Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Disaster management: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:56, 14 December 2007 editNil Einne (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers73,144 edits →UTC?← Previous edit Revision as of 17:15, 14 December 2007 edit undoEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 edits →Renaming 1703 Genroku earthquake?: plausible proposal -- comments?Next edit →
Line 335: Line 335:


* ''']'''<br> * ''']'''<br>
** 684 - ], Japan (白鳳大地震) * 684 - ], Japan (白鳳大地震)
** 887 - Ninna Nankai Quake, Japan (仁和南海地震) * 887 - Ninna Nankai Quake, Japan (仁和南海地震) --->] proposed ]
** 1293 - Kamakura Quake (鎌倉大地震) * 1293 - Kamakura Quake (永仁鎌倉大地震) --->] proposed ]
** 1361 - Shōhei Nankai Quake, Japan (正平 & 康安）南海地震) * 1361 - Shōhei Nankai Quake, Japan (正平南海地震) --->] proposed ]
** 1498 - Meiō Nankai, Japan (明応地震) * 1498 - Meiō Nankai, Japan (明応南海地震) --->] proposed ]
** 1605 - Keichō Nankaido, Japan (慶長地震) * 1605 - Keichō Nankaido, Japan (慶長南海地震) --->] proposed ]
⚫ * ], Japan (元禄江戸大地震) --->] proposed ]
** 1698 - Seikaido-Nankaido, Japan
⚫ * 1707 - Great Hōei Earthquake (宝永江戸大地震) --->] proposed ]
⚫ ** ], Japan (元禄大地震)
⚫ * 1755 - Lisbon, Portugal
⚫ ** 1707 - Great Hōei Earthquake (宝永大地震)
⚫ * 1771 - Yaeyama Islands, Okinawa, Japan (明和八重山地震) --->] proposed ]
⚫ ** 1755 - Lisbon, Portugal
* 1792 - Volcanic Tsunami in Kyūshū, Japan (島原大変肥後迷惑) -- eruption of ]
⚫ ** 1771 - Yaeyama Islands, Okinawa, Japan (八重山地震)
** 1792 - Volcanic Tsunami in Kyūshū, Japan (島原大変肥後迷惑) -- eruption of ] * 1854 - ]s, Japan (安政南海地震) --->] proposed ]
** 1854 - ]s, Japan (安政南海地震) * 1855 - ] of Japan (安政江戸大地震） --->] proposed ]
⚫ * 1868 - Hawaiian Islands local tsunami generated by earthquake
** 1855 - ] of Japan (安政江戸大地震）
⚫ * 1883 - Krakatoa explosive eruption
⚫ ** 1868 - Hawaiian Islands local tsunami generated by earthquake
⚫ * 1896 - Meiji Sanriku Quake, Japan (明治三陸地震) --->] proposed ]
⚫ ** 1883 - Krakatoa explosive eruption
⚫ * 1923 - The Great Kantō Earthquake, Japan (大正関東大震災) --->] proposed ]
⚫ ** 1896 - Meiji Sanriku Quake, Japan (明治三陸地震)
* 1933 - Showa Sanriku Quake, Japan (昭和三陸地震) --->] proposed ]
⚫ ** 1923 - The Great Kanto Earthquake, Japan (関東大震災)
** 1933 - Showa Sanriku Quake, Japan (昭和三陸地震) * 1944 - Tonankai Earthquake, Japan (昭和東南海地震) --->] proposed ]

** 1944 - Tonankai Earthquake, Japan (東南海地震)
** 1946 - ], Japan (南海地震) * 1946 - ], Japan --->] proposed ]
** 1964 - Niigata Earthquake (新潟地震) * 1964 - Niigata Earthquake --->] proposed ]
** 1983 - Sea of Japan tsunami (日本海中部地震) * 1983 - Sea of Japan tsunami
** 1993 - ] tsunami (北海道南西沖地震)] * 1993 - ] tsunami
** 2006 - Kuril Islands tsunami * 2006 - Kuril Islands tsunami
** 2007 - Niigata earthquake (新潟県中越沖地震 * 2007 - Niigata earthquake --->] proposed ]
---- ----
:] covers names for earthquakes, tsunamis, eruptions, fires and other disasters. It says, in part, "It has been decided that all articles concerning individual disasters should be <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>. To illustrate the point with an example, the article October 11, 2006 New York City plane crash was recently renamed to 2006 New York City plane crash" with more detail and reference to the GLIDE numbering system. ] (]) 21:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC) :] covers names for earthquakes, tsunamis, eruptions, fires and other disasters. It says, in part, "It has been decided that all articles concerning individual disasters should be <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>. To illustrate the point with an example, the article October 11, 2006 New York City plane crash was recently renamed to 2006 New York City plane crash" with more detail and reference to the GLIDE numbering system. ] (]) 21:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Line 374: Line 374:


