Jump to content

Talk:Puttingal temple fire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by BattyBot (talk | contribs) at 12:43, 30 March 2024 (→top: General fixes per WP:Talk page layout). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Needs better title

[edit]

It is most inappropriate to use the word "accident" in the title at this time. An accident is an event in which no-one is to blame, a so-called "act of god". It is far too early to establish the cause or blame of this event. It could be due to carelessness, poor safety, or many other causes due to human error. The article should be called "fire", "explosion", " disaster" or such for the time being. WWGB (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puttingal Temple fireworks disaster would be my favourite. I'm not sure whether fire or explosion is best suited (slight leaning towards fire), so opted for fireworks disaster instead. Based on Category:Hindu temples in Kollam district, the location is very ambiguous. Any thoughts? Jolly Ω Janner 07:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Car accidents are not acts of god, as you say.
Nevertheless, Im open to changes and already mentioned this. Disaster is more POV-ish, fire (my first option) or explosion could be amenable.Lihaas (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most "car accidents" are not accidents as someone is at fault. That is why Wikipedia refers to them as traffic collisions. WWGB (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do we feel about Puttingal Temple fire then? I'm still 50/50 on whether to include the year. Jolly Ω Janner 08:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose year, support the other suff yall decide.Lihaas (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The previous move was done in good faith, but I've moved the page back to Kollam temple accident as it is the much more WP:COMMONNAME in the news media. Some news stories (internationally [1] and in India [2]) don't even mention "Paravur" at all, which means the old article title is too specific and obscure for the general public. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Jolly Janner:, please do not move pages which are controversial, you are supposed to use the RM process. I've moved it to Kollam temple fire per WP:COMMONNAME Indian Express and The Hindu. #KollamTempleFire is also the trending hashtag. Your page title did not follow the MOS for titles as they are supposed to be in sentence case unless a proper noun. I appreciate the fact that you removed the CSD tag, thanks. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 20:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we were discussing which name to use is because there is no common name. I'm not sure why you think you are in a better position to decide its title than anyone else. The Indian Express actually uses "Kerala temple fire". We don't use Twitter trends to decide a common name. There is no common or official name, so we try to make a descriptive title. Based on the number of temples in Kollam district, it is rather ambiguous, hence using the temple's name. Jolly Ω Janner 20:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. This is the only fire, or atleast the one we know about. Twitter/Facebook hashtags are actually a big proponent to COMMONNAME. It's not used as a source but still drives the media. Also, Kerala temple fire is probably the most common, right now, I just rapid-fixed the title according to the MOS which you absolutely overlooked. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 20:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Kerala is the most common then let's go with Kerela temple fire? This avoids any ambiguity over the Kollam district. COMMONNAME lists "major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." as sources for the common name. I'd rather concentrate on them than Facebook or Twitter. Jolly Ω Janner 21:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is strange that we have two articles about the same temple, yet there are two different names. The temple article is at Puttingal Temple, while the fire at the very same temple is at Kollam temple fire. We need consistency. WWGB (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India uses the term Puttingal temple fire, so I don't understand the strong objection to it. Jolly Ω Janner 23:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there strong objection? I support such a move for consistency, accuracy and brevity. WWGB (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw any previous support for Kerala temple fire. List of Hindu temples in Kerala and Category:Temples in Kerala create a huge scope. While I understand that this is the first and only article we have on a temple fire in the state of Kerala (at least AFAIK, the only stand-alone one), I think it's pretty conceivable that notable fires have occurred at temples in Kerala in the past and will do so in the future. I therefore find it too vague and only support the name requested below. Jolly Ω Janner 20:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this was from a BBC News article on the fire: "This is not the first incident of its kind in Kerala: the famous Sabarimala temple banned fireworks in 1952 after 68 people died in a firecracker explosion.". Jolly Ω Janner 09:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 April 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure). SSTflyer 05:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Kollam temple fire → Puttingal temple fire – There's been some discussion in the above section. Unlike some events in which the location needs to be as least precise as neccessary to avoid ambiguity, this event was very much connected to the location. Puttingal temple was hosting a fireworks display, so it's very related. The Times of India, which is India's largest circulated newspaper in English (and the world), goes by the name Puttingal temple fire. Kollam also has the ambiguity of the city and the district sharing the same name. Jolly Ω Janner 01:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because larger areas have more mentions. "Kerala temple fire" has more google results because kerala or kerala temple is popular, and similarly for 'Kollam temple fire" - kollam is used more that's why it has more results. Most of the results are probably not about the fire.Galobtter (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason to ascribe to it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)
Google hits are one of the ways to search for a common name, but are normally a last resort and should never be a major reason. Usage among sources is important. Unfortunately, we don't have any books or journals to compare. All we have are news sources, which are never all that great at determining a name either, since they often rely on gripping headlines and don't suffer from ambiguity as they are rarely used for historical purposes. Interestingly when one searched just among the news sources of Google, they both have about 33,500 results. Jolly Ω Janner 04:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're supposed to give it in quotes, then Google gives you exact phrase hits. Also, although Puttingal Temple is notable, Kollam fire is more common. I'd be inclined to support if we were changing it to Kerala. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I decided to look around for similar incidents and came across Category:Building fires in the United States. They use the name of the building, not the name of the city of state in which it happened. This seems like a case of bias. We need to follow the standards within India and not just use the city/state name, because readers outside of India aren't familiar with its geography. It's equivalent to California church fire (compared to Kerala) or San Francisco church fire (compared to Kollam). We should be more wary of historical significance. In ten years time, sources other than news will be available and it's likely they will go with the name of the building. It's also worth considering that Puttingal temple is notable in its own right. Jolly Ω Janner 04:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While right now i'm seeing more use of Kerala or Kollam Temple Fire in newspapers, per nominator the name is too ambiguous and I don't think it will be used a few years. Galobtter (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, you shouldn't base your comment on a point because you "think" it will be common later. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 12:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Poor form from User:Jkbw to move the page title during a move discussion. WWGB (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It got locked after being moved to the one title that was never proposed (and likely the only thing that we can all agree is not a good title). That's Wikipedia for you. At least it will encourage us to work harder to find a better title in the meantime. I also asked Jkbw to comment on the decision soon after. Jolly Ω Janner 22:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason to move a page is WP:COMMONNAME or according to MOS. I was one of the movers at "Kolkata flyover collapse", it was called "2016... Kolkata overpass collapse". Ultimately, we settled with flyover and cancelling the year, because there's only one notable flyover collapse. Here, similarly Kerala or Kollam had only one notable temple fire, so there's no need to be specific of the temple, which we don't know about. "Paravur temple fire" is an appalling name mainly because well, 922 Google hits (useful thumbrule) and being specific is not a reason to move a page. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 02:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moved back to Kollam temple fire after premature move by Jkbw to a name not being considered here. Please do not move the page while consensus is being discussed. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: 'here' being 'the article, regardless of the title it ends up at, but given the discussion, presuming Puttingal temple fire' AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edits to lead

