Talk:Surfside condominium collapse

References

... (esp. those depicting casualties) are changing daily, hourly, e.g., in case of Somme it would be 1+M references per every person; some concordia has to be reached, where to insert the latest data (and, accordingly, deletion of outdated refs (the Sun was shining, a cat was walking, on this particular day, Elsa payd a visit, et cetera...)) as "outdated"... — Pietadè (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

In general, it is difficult to achieve and/or enforce any agreement about this kind of thing during a period of fast-breaking news. I think you overestimate the number of editors who even consult the Talk page, much less read it in its entirety. We'll deal with it as it occurs. General Ization ^Talk 16:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, the removal of citations on the basis that they are "outdated" should be done only with great restraint, and only after ensuring that a) they are not referenced in multiple places in the article, and b) all facts still related here that depend on them are still sourced in the citations that remain. It's necessary to do this, but it's not something that should be done casually. Editors have already attempted this, leaving unreferenced refnames in the References section, and some content unsourced. General Ization ^Talk 16:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

For time being, applied in this article (etwi, infobox ref and the ref itself) a schema <ref name=loss /> and grouped all the changes into one unit (they all have date somewhere in the beginning)
besides that, a question regarding the content of the table of casualties (a question mark "?" for not known/published/disclosed can do it's work?)
Otherwise, one has to count, and count, and count, to deduce that, e.g., 5+3 doesn't equal to 41, or whatsoever, misleading info, at least... — Pietadè (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Historical context

With the rescue operation now in its eighth day, it appears highly unlikely that a significant proportion of the missing will be rescued. We will likely soon need to add a sentence to the lead recognizing this event as the most deadly structural collapse of a building in American history not directly caused by an act of terrorism. I am working on the phrasing of this addition and will propose it here for discussion. General Ization ^Talk 16:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I propose The collapse was the deadliest structural failure of a building in American history not caused by an act of terrorism, with a death toll surpassing the collapse of the Knickerbocker Theatre in Washington, D.C. in 1922. The Knickerbocker article will also need to be updated to reflect this context. General Ization ^Talk 16:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@General Ization: Maybe it could say something along the lines of The collapse was the deadliest accidental structural failure in U.S. history. The death toll supersedes that of the collapse of the Knickerbocker Theatre in Washington, D.C. in 1922, and the Hyatt Regency walkway collapse in Kansas City, Missouri in 1981 as the deadliest building and structural collapses, respectively. Undescribed (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Undescribed: But it is not the deadliest structural failure in U.S. history (the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11 is) and the single word "accidental" is far too vague and easy to miss. Besides, accidental structural failure is a rather odd, imprecise wording (as opposed to "intentional structural failure"?) and doesn't intuitively exclude the WTC collapse from the comparison. I'm not sure it's necessary to address its toll relative to the 1981 Hyatt walkway collapse, as that wasn't a building, per se (why I say of a building), and I'm always suspect of any sentence that the author feels needs to end with respectively. I really think the original wording is more accessible and quickly informative, and much shorter. (But discussion is why I posted it here — thanks. Hopefully we still have a little time to figure this out.) General Ization ^Talk 06:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@General Ization: I concur that "accidental" isn't the best choice of wording. I do think that it would be more ideal having it say "structural failure/collapse" versus "building collapse", only because it would clarify that the death toll is higher than that of both Knickerbocker theatre and Hyatt Regency walkway. It should definitely be noted in the statement that terrorism related collapses like that seen with the World Trade Center and the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building are excluded. Like you stated, there is still time to discuss. Undescribed (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Undescribed: The Hyatt page says the following: "The event remains the deadliest non‑deliberate structural failure in American history". Therefore, we should probably use the term "non-deliberate" rather than "accidental". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.225.19 (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Reviving this archived conversation, Mayor Levin Cava said this (Tuesday) morning there were "around 70 [people] we can confirm were in the building at the time of collapse," acknowledging doubt about the currently official estimate of 113 missing. With any luck, we will not need to add to the lead to call this the "most deadly" of anything. General Ization ^Talk 20:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean if it does, it does. If it doesn't, it does not. The focus on the numbers is the least of the worries. – The Grid (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@The Grid: Of course. The point of the discussion was to try to reach some agreement on the language to be added to the lead if and when that threshold is crossed, so we don't need to spend a week debating how to describe it before the fact is noted in the article. A few editors have already tried adding unencyclopedic statements such as as "It is one of the most deadly structural failures that has ever occurred in the U.S.," even before we have an actual number, so no doubt it will need to be noted when the context is actually known. (Discussing this sort of thing in advance is something editors do.) General Ization ^Talk 02:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

