: 3273: 3270: 3268: 3265: 3263: 3260: 3258: 3255: 3253: 3250: 3248: 3245: 3243: 3240: 3238: 3235: 3233: 3230: 3228: 3225: 3223: 3220: 3218: 3215: 3214: 3212: 3202: 3195: 3190: 3187: 3184: 3183: 3176: 3173: 3159: 3155: 3154: 3147: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3127: 3124: 3121: 3120: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3100: 3090: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3062: 3061: 3054: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3023: 3022: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2991: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2980: 2979: 2972: 2968: 2965: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2934: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2884: 2883: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2854: 2851: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2842: 2841: 2834: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2815:extraordinary 2810: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2799: 2798: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2753: 2751: 2746: 2742: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2726: 2722: 2719: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2708: 2704: 2703: 2698: 2693: 2689: 2686: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2656: 2652: 2651: 2649: 2645: 2640: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2622: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2611:Dondervogel 2 2608: 2604: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2578: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2541: 2534: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2521: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2493: 2488: 2482: 2478: 2473: 2468: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2451: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2434: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2417: 2415: 2409: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2366: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2339: 2334: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2319: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2238: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2182:extraordinary 2179: 2178: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2149: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2130: 2125: 2118: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2091: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2027: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2003: 1999: 1993: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1975: 1974: 1970: 1968: 1962: 1959: 1956: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1948: 1943: 1938: 1934: 1929: 1924: 1921: 1916: 1913: 1912: 1910: 1906: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1885: 1878: 1875: 1872: 1867: 1862: 1861: 1856: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1803: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1740: 1736: 1734: 1730: 1728: 1724: 1722: 1718: 1715: 1711: 1709: 1705: 1703: 1699: 1697: 1694:At least 135 1693: 1691: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1678: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1659:Pigsonthewing 1655: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1610:Pigsonthewing 1606: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1582:Pigsonthewing 1578: 1572: 1571:to the bridge 1568: 1567: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1538:Pigsonthewing 1534: 1528: 1520: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1469: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1444:Pigsonthewing 1440: 1432: 1428: 1426: 1419:Waghji Thakur 1418: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1385:Pigsonthewing 1381: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1342: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1308: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1107: 1102: 1094: 1090: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1027: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 