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 Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the
Philippines 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.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
The burial grounds of many cultures are often dressed up by folklore. Tales of 'ghostly apparitons' and 'quaking earth' make millions at the box office to this day. I think advertising the idea of alleged 'paranormal sightings' does an insult to the many, different people who lost their lives that day - most of whom could probably care less for such baseless fantasy. When is comes to human tragedy, I think Wikipedia is beyond boogeymen. Instead of contributing hocus pocus to every plane crash site, or burning building we should be looking at ourselves, not unicorns. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Douglas84 (
talk •
contribs)
11:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Coordinate error
{{geodata-check}}
The coordinates need the following fixes:
Latitude seems OK. Longitude appears to be wrong and puts the disco in the middle of a forest in Quezon Province.
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.
– Requesting a mass move of 31 nightclub fires to include the year. The listed articles above are not in line with the naming convention
WP:NCEVENTS, which asks for a year in the majority of cases. The exception,
WP:NOYEAR, is only applied when in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it; sadly, nightclub fires are a reoccurring event. Adding the year would make the titles more
WP:RECOGNIZABLE (would a person not expert in nightclub fires recognize each fire better or worse with the year in the title?) and
WP:CONSISTENT with other events covered under NCEVENTS.
Pilaz (
talk)
00:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose as unnecessary per
WP:OVERPRECISION and
WP:CONCISE and
WP:NOYEAR. Adding the year will not make these more recognizable, generally, and might make them less recognizable to those who don't already know the year. And the years are not needed for disambiguation. The proposed names would all be fine as redirects, though.
Station1 (
talk)
07:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I reckon years should only be included if there is more than one nightclub fire with the same name as any one of these listed. e.g. if there is to be a Kiss nightclub fire in 2022 at a different place then year would be needed but not now.
Iggy (
Swan) (
Contribs)
18:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment - how about including the year in parentheses AFTER the name? (I don't know if naming conventions recommend against this?) This type of info is what I think is usually tried to be included in the "Short description" field to help users disambiguate or better find what they are looking for. ---Avatar317(talk)22:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose.
WP:COMMONNAME is what determines article names. Not "consistency". Or whatever is being argued here. I personally don't understand the argument against the application of
WP:NOYEAR here. (Yes, nightclub fires are depressingly common. But so are mass shootings, terror events, air accidents or similar. They are often notable in their own right and do not need to be grouped or disambiguated on the basis of year. Certainly I don't see the case for overriding
WP:COMMONNAME or
WP:NOYEAR in the majority of the cases listed. Including
Gothenburg discothèque fire or the
Stardust fire or similar...)
Guliolopez (
talk)
12:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
WP:COMMONNAME is what determines article names. Not "consistency". is not a community-agreed policy or guideline. However,
WP:AT is, and it clearly lists five
WP:CRITERIA which includes consistency. COMMONNAME is a tool to determine
WP:NATURALNESS, not a criterion.
Pilaz (
talk)
12:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)reply
And yet your argument seems to be that, in the cases of the articles listed, one of the criteria (
WP:CONSISTENT) should be prioritised over effectively all other criteria (
WP:NATURALNESS,
WP:RECOGNIZABILITY,
WP:CONCISE)? To what end? To impart information in the titles themselves? To make the category easier to sort? Not swayed. I don't see the case for adding
WP:OVERPRECISION to those titles. Mine remains a recommendation against large-scale renaming of all nightclub fire articles....
Guliolopez (
talk)
23:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Support for the three descriptive titles identified by No such user above, and as a general principle any other nightclub fires with descriptive titles rather than common names. Weak Support for the rest; would prefer specific arguments rather than a mass move, but if the common name argument is there but not surpassingly strong, there's little harm in adding a year IMO.
SnowFire (
talk)
01:25, 27 October 2022 (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.