174.0.73.4 (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC) The number of missing people has steadily trended downwards, from the peak putting us at close to 200 to now at most 109, below the Hyatt Regency. While this is still the worst building collapse, ahead of the Knickerbocker, unless a significant number of people that weren't declared missing(homeless or drifters) are found and bump up the numbers, the overall structural record is staying with the Hyatt

Which goes to show that nothing should be announced as fact until it is established as so. Even then, it's worthwhile to recheck it once in a while. Imagine Reason (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

68.144.93.30 (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Not even going to pass the Knickerbocker......which, as the guy who started this discussion a while ago....uh.....I was wrong. That isn't the deadliest building collapse in American history. Pemberton Mill is. 145 dead. Just kinda slipped past me. That's also worse then the Hyatt, so both records were in the same event all along. Pemberton Mills is the worst structural collapse in American history and fourth worst in history, behind the Columbian Stadium Collapse, Sampoong Department Store Collapse, and the Collapse of Rana Plaza.

Weight

How much did this building weigh on completion? Considering that all the rubble has to be removed, and mainly manually... Does anyone know?
NYT mentioned today [Last Updated July 8, 2021, 11:26 a.m. ET 52 minutes ago]: "The mission will officially transition to recovery at midnight, officials said, adding that they expected to be working their way through the rubble for several more weeks." — Pietadè (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Weight of buildings (even when empty of household and other furnishings) is not a commonly reported, or even recorded, statistic. Engineers of course consider the weight (hence the foundational load) of portions of the structure and equipment (e.g., air conditioning systems, elevators) in the course of structural design, most likely based on standard charts of weights of materials and calculated volume, but the final weight is not something typically recorded on contract drawings, etc. It is doubtful that a reliable source will include such a report. Even if it did, would it reflect the weight of the foundation itself, piers in the sand below the foundation (which may ultimately not be removed), and the weight of surface structures such as the pool deck? Too vague a notion to be useful except to an estimator planning the removal. General Ization ^Talk 16:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

With buildings, weight and volume are hard to find while height and area are much easier. With ships it's other way around (if you want keel to main roof or roof of the containers) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yet, CCN says, according to Google search: "1:29 AM ET, Fri July 9, 2021 ... More than 3 million pounds of concrete have already been removed during the rescue operation..."; 1,360,777 kgs, remember that at some times earlier "120 000 pounds was mentioned.... — Pietadè (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not so hard that no consultant could get close to the total and the removed part might be easily estimated with the help of weighing all the rubble trucks with drive-thru truck scales Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, one of the largest “accidental” crime scenes to investigate in this part of a World... — Pietadè (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Updated: WPLG, July 15, 2021 2:19 am — Crews have now removed over 22 million pounds of debris and concrete since the June 24 collapse. — Pietadè (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Too much is date driven - needs to be more prose

I know it is a changing situation but a lot of this article is very date driven. (I'm sure there must be a Wikipedia three letter acronym for this!) I think the sections titled with a date need turning into paragraphs and grouping around themes. It doesn't really matter whether something happened on the 6th July or the 7th July, it matters about the order of things thematically. News reports care what happened yesterday but we take a longer view. Secretlondon (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Secretlondon: A lot of the article is currently date-driven so that the editors who are primarily maintaining this article don't need to go over it from head to foot every time some other editor(s) decide to add or change content to add, expand or replace sourcing, eliminate redundancy and/or contradictions, etc. This is typical of an article about a breaking news event. We can take the long view when we have the luxury of permanence in any part of the article. The article can be refined into a much better structure once the frequency of needed updates declines (likely to be when authorities believe they have found the last of the victims in the rubble). If anything, that frequency is likely to increase between now and next week. (We are not seeking GA status at this time.) General Ization ^Talk 20:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@General Ization: Okay I accept that. It needs doing eventually, certainly, even if now is too soon. Secretlondon (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the closest comparison to this is hurricane-related articles as the damage and recovery efforts are listed days after landfall. From there, grouping into paragraphs happens either weeks or months afterward. – The Grid (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree about the move to prose, but already been informed by user:General Ization (I think) that its helpful in the early stages to keep it date ordered, and consolidate later, and I'm okay with that too FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 2021