984: 979: 978: 977: 973: 969: 965: 964: 963: 962: 958: 954: 945: 941: 937: 933: 929: 924:Pigsonthewing 920: 914: 913: 912: 911: 907: 903: 898:Pigsonthewing 894: 886: 882: 876: 871: 867: 863: 859: 855: 849: 847: 843: 839: 834: 833: 832: 831: 827: 823: 815: 800: 799: 789: 785: 784: 780: 777:(assessed as 776: 775: 765: 761: 760: 756: 752: 746: 743: 742: 738: 732: 729: 728: 725: 708: 707: 702: 698: 697: 689: 678: 676: 673: 669: 668: 664: 654: 650: 645: 642: 639: 635: 622: 618: 612: 609: 608: 604: 598: 595: 594: 591: 574: 570: 566: 565: 560: 557: 553: 552: 548: 539: 536: 533: 529: 516: 512: 506: 503: 502: 499: 482: 478: 474: 473: 468: 465: 461: 460: 456: 450: 447: 444: 440: 427: 423: 417: 414: 413: 410: 393: 389: 385: 381: 380: 375: 372: 368: 367: 363: 357: 354: 351: 347: 342: 338: 332: 324: 320: 315: 314: 303: 299: 295: 290: 289: 288: 282: 278: 275: 271: 270: 262: 258: 254: 250: 246: 242: 238: 234: 230: 229: 223: 220: 216: 215: 196: 195: 192: 189: 187: 183: 182: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 3200: 3181: 3174: 3151: 3118: 3111: 3097: 3071:BilledMammal 3058: 3039:BilledMammal 3019: 3003:BilledMammal 2976: 2966: 2915:BilledMammal 2880: 2864:BilledMammal 2838: 2819:BilledMammal 2795: 2774: 2762: 2754: 2732: 2731: 2725:MOS:CURRENCY 2720: 2706: 2701: 2687: 2650:which says: 2623: 2606: 2583: 2579: 2535: 2519: 2505:BilledMammal 2477:user:Uanfala 2460: 2452: 2435: 2414:WikiProjects 2367: 2256: 2219:BilledMammal 2186:BilledMammal 2153:BilledMammal 2101:BilledMammal 2063:BilledMammal 2028: 2016:BilledMammal 1976: 1966: 1960: 1954: 1949: 1946: 1933:no consensus 1932: 1922: 1902: 1891:no consensus 1890: 1888: 1876: 1870: 1863: 1802:TracyMcClark 1768: 1761:TracyMcClark 1759:I note that 1743: 1682: 1667:Andy's edits 1663:Talk to Andy 1654:Andy Mabbett 1618:Andy's edits 1614:Talk to Andy 1605:Andy Mabbett 1600: 1590:Andy's edits 1586:Talk to Andy 1577:Andy Mabbett 1570: 1557:BilledMammal 1546:Andy's edits 1542:Talk to Andy 1533:Andy Mabbett 1524: 1521:Morbi Bridge 1467:(Q115033050) 1452:Andy's edits 1448:Talk to Andy 1439:Andy Mabbett 1434: 1430: 1422: 1403:CopperKettle 1393:Andy's edits 1389:Talk to Andy 1380:Andy Mabbett 1315:CopperKettle 1312: 1271:BilledMammal 1235:BilledMammal 1176:BilledMammal 1139:BilledMammal 1056:BilledMammal 1008:BilledMammal 949: 932:Andy's edits 928:Talk to Andy 919:Andy Mabbett 906:Andy's edits 902:Talk to Andy 893:Andy Mabbett 888: 884: 880: 852:— Preceding 819: 816:500 missing? 796: 772: 750: 706:project page 704: 694: 688:India portal 616: 562: 510: 470: 421: 377: 337:WikiProjects 285: 284: 248: 244: 240: 236: 232: 225: 184: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 3182:SMcCandlish 3119:SMcCandlish 3089:INR Convert 3001:exception. 2813:That is an 2721:Wrong Venue 2323:Anglosphere 1991:ten million 1487:this source 1170:instead of 1168:ten million 1050:instead of 1048:ten million 1026:INR convert 838:Ankraj giri 327:Start-class 291:section on 287:In the news 226:written in 148:free images 31:not a forum 3211:Categories 2540:INRConvert 2390:WP:CANVASS 1123:MOS:RETAIN 996:MOS:RETAIN 3035:MOS:UNITS 2672:Guest2625 2648:MOS:INDIA 2556:DaxServer 2419:Thryduulf 2376:Thryduulf 2291:Thryduulf 2287:MOS:INDIA 2259:per "the 2242:Thryduulf 2077:Thryduulf 2041:Thryduulf 2037:MOS:INDIA 1997:one crore 1835:Thryduulf 1807:Thryduulf 1773:Thryduulf 1746:Thryduulf 1737:Over 140 1727:NewsClick 1721:The Hindu 1637:Thryduulf 1629:Ravenpuff 1347:Thryduulf 1257:Thryduulf 1253:MOS:INDIA 1231:Thryduulf 1195:Thryduulf 1191:MOS:INDIA 1172:one crore 1154:Thryduulf 1109:Thryduulf 1093:MOS:INDIA 1091:See also 1079:Thryduulf 1052:one crore 1033:Thryduulf 983:Thryduulf 822:Kautilya3 305:Knowledge 281:Main Page 237:travelled 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2995:MOS:TIES 2971:MOS:TIES 2942:MOS:TIES 2938:MOS:TIES 2767:MOS:TIES 2759:MOS:LAKH 2692:MOS:LAKH 2628:MOS:TIES 2588:MOS:LAKH 2547:MOS:LAKH 2461:strongly 2388:Classic 2090:MOS:LAKH 2055:MOS:LAKH 2033:MOS:LAKH 2008:MOS:LAKH 1963:₹400,000 1899:MOS:LAKH 1884:MOS:LAKH 1503:Added.