:My view is that all forms of the names should have redirects. Which title is actually used as the title of the article is not, in my opinion, that important, but if a widely-used name exists, then go for that in preference to the "<date> <location> <event>" convention. People often worry that the categories can only contain the main article name, but in fact the redirect can be categorised as well. See ]. So all the Japanese-era names can be gathered together in one category, and all the "<date> <location> <event>" equivalents can be gathered together in another category. Or in a list, if you prefer working that way. Hope this helps. Thanks for researching this so thoroughly. If you need more specific advice (I haven't time at the moment to respond to all the points raised above), please ask. ] (]) 10:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC) :My view is that all forms of the names should have redirects. Which title is actually used as the title of the article is not, in my opinion, that important, but if a widely-used name exists, then go for that in preference to the "<date> <location> <event>" convention. People often worry that the categories can only contain the main article name, but in fact the redirect can be categorised as well. See ]. So all the Japanese-era names can be gathered together in one category, and all the "<date> <location> <event>" equivalents can be gathered together in another category. Or in a list, if you prefer working that way. Hope this helps. Thanks for researching this so thoroughly. If you need more specific advice (I haven't time at the moment to respond to all the points raised above), please ask. ] (]) 10:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

_________________________<br>
''']'''<br>
It seems to me that ] (''see'' ]) got it just about right when ] was initially crafted in August 2007. In that context, I would propose adopting something like this:
*1. ] should be modified to incorporate the guidelines suggested by ], but with a modest exception-to-the-general-rule variation -- that disasters in Japan during the years 645 through 1945 are more fully described in this format: <<year>><<nengō>><<place>><<event>>.
*2. ] suggests that an explanation and internal link to ] should be incorporated into any article with a '']'' in its title.
''']'''<br>
'''Sanriku region'''<br>
* ]
** ] ---> REDIRECT> ]
** ] ---> REDIRECT> ]
** ] ---> REDIRECT> ]
'''Nankai region'''<br>
* ]
** ] ---> REDIRECT> ]
** ] ---> REDIRECT> ]
** ] ---> REDIRECT> ]
** ] ---> REDIRECT> ]
** ] ---> REDIRECT> ]
** ] ---> REDIRECT> ]
'''Kantō region'''<br>
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] ---> REDIRECT> ]

If this proposed modification gains general consensus, I will volunteer in mid-January to begin addressing the task of moving current articles to conform with this reasonable guideline. --] (]) 17:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:15, 14 December 2007

Archive
Archives
  1. Disaster definition, scope & structure
  2. Jan 2006 - Jun 2006
  3. Jul 2006 - Dec 2006

Naming conventions?

In Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions, the closest thing that comes to a standard convention for disasters is Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (events), but that really is geared more to military conflicts and terrorist attacks. Curiously, in the discussion at Talk:2006 New York City plane crash#Rename to 2006 New York City plane crash or Cory Lidle plane crash, there is this statement: "The naming convention for disasters (well, most) is <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>". While I can't find any actual guideline that says this, it's not a bad thought. I have followed it for two recent articles I wrote (one of which was tagged as part of this project), 1996 New Hampshire Learjet crash and 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash. What would others in the project think about adding this guideline to first the project page, then getting it put into the Naming conventions guideline? Akradecki 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've allways followed that guidline, as unwritten but generally best, and I would support making it 'official' naming convention. I have once been told that for aircrash articles without flight numbers, I should use Year Airline Aircraft airplane crash, but to be honest I prefer <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>. By the way, I've tagged the other article for this project, too. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd support that. It also takes the word "disaster" or "incident", etc, out of the title, and just says what it is. Then Chernobyl_accident would become "1986 Chernobyl reactor meltdown". I think that would really help with classifying certain projects in the Disaster structure as well. Can we make it manditory? As in, if an article cannot be renamed as such, then its not part of our project (at least, not part of the disaster structure)? --Parradoxx 05:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking through Category:Earthquakes and they often follow that structure as well. The exception seems to be when there is a popular name that is more commonly searched for, but the <<year>> <<place>> <<event>> name should be created anyway, as a redirect. 1906 San Francisco earthquake is one example. An example of a common name is Great Chilean Earthquake (note the capital 'E' for the named event, and the small 'e' for the generic <<year>> <<place>> <<event>> name). Carcharoth 13:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I've put this subject up for discussion (and hopefully consensus building) at the official policy page, Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (it's at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions#Disaster article names as adopted by the Disaster management WikiProject), and there's been some discussion already. I'd appreciate it if the folks who have weighed in here to help make this a project guideline also weigh in there to help make it policy. Thanks! Akradecki 17:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I went to the page, only to discover that it has already been decided to add it to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Other events. Well, that went pretty quickly. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Given the above, I've taken the liberty to copy the text from there to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (events). Akradecki 18:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, my edit to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (events) has been reverted due to "lack of consensus". We, therefore, need consensus. Please weigh in. Akradecki 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I could add my opinions to the naming conventions debate even though I am not a member of the project. I feel that putting the year in front of every disaster just makes it hard to alphabetize lists of disasters. My point of view is that the year is only needed if there are more than one such event, such as 1887 Yellow River flood vs 1931 Yellow River flood.
I do tend to think that the page title needs to end with "crash" or "fire" etc. Many of the airplane crash pages tend to just be titled "Such-and So Flight 123". I think they need to end with "crash" or "incident" unless the airline retired the flight number in response to the crash. Speciate 07:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mississauga house explosion on AfD

I have nominated an article within the scope of our project, Mississauga house explosion, to be deleted. Please join the discusion. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Disaster Mitigation and Risk Reduction and the term "Non-Structural"

Congrats on the work so far. And glad you are open to more inputs. Two general observations: "mitigation" is presently getting short shrift. In addition to "assessement" I think it should be expanded with "risk reduction measures" where the various types of risk reduction measures can be elaborated and links made to the other good material already available. Reading the archives we should try to keep this internationally relevant. N. American may provide examples, but good to keep them as such so that many other models can be offered side by side.

I'm distressed to see the huge categorization of "Structural" and "Non-Structural". This is using "structural" loosely to mean what engineers refer to as "load-bearing" which is an odd way to define the world of disaster risk reduction. The widespread use of the terms in this way does not qualify it as a NPOV. From a social scientist or community organizers pov it is just unhelpful.

In the area of physical risk reduction an important set of actions is known by the term "non-structural mitigation" and refers to fasten furnishings, building contents and non-structural building elements to reduce the impacts of falling, hitting, sliding and flying objects in earthquakes and windstorms. Is this "non-structural" really "structural" or is it a subset of the big non-structural? See, it gets confusing? Similarly is planting mangroves structural or non-structural?

Any objection to calling these categories: "physical risk reduction measures" and "social, political and educational risk reduction measures" instead and expanding the mitigation section to reveal this richness?

M Petal 17:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! I've been dinking with trying to wrestle Structural and Non-structural into separate corners. I would recommend using the word "mitigation" still as part of the label ("physical mitigation", etc) but I do like your suggestion of using non industrial terms. (And I fully support using "risk reduction" and similar wording throughout the narrative). --Parradoxx 00:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I am all for your suggestion MPetal. All we need is a reference using your suggestion as Original Research is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Now we are using Alexander. Welcome to Misplaced Pages BTW! I suspect that we are colleagues IRL. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 13:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

2006 Milwaukee explosion

There is some discusion about renaming the above article on it's talk page. Although the new name goes against the naming convention, it is not without it's merrits, and should at least be considered. Please join the discusion. Thanks Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

2007 Iberian Peninsula earthquake

A newly created article. Please help update it. -- Szvest - 13:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Peer review/1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire

Comments at the above peer review from members of this project would be greatly apreciated, I am pushing for FA status on this article. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Pressed on to the next stage. Please now see Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire Blood Red Sandman 12:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Creation and Improvement Drive - Tunguska event

Template:AIDnom

What is the point...