Surfside condominium building collapse → Surfside condominium collapse – Shorter, more concise title, also it is implied that a condominium is a building that holds condos. Aasim (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose See the discussion immediately above. General Ization ^Talk 21:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

UTC)

Support. I'm changing my vote from Oppose to Support. General Ization has made me see the error of my ways. After speaking American English natively for almost five decades, and living in a condo for 12 of those years, I now know that I've been doing it all wrong. I'm glad General Ization brought this to my attention, and I'm happy to support this current title change proposal. Moncrief (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Support. This title is closer to what I believe the average layman would search for. However, I'd also recommend that "Surfside collapse" and "Surfside building collapse" redirect to this article. - CreationFox ^{Talk Page} 19:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

:Oppose. A condominium (almost always abbreviated to condo in everyday speech, though I don't propose that abbreviation for Wikipedia), in all varieties of North American English of which I'm aware, refers to an individual unit or dwelling within a larger building or association. A "condominium collapse" therefore sounds like the collapse of one individual dwelling, not of a building, and thus does not adequately capture what happened in Surfside. I understand that the current title might not sit well with speakers of non-North American English, as it's not a common term for them, and I'd be open to !voting on other, more globally neutral phrasings (I brought the topic up just above, in fact). But dropping "building" from the current title would make the title less useful and more opaque than it is now. Moncrief (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Our own article on condominums begins A condominium is a building structure divided into several units that are each separately owned, surrounded by common areas that are jointly owned. The term it uses for each individual residence is "condominium unit". The wiktionary entry similarly defines "condominium" as A building or complex of buildings that provides multiple residential units each of which is owned separately but whose grounds, structure, etc. (if any) are owned jointly and tags it as a US and Canadian usage. Einsof (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment I noticed today that Reuters, which is not particularly US centric, used the term "condominium tower" in an article with a headline that included the phrase "condo collapse". - Donald Albury 21:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Support I understand the point @Moncrief: has brought up, but I don't think we need to worry about that. If one does not know what a condominium is, they click on the link in the lead section of the article. I also agree with the point that @Awesome Aasim: made when proposing the idea-- the context of the article explains it. We don't call Collapse of the World Trade Center 'Collapse of the World Trade Center building complex'. Helen(💬📖) 22:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I think you may be conflating two of my points, and I didn't separate them well enough. My first point is that a condominium is not an entire building in any variety of English (that I know of). To use a more global term, it would be like calling this event an "apartment collapse." People might dope out that meant a whole building and not just one apartment, but it's not particularly clear from the title. My second point, less important to me personally (and admittedly irrelevant to this particular !vote), but one I wanted to acknowledge, is that condominium is perhaps a somewhat unfamiliar term to some English speakers. The two points are not particularly interrelated. Moncrief (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

As I have already mentioned several times now on this page, in North American and particularly American English the term "condominium" is often used interchangeably to refer to a) a single residential unit sold and owned by means of a condominium agreement, b) a building that predominantly (not necessarily exclusively) contains such units, or c) a complex of such units or buildings. Meanings (b) and (c) are especially common in resort communities, but are prevalent throughout the US and elsewhere. Every online dictionary I have consulted, including several outside North America, reports at least two and some all 3 of these usages ([1],[2],[3][4], others consistent). I don't mean to sound rude, but the only way you could make that statement ("a condominium is not an entire building in any variety of English") is if you had failed to actually research the question using a minimal Google search. I agree that "building" is needed, but not with your rationalization for it. General Ization ^Talk 23:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

(Coincidentally, all 4 of the definitions at the links I supplied cite the "building" usage as the most common usage.) General Ization ^Talk 23:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

You do come across as quite rude, and I don't know why your tone is necessary, particularly when you aren't mentioning what rationalization you are relying on. Your work on this article has been extensive and helpful, but your vibe can border on WP:OWN, in my opinion. Moncrief (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I haven't read it that way,and wouldn't invoke OWN. It seems like good and reasonable consensus-driven experienced editor approach for me. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The rationalization I rely upon is clearly stated in the discussion just above, and also in our conversation on essentially the same topic two weeks ago. My tone is simply one of objecting to a statement that seems to have no basis in fact nor supporting evidence. General Ization ^Talk 23:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