- 1249:MOS:LAKH 1227:MOS:LAKH 1209:MOS:LAKH 1131:MOS:TIES 992:MOS:TIES 866:contribs 854:unsigned 245:analysed 186:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 3153:CX Zoom 3099:CX Zoom 3060:CX Zoom 3021:CX Zoom 2990:CX Zoom 2978:CX Zoom 2950:Pathawi 2882:CX Zoom 2840:CX Zoom 2809:CX Zoom 2797:CX Zoom 2779:Pathawi 2536:A with 2523:Shyamal 2440:Johnbod 2349:Johnbod 2205:Uanfala 2168:Uanfala 2134:Uanfala 1957:₹4 lakh 1708:Reuters 1471:Shyamal 1213:Uanfala 753:on the 657:C‑class 653:History 649:Gujarat 619:on the 541:C‑class 513:on the 424:on the 388:tunnels 384:bridges 283:in the 249:defence 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2775:colour 2702:Joseph 2491:«Talk» 2459:, but 2337:«Talk» 2035:) per 2006:, and 1971:Survey 1925:After 1821:--TMCk 1788:--TMCk 1463:Added 1129:, but 333:scale. 241:centre 233:colour 126:Google 3146:śūnya 2745:Edits 2593:FOARP 2410:says 1983:says 1505:Nizil 1491:Nizil 1425:Morbi 1189:that 712:India 701:India 644:India 486:Death 477:Death 449:Death 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 3148:is. 3112:lakh 3075:talk 3053:lakh 3043:talk 3007:talk 2954:talk 2919:talk 2868:talk 2823:talk 2783:talk 2741:Talk 2712:talk 2707:2302 2676:talk 2668:lakh 2615:talk 2597:talk 2584:Both 2545:per 2527:talk 2509:talk 2499:Per 2481:lakh 2472:lakh 2455:per 2444:talk 2436:Both 2423:talk 2398:talk 2394:WWGB 2380:talk 2368:Note 2353:talk 2309:talk 2305:WWGB 2295:talk 2277:talk 2273:WWGB 2246:talk 2223:talk 2209:talk 2203:. – 2190:talk 2172:talk 2157:talk 2138:talk 2129:lakh 2105:talk 2081:talk 2067:talk 2053:Per 2045:talk 2020:talk 1909:lakh 1897:and 1839:talk 1825:talk 1811:talk 1792:talk 1777:talk 1769:some 1750:talk 1731:141 1725:141 1719:141 1712:135 1706:135 1700:135 1696:mint 1688:135 1641:talk 1561:talk 1509:talk 1495:talk 1475:talk 1407:talk 1366:talk 1351:talk 1335:talk 1319:talk 1275:talk 1261:talk 1239:talk 1217:talk 1211:. – 1199:talk 1180:talk 1158:talk 1143:talk 1113:talk 1101:nbsp 1083:talk 1060:talk 1037:talk 1012:talk 994:and 972:talk 968:WWGB 957:talk 944:lakh 862:talk 842:talk 826:talk 386:and 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 3191:😼 3128:😼 2737:§§ 2582:or 1690:BBC 1661:); 1612:); 1584:); 1540:); 1489:. - 1446:); 1387:); 1077:). 926:); 900:); 745:Low 611:Low 505:Low 416:Low 176:TWL 3213:: 3179:— 3116:— 3094:. 3092:}} 3086:{{ 3077:) 3045:) 3037:. 3009:) 2956:) 2940:. 2921:) 2902:, 2898:, 2870:) 2825:) 2785:) 2763:is 2743:/ 2714:) 2694:: 2678:) 2666:4 2617:) 2607:B: 2599:) 2570:) 2566:· 2562:· 2542:}} 2538:{{ 2529:) 2511:) 2470:4 2446:) 2425:) 2400:) 2392:. 2382:) 2374:. 2355:) 2311:) 2297:) 2279:) 2248:) 2225:) 2211:) 2192:) 2184:. 2174:) 2159:) 2140:) 2127:4 2107:) 2099:. 2083:) 2069:) 2047:) 2022:) 1961:B: 1955:A: 1907:4 1868:. 1841:) 1827:) 1813:) 1794:) 1779:) 1752:) 1665:; 1643:) 1616:; 1588:; 1563:) 1544:; 1511:) 1497:) 1477:) 1450:; 1409:) 1391:; 1368:) 1353:) 1337:) 1321:) 1277:) 1263:) 1241:) 1219:) 1201:) 1182:) 1160:) 1145:) 1115:) 1104:}} 1098:{{ 1085:) 1062:) 1054:? 1039:) 1029:}} 1023:{{ 1014:) 1006:. 974:) 959:) 930:; 904:; 868:) 864:• 844:) 828:) 781:). 651:/ 647:: 247:, 243:, 239:, 235:, 156:) 54:; 3189:¢ 3186:☏ 3175:B 3150:— 3126:¢ 3123:☏ 3096:— 3073:( 3057:— 3041:( 3018:— 3005:( 2992:: 2988:@ 2975:— 2967:A 2952:( 2917:( 2904:3 2900:2 2896:1 2879:— 2866:( 2837:— 2821:( 2811:: 2807:@ 2794:— 2781:( 2755:B 2747:} 2739:{ 2710:( 2688:A 2674:( 2664:₹ 2657:" 2653:" 2641:" 2637:" 2630:: 2624:A 2613:( 2595:( 2580:B 2568:c 2564:m 2560:t 2558:( 2525:( 2507:( 2467:₹ 2453:A 2442:( 2421:( 2396:( 2378:( 2351:( 2307:( 2293:( 2275:( 2257:B 2244:( 2221:( 2207:( 2188:( 2170:( 2155:( 2136:( 2124:₹ 2103:( 2079:( 2065:( 2043:( 2029:A 2018:( 2004:) 2000:( 1977:B 1905:₹ 1837:( 1823:( 1809:( 1800:@ 1790:( 1775:( 1748:( 1657:( 1639:( 1608:( 1580:( 1559:( 1536:( 1507:( 1493:( 1473:( 1442:( 1405:( 1383:( 1364:( 1349:( 1333:( 1317:( 1273:( 1259:( 1237:( 1215:( 1197:( 1178:( 1156:( 1141:( 1111:( 1081:( 1073:( 1058:( 1035:( 1010:( 985:: 981:@ 970:( 955:( 946:” 922:( 896:( 860:( 840:( 824:( 801:. 757:. 731:C 709:. 623:. 597:C 517:. 428:. 339:: 297:. 263:. 191:1 188:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index