Just curious, what is the point in putting the Disaster management on a lot of tropical cyclone articles? The scope of the project is defined as any article relating to policies as well as implementations of disaster management. However, is there really a need to include it in every single landfalling tropical cyclone? The template was recently added to Tropical Depression One (1992), which has very little related to disaster management. I just wanted to get a word on this. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, historically the disasters articles form a nice subset. This WikiProject should theoretically cover both the management of disasters and the history of disasters, despite the name. I tried to generate interest in a historical subset, working group, separate group, what-have-you, but not really enough. FWIW, hurricanes and other weather events are well covered by the Tropical Cyclones and Meteorology WikiProjects. I suspect that the other large categories of non-weather disasters are also covered by things like the Aviation WikiProject (air crashes), though as far as I know there are no WikiProjects on Earthquakes. Military History WP covers wars and stuff. Industrial disasters would be a nice group of articles for some people to work on. What would you suggest is the best way to handle this? Carcharoth 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess I sort of see the point, though it seems like attempting to cover the history of disasters is making the project needlessly large. I would think the best way to handle it is including only those that did have significant problems or successes in the management of disasters. Some tropical cyclones would and should still be included, such as Katrina or Andrew, though I'm not sure where an appropriate cutoff would be. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you can integrate the templates? that's what we did over at WP:PLANTS with the carnivorous plants and Banksia projects.Circeus 21:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe that could work. I'm really not sure, now. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I must say I like the idea of integrated templates. I feel kinda silly adding the tag when it's already covered by the Tropical Cyclones project. Blood Red Sandman 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If it's not too much work, then I suppose it's a good idea. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the project is renamed to WP Disasters. "Disaster management" inherently less-clear - do the effects of a minor TD have anything to do with disaster management? Because of POV issues the scope of the project should exclude War, "Terrorism" and other conflicts of that nature; but include natural disasters and things like plane crashes. If this was done, then this project could act as a central clearing house for disaster-related projects: for instance "how should we best present monetary cost of disasters?" is relevant to all projects with disasters in their remit. As it is not entirely clear if ALL tropical cyclones would be within the scope of this project (could you really say Tropical Storm Lee (2005) is)? If the project members here want it, I will edit {{hurricane}} to do the following:

  • Add an optional disaster parameter - if =yes then it is included in this projects scope.
  • This will add it to the WP 1.0 categories for the project (which are not hard to establish, again if you want that say), in a similar manner to how the meteorology ratings are handled: automatically use the WPTC class but leave the importance blank for editors of this project to determine.

