This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New Zealand and
New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand 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
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Having the year in the title is redundant since is highly unlikely that we will get a second major oil spill in 2011. However, the year in the title does give some context before the actual article is viewed. The place is specifically
Astrolabe Reef but I am of the opinion that the name of the ship itself is the better option for the title. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) -
20:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The fact that many articles in
Category:Oil spills are in violation of the WP:DM convention is not sufficient justification to violate the convention again. However, I agree "Tauranga" is not necessarily the best place-name. "2011 Bay of Plenty oil spill" would follow the WP:DM convention, and so would "2011 Astrolabe Reef oil spill".
Johnson487682 (
talk)
17:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)reply
WP:DM (WikiProject Disaster Management) is not convention for all of WP. The policy to adhere to is
WP:TITLE and it recommends factors such as recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency. The title "
Rena oil spill" satisfies the first four of these requirements. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) -
19:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)reply
OpposeTauranga is good in the name because it's the port the ship was visiting; the base for all the media (and thus most of the reporting); the airport for most of the aerial footage; and the address of most of the affected people.
rena is bad in the name because a month ago it wasn't notable and if I understand the shipping business the name of the vessel will be changed to something completely different after all this has blown over.
Stuartyeates (
talk)
19:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support on the basis that this is how the spill is commonly described. I would put more stock in the DM convention if it seemed to be applied regularly to other oil spills. The current title (2011 Tauranga oil spill) is poor, as Tauranga itself has not seen much of the oil. It makes me think there was a spill within the city itself. I wouldn't object to
2011 Bay of Plenty oil spill though. --
Avenue (
talk)
23:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Support a change because "Tauranga" is too narrow. However "oil spill" is too narrow too. It is also a container spill and a shipwreck.
Nurg (
talk)
09:32, 19 October 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Captain's name
The Captain's name has been published in some non-NZ media and can be found fairly easily. Could somebody outside NZ please add it to the article (with reference to the source). -
SimonLyall (
talk)
19:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)reply
He has name surpression in New Zealand not anywhere else in the world. Hence non-NZers are free to add his name if they cite a reliable source (such as a non-NZ media outlet) -
SimonLyall (
talk)
01:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I notice that
this page has various good photos sourced from greenpeace and the NZ defence force. I've not go time but if somebody else does these sources have/would probably release the photos under and wikipedia compatable license. -
SimonLyall (
talk)
22:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
I'll bug greenpeace. I've already bugged MaritimeNZ and reminded them of the NZ-GOAL IP policy, but their lawyers are understandably busy with other things ATM. --
IdiotSavant (
talk)
22:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Is this page about the Oil Spill or Grounding
Now that the oil spill is all but over and thankfully not a disaterous as it certainly could have been - maybe it would be better if this article (as it is already sort of doing) should be about the grounding in general rather than specifically about the real and potential oil spill. Think that means renaming too!
121.73.90.127 (
talk)
03:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Andrewreply
There's already an article about the Rena, which covers the grounding, and should cover the salvage too. If there's any point to this one at all, it's past time it was brought up to date. It's hopelessly outdated now. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
112.213.164.129 (
talk)
20:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Cleanup
Somebody just added a large volume of data apparently contributed by many people (in a sandbox somewhere?). This information (often with grammar/spelling errors) was simply shoveled into the end of the article as a bunch of bulleted list items in new sections without any attempt to maintain a consistent narrative. The article has now become a pile of loosely related facts, many of which are repetitive. We need to do some serious re-organizing to integrate this new information into earlier sections where it belongs. I don't have time to work on it right now, but I'll try to get to it in a few days. Feel free to help out if you have time before I do.
Johnson487682 (
talk)
13:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)reply