This would be a good article for you to read: WP:CIVIL. Moncrief (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Moncrief: I have read it, and encouraged others here to do so, many times. There was nothing uncivil about my comment; it simply addressed your statement, and that it seemed to have been made without any effort to confirm its veracity. I'm sorry you apparently feel attacked, but if I had intended my comment purely to be rude, I would not have disclaimed that intent. I propose we let this go now, since it is not constructive. If you would like to continue, please do so on my Talk page, not here. General Ization ^Talk 01:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: condominium = con + dominium = together with ownership. The term came to popularity in the 1960s after U.S. Congress authorized the Federal Housing Administration to insure condo mortgages. Essentially, the availability and affordability of owning a home went beyond the idea of a single-family detached home. A condominium can consist of one or several different buildings, properties, and units. In this instance, part of the building partially collapsed. I am more in favor of building staying in this context. – The Grid (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Move to Surfside building collapse per BD2412 below. – The Grid (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: The title needs either the word building or the word tower in it. Some articles have called it a high rise building. A condominium is a financial arrangement and the collapse of one means a financial problem. This quest for a shorter title seems silly, when the direction is for a short uninformative title for the article. -- Prairieplant (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Support: "condominium" already implies a building, hence why the opening sentence of this article states "On June 24, 2021, at approximately 1:25 a.m. EDT,[a] Champlain Towers South, a 12-story beachfront condominium in the Miami suburb of Surfside, Florida, United States, partially collapsed." It does not say "On June 24, 2021, at approximately 1:25 a.m. EDT,[a] Champlain Towers South, a 12-story beachfront condominium building in the Miami suburb of Surfside, Florida, United States, partially collapsed."

It does not imply a building at New Hebrides. Srnec (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Srnec (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Move to Surfside building collapse. A condominium describes the legal structure of ownership of units in a building, which is quite irrelevant to the collapse. BD2412 T 23:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This was already proposed in this discussion and the consensus was against it. See above for the current proposal. General Ization ^Talk 03:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I do feel that WP:CCC is relevant: "Surfside building collapse" is possible if consensus wanted. But maybe we should not revisit that specific option so soon after a past discussion rejected it. In future, maybe, if people wanted to. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course, re: CCC. I was mainly trying to avoid YAF (yet another fork) in the discussion of the current proposal. General Ization ^Talk 16:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I was one of the ones that opposed this originally and will continue to oppose it if brought up again. If there is opposition to "condominium", then that article's lead paragraphs need to be rewritten. "Building" is just too generic. I get that Surfside is a small town so that might be enough to make the title specific enough, but if any word should be removed, rather than adding a year or using the building's name for specificity, I think "building" should be the one to go. lukini (talk | contribs) 17:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support rename to remove redundancy; "Surfside condominium collapse" would be fine. Not just "building" - the fact its an apartment block is important and would look odd to leave out. I've noted elsewhere on this talk page, that even in the UK where condominium isn't a well known word, its been widely referred to as a "condo collapse" and treated as understandable. So international familiarity isn't an issue for me. Nor is strict "ownership vs structure", that feels like reading more into a title than is needed. But "condominium building" feels like redundancy and anything but that. Just pick one word and use that alone. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support («Surfside building collapse») — bearing in mind that this is not a piece of info addressed directly/only to North American audience, many other wikis copy from here; as for me, don't have access to access to IPs visits statistics.
  As for condominium; do not believe that I'm the 1st person to find the meaning of this word in different sources; besides, this word has several meanings...
  — Pietadè (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. I demonstrated above that "condominum" is not restricted to individual units. Einsof (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support to remove the redundancy. simon (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia has other articles about notable building collapses, such as Sampoong Department Store collapse, 2013 Dhaka garment factory collapse, Collapse of Hotel New World, etc. These are all building collapses, but the phrase "building collapse" does not appear in the title.Waterfire (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support: drop building from the title it makes the whole thing redundant SRD625 (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support: A condominium is a type of building, so dropping the word "building" would make the title less of a mouthful. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support: The word building is redundant. TheMemeMonarch (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The inclusion of "building" is unnecessary. WWGB (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:RS it seems that both names are used in the sources at regular intervals, but from what I've seen, the shorter version without the word "building" seems to be the most prevalent. Almost all the sources include the word condominium, or the shorter term "condo", so calling the article "Surfside building collapse" doesn't fit the sources.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support It seems that it is unnecessary mostly because of the enormous amount of news coverage that I think most people understand intuitively that it refers to the building and therefore, even though it may not be implied elsewhere, that it (the word "building") certainly is implied here. Axiomidity (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Agreed that the word "building" is redundant. --WuTang94 (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Building is unnecessary. Natadmim (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support finally. UserTwoSix (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Surfside condominium collapse is fine. --Undescribed (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the intro needs to mention the missing rebar reported July 3