If we can get it established successfully for WPTC and its template; then we can make similar modifications to other templates that relate.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Renaming the project would be wrong. We could, however, create a subproject named Disasters. There are a lot of issues relating to Disaster/Emergency management that we have not yet covered. As for the scope of the disastrous events that we want to cover it should include human-induced, sociological and natural disasters. For my professional work, I use EM-DAT and GLIDE as references for what to define as a disaster. An integrated template for cyclones/hurricanes sounds like a great idea. It could also be useful to discuss whether we want include the GLIDE identifiers in the articles. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 10:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason I suggested that is when I see the tag on TC articles I get a bit confused; there is little info on disaster management in the typical article on a disaster. "Disaster management" is a clearly a subconcept of "disasters" themselves. The scope of this project would be unaffected it just clears the definitions up with this sort of thing.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should keep our existing structure - all disasters are included - but rename the project to 'WikiProject Disasters and disaster management', since both halfs of the equation - disasters and management - are likely to be of interest to exactly the same set of people, and might as well be treated together. Blood Red Sandman 19:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Someone be bold and do this, please, then we can get back to writing articles. We don't have one on Valparaiso earthquake for example - killed 20,000 people in Chile in 1906... Carcharoth 15:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll do it at some pint, but I'd need a list of everything that needs changed, since renaming an established project is a very major change and causes all sorts of things requiring rejigging (if you see what I mean). Blood Red Sandman 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
An easy, naughty, way of doing it would be to create WP Disasters as a subproject and move all disasters there. Currently, that would leave WP:DM quite empty in terms of articles, but there are enough potential articles out there to justify the project. Just an idea. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 07:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know - moving the template on every disaster article already tagged would be a Hell of a lot of work. Blood Red Sandman 06:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I hate it when I come into a discussion late! What is the current status of this discussion/current action being taken? I think rxnd's idea - creating WP Disasters as a subproject - is the right way to go (seems more intuitive), even if its the most labor intensive. I also like Nilfanion's suggestion of adding a parameter. Both of these things are way into the mechanics of Wiki, which I'm sooo not into; but if someone shows me what must be done, I'll certainly donate keyboard time as I can. Parradoxx 04:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, not too late. Current situation is this has frustratingly fizzled out - so reviving the discusion is good. I guess if people have the time, then go for that aproach - but we need to know we have the people and the time before we commit ourselves - maybe something bot-assisted? Blood Red Sandman 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 French coach crash for deletion

Mention since it seems in the scope of this project: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2007 French coach crash.Circeus 21:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Project Award????

Are we gonna make a project award? Or are we gonna stay like this and I'll be template boy?--Pupster21 19:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

GA nominee: Civil engineering and infrastructure repair in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina

The article on Civil engineering and infrastructure repair in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina has been nominated for GA status. I think that it should be interesting for some of the participants in our project. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 18:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Major clean up of Disaster

FYI, I will try to clean up Disaster as per my descripton here. Comments and help will be appreciated. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 12:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Disaster management" of labor struggles?

I have created an inquiry about what (some of) you folks are doing, here:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organized_Labour#.22Disaster_Management.22_of_labor_struggles.3F

best wishes, Richard Myers 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sup?

Hey guys, I decieded to join due to my large interest in disasters. I am currently helping in keeping the Virginia Tech massacre article updated, so I gotta run, I just thought I would pop in to say "hi". Karrmann 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the project, and nice work on the VA Tech tradgedy. Blood Red Sandman 21:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Columbine High School massacre

Input at the FAR above is appreciated. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre

I felt that people might want to come and share their views at the above debate. Blood Red Sandman 12:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Disaster‎ created

Hi, this is a heads-up to inform everyone that I have created Template:Disaster‎, a template for starting disaster-related articles similar to Template:Biography. Comments are welcome. Blood Red Sandman 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Massascre

The motives section of the Virginia Tech Massacre was deleted probably because the article was too long. Stalking is a serious issue particularly on college campuses. The narrative in the section on Cho's motives alluded to his stalking female students and disturbing behavior in the classroom. The section was probably deleted to make the article shorter, but by making the article shorter it left out valuable information that may prevent further death. By minimizing the importance of stalking incidents, females do not report the incidents, do not go to court to get a protection order, no action is taken against the stalker (including serious psychiatric intervention) and sometimes this leads to deadly consequences. In fact, if only a single female were killed by a stalker or a domestic violence incident, there would not even be a reference in Misplaced Pages. In some jurisdictions, reports of stalking result in legal intervention and in others multiple reports accumulate and no action is taken. If more follow-up had been done in 2005 when the first complaints were made against Cho perhaps 33 more people would be alive today. Cherylyoung 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


AfD that has overtones for the project

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brisbane Light Plane Crash is about a general aviation aircraft crash. We do not, at this point, have notability criteria that can be applied directly, but we probably should come up with something. I'd appreciate it if members would take a look, voice their opinion, and consider how this can lead us to better criteria. Thanks! Akradecki 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbine High School massacre FAR

Columbine High School massacre has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Airreg

Template:Airreg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — --Aude (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This template facilitates external links (often within body text in an article) for aircraft ID numbers. The vast majority of links are to a particular site that way over does the advertising, in relation to useful information given for aircraft ID numbers. --Aude (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Emergency page

Hi there, I have been looking at trying to edit the page