This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
Gianluigi02, i believe the 14 taken to the hospital "in serious condition" were actually the ones showing no signs of life (i believe, in taiwan, they are considered to have suffered an "out-of-hospital cardiac arrest" or
ohca) and were simply taken to the hospital so that they would be declared dead there.
this source might better explain it. the 32 found dead at the scene were taken directly to the morgue, presumably because their condition was clearly incompatible with life. adding the 32 sent directly to the morgue with the 14 "in serious condition" gives the 46 reported deceased.
i don't know how the bbc determined that 79 had been sent to the hospital, but; i don't remember seeing the number reported elsewhere.
dying (
talk) 15:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC) [copyedited.
dying (
talk)
16:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)reply
It is possible that the number of causalities will increase once the building is fully searched. Notwithstanding, the numbers in the article are updated to be current as of today and I support the edit done by [[Gianluigi02]].
Jurisdicta (
talk)
06:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Requested move 15 October 2021
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is also not an apartment building. " The lower floors [are former shops]. The 4th to 5th floors are abandoned movie theaters, and the 7th to 11th floors are residential housing units.
[1]Pieceofmetalwork (
talk)
07:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose both current title & proposed title, because the building is neither a tower, nor solely an apartment block. It's a multi-purpose building which isn't very tall. 2021 Kaohsiung fire is best - it's short, simple, correct & unambiguous, because there haven't been any other notable fires in Kaohsiung this year.
Jim Michael (
talk)
10:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Waddles, you're right. my bad. i think i had named the article before seeing a picture of the whole building, and apparently took the use of the word "tower" in reliable sources at face value. i don't know if those sources used a different definition of "tower", but i agree that we should at least be consistent with wikipedia's own definition of tower.i hesitate to call the event an "apartment fire" because that may suggest that the fire was contained within one apartment. also, although some reliable sources have been calling the building an "apartment building", it has been used for commercial purposes as well.would
2021 Kaohsiung high-rise fire work? the building appears to fit
all the definitions that wikipedia has for a "high-rise".
dying (
talk)
11:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)replyaddendum: i had suggested including "high-rise" in the name because many of the wikipedia articles in the
building and structure fires category have names that state what kind of buildings the fires occurred in. in addition, the article names of the previous two building fires featured on
wp:itn had also stated what kind of building they occurred in:
Tangerang prison fire (itn) and
2021 Baghdad hospital fire (itn). in any case, i'm clearly the only one here who thinks including "high-rise" is a good idea, while
2021 Kaohsiung building fire is my second choice, so i'm happy if that ends up being the consensus.i hesitate to use the name of the building because there is an issue with which romanization to use. also, the name of the
Weierkang Club fire article suggests that the building had served as a club; the name of the building involved in this article does not provide similar information.
dying (
talk)
16:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment: It appears the deadliest fire in Taiwan is named as "
Weierkang Club fire". Would it be possible to use Chengzhongcheng Building fire as the article title, which avoided the confusion of categorising the establishment concerned.
Cypp0847 (
talk)
14:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose and support. I oppose both names. It is not an apartment, nor could be referred to a simple "building fire" because Kaoshiung certainly has other building fires. I suggest using the name of the complex, e.g. Chengzhongcheng Building fire. This would go straight to the point what the article conveys. (
PenangLion (
talk)
14:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC))reply
SupportKaohsiung building fire; the building is clearly not a tower, and as the IP said, it is a mixed-purpose building, not an apartment building; this also aligns with the terminology of some RS'. I will note for the closer that it seems to me that there is a consensus against the current name, but it is unclear to me what the positive consensus is - best of luck!
BilledMammal (
talk)
03:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)reply
PS: "building", if used, should be lower case - it is a descriptor, not a proper name (compared to "Club" which appears to be part of the proper name in the given example)
BilledMammal (
talk)
03:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Agree The building is not a tower. Support change name to Chengzhongcheng building fire or Cheng-chung-cheng building fire per Taiwan Romanization.
Sgnpkd (
talk)
15:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's best to keep the
speculation down, and cover the legal proceedings as described in reliable sources. What is currently listed in the English article matches its Chinese counterpart fairly well. Kuo and Huang were questioned, Kuo was granted bail.
Vycl1994 (
talk)
06:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)reply
The infobox states Cheng Chung Cheng Building, No. 31, Fubei Road, Yancheng District, Kaohsiung, Taiwan as the location and it has a reference pointing to Taiwan News. So does this count as an address? --
37.30.16.128 (
talk)
22:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Hello, I just noticed that the title says "2021 Kaohsiung building fire" but the infobox title says "2021 Kaohsiung tower fire". I understand that this page recently got a page change and was wondering if this was kept on purpose. Thanks.
Changed to be consistent, like it should be. Given how much people complained it wasn't a tower, I can't see people complaining about this change.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
07:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)reply