I seek consensus for this edit changing the second paragraph of the introduction from:

Long-term degradation of reinforced concrete support structures in the underground parking garage due to water penetration and corrosion of the reinforcing steel is being considered as a factor in—or the cause of—the collapse. The issues had been reported in 2018 and noted as "much worse" in April 2021. A $15 million program of remedial works had been approved at the time of the collapse.

to:

Less rebar inside reinforced concrete support columns than had been specified in the building's construction plans and long-term degradation of such concrete supports in the underground parking garage due to water penetration and corrosion of the reinforcing steel are being considered as possible causes of the collapse. The degradation issues had been reported in 2018 and noted as "much worse" in April 2021. A $15 million program of remedial works had been approved at the time of the collapse.

References

Clearly the missing rebar, which in my experience is invariably the cause of high-rise collapse in the developing world, needs prominent mention.

@General Ization: You told me to ask here. What is your opinion? 107.242.121.24 (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. However, I recalled that the paragraph was the subject of a previous (now archived) discussion here on the Talk page that generated a consensus largely responsible for its current content. Seemed reasonable to ask you to seek it again for the change you propose, and I appreciate that you have done so. General Ization ^Talk 03:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@FT2: Since you edited the content the OP added on this topic to add some caveats concerning the rebar theory, perhaps you could comment on their suggestion that this theory should be mentioned in the lead. General Ization ^Talk 03:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm cautious about the comment/belief that missing rebar is "inevitably" the cause of high rise collapse in the developing world. (And Florida isn't in the "developing world" in any case, of course). The statement that this is "in my experience" is also a red light because of WP:OR, a further reason not to rely on the statement.

I'm also wary of suggesting it as a "cause" here. We have *apparent* reduction in rebar from plans, but right now the consensus on that seems to be more like "hmm" than anything else. Experts note it and want to look into it, as a concern, but they aren't actually yet saying overall that's *why* it collapsed, and it doesn't seem to be the theory that experts or other reliable sources have centred on (yet, anyway). I'd suggest a different wording, noting it among satellite data and anything else that gets focus in the investigation:

Long-term degradation of reinforced concrete support structures in the underground parking garage due to water penetration and corrosion of the reinforcing steel is being considered as a factor in—or the cause of—the collapse. The issues had been reported in 2018 and noted as "much worse" in April 2021. A $15 million program of remedial works had been approved at the time of the collapse, although no main structural work was undertaken. Other concerns include an apparent reduction in reinforcing steel found in the debris from that planned, and possible sinking of land due to overdevelopment.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@FT2: is there any reason to believe that contractors skimping on rebar is not the overwhelmingly most frequent cause of highrise collapse world wide? Would you please include your preferred version so there is at least some mention of missing rebar in the introduction? 107.242.121.36 (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Honestly that's a bit of a weird question. Like, before even introducing it as a "fact" we need reliable sources for such a claim. Its not for others to "prove the negative" of a claim you want to include.

Even if well sourced, it's important not to gave undue WP:WEIGHT or create "original research" by associating statements in a suggestive manner. For example: if we stated that skimped rebar is then world's biggest cause of highrise collapse, and rebar was not evident in the wreckage, we imply that (1) there was an under inclusion of rebar, (2) contractors probably skimped, (3) we not-so-secretly believe that's what happened at Surfside. Unfortunately we have no actual evidence that that's what experts currently believe. The most we have is that there appears to be less than expected, and even that comes with a cautionary note that it awaits expert analysis. We also have a competing theory of penetration/corrosion which most reliable sources so far have gone much further in endorsing as a likely cause. And all that is assuming reliable sources exist for the claim you want to add.

Its just a bit much for now, instead of documented and mainstream factual content. If it is correct, eventually a significant part of expert commentators/analysts will say that's what they think, and we can revisit it. Meantime let's have a couple of cites for the claim you'd like included, if there are reliable analyses of highrise collapses that show it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

July 8 section is missing

The information for July 8 is missing. The death toll jumps from 46 to 79 with only 15 additional deaths reported.Editoriallea (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It's rather glaring to have July 8th missing. It implies that nothing happened ... or that the search/rescue/recovery was "off" for that day. (Which I doubt was the case.) Some explanatory note should be added. It's jarring to have a "missing day", when the rest of the section details everything else, day-by-day. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that July 5th is also missing. What happened that day? Nothing? Or were the operations suspended for the day? These two missing dates need some explanatory note / clarification. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC) 03:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I've cut off the day-by-day enumeration after July 7, so if you find any content to add about July 8 it can go into the "Subsequent developments" subsection. That way we won't end up making the oversectioning problem even worse. In fact, if you can find a way to roll July 6 and July 7 into the "Subsequent developments" section, that would also fix the July 5 problem. I take it back—July 7 was the transition from rescue to recovery, so it's a natural place for its own unified subsection rather than a bunch of daily one-liners. I still suggest that the solution to the missing July 5 problem is to find a way to combine subsections, rather than make more. Einsof (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

At some point, an additional 8 bodies were discovered, bringing the known death toll to 54. Later on, another 10 bodies were found bringing the death toll to 64. These numbers have been omitted. I can't tell from my references whether this occurred on July 7 or 8. Could someone else check and edit this information for me? Thanks. Editoriallea (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC) editoriallea

We should redo the section and get rid of all the day-specific subsection headings. VQuakr (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Sinking ground - not sure we accurately represent this, and needs a source

The text states "A building collapse due to sinking is likely only if one part of a building is sinking at a faster rate than another". I'm unconvinced by that word "likely". On a casual lay-person's reading, it implies that a building is likely to collapse from sinking, if there is differential sinking. That's not the case, it clearly depends on what design mitigations exist, how sinking progresses over time, and what's causing it. Its missing a cite anyway. Can we edit this to something informative rather than appearing to make a claim of causation? For example, "If ground level sinking occurs at different rates below a building, and care is not taken to address the issue, then collapse could potentially occur." FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Missing persons in table of casualties

I propose that the column of "Missing" be removed from the "Casualties by nationality or national origin" table in the Casualties section. While the most recent sources say that there just 7 or 8 persons still unaccounted for, the number of "missing" listed for various nationalities adds up to 48. In addition, the authorities are saying that, while one or two bodies of people who were not reported as missing may be found in the remaining debris, they expect most, if not all, of the remaining missing to be accounted for as the few unidentified bodies are identified. The number of people missing has been reduced as authorities identified duplicate reports for the same person. I doubt we will be able to find suitable sources for revising the number of missing persons for each nationality. In any case, once all of the debris has been removed from the site, any person still unaccounted for may be assumed to have not been in the building when it collapsed. - Donald Albury 21:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Official death total

I edited the article to reflect that Miami-Dade County had revised the confirmed death toll to 94. I also removed the number of missing (which was given as 8) as there were 97 occupants confirmed as missing persons by the Miami-Dade Police, and with 94 identified dead, and with "human remains that are being identified", it appears that there are an unknown number, but less than three, occupants still missing.Miami Herald article, requires registration Natadmim reverted my edits. Given that Miami-Dade County stated that the confirmed death toll is 94, and did not put a number on the unidentified "human remains", how should we present that information in the article? Of course, this may all change later today. - Donald Albury 13:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Natadmim (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is yesterday's press release from Miami-Dade County on the Surfside death toll, which the Herald article was based on. The press release does not give a number for missing persons. If nothing else, I believe that we should remove the current number of missing persons from the article, as any sources giving a number are now outdated and no longer represent the latest information. As my previous edits removing the missing number were reverted, I will refrain from removing the missing number again. - Donald Albury 15:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)