[edit]

I've boldly edited some parts of the lead. As the subject is understandably sensitive, I figured I'd explain what I've done and why here:

  1. Moved the UTC-time into a footnote. Due to the timezone differences (and thus part of the world still being on April 9), it is probably useful information to keep, but the way it was formatted, it was cluttering up that part of the sentence badly. Also added a notes-template to the references section so the footnote shows up.
  2. Moved "after firework celebrations went awry." to the first rather than second sentence, because the order in which it was listed introduced some potential chronological and/or causal confusion.
  3. Changed the wording "Local reports blame [...] firecrackers" to "According to local reports, [...] were caused by firecrackers" as that preserves the attribution but is more neutral. ('Blame' as a verb is sometimes used to signify 'well, X blames it on Y, but the real cause is Z/Not-Y/etc.'. I don't think it's intended that way here, but best avoid it anyway. "According to" just says "X says Y is the cause"). (I wonder if the Russia Today is the best choice for a ref to source that, though, because it basically says on the subject that 'Indian Express says that local TV channels say it's caused by', and it's followed up by the Indian Express as ref, so we're basically referencing the reference which is a bit redundant. Left that alone for the moment, though)

Per WP:BRD, please by all means feel free to fully or partially undo it if you disagree with my changes. An explanation or reasoning of why you consider the edit to not be an improvement would of course in such a case be appreciated. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it reads much better now. It's likely it will be rewritten as more details come to light on what happened. It would appear that most of deaths were due to a building collapse caused by a fireworks explosion/fire. Jolly Ω Janner 06:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. That tends to happen with current or very recent events, so I suspected as much. Yes, from what I saw across some sites and references, the current information appears to point at either sparks from the lit crackers or a lit cracker itself reaching the stored fireworks and causing those to explode. I think it's not yet clear whether the explosion itself caused the collapse, or whether the fire resulting from the explosion did that/worsened it? (At least, none of the sources I saw were particularly explicit about that part) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll

[edit]

I've re-added the twice-changed 111 as death toll with a source, since it seems whoever originally changed it did not do so. Please keep in mind several people are still in critical condition and as such the death toll may rise yet further. While reverting unsourced changes to it is a sensible action—certainly better than letting contradictions stand or having info there against what the source accompanying it says, and if in a hurry it's probably the best course of action—it would be great if folks that notice such things that do have a few moments to spare could run a quick google search for kollam temple fire death toll or kollam temple fire [whatever the changed number is] dead to confirm such claims and add a ref instead. Sources are fairly easy to find in this case. Thanks in advance, AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Puttingal temple fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puttingal_temple_fire&oldid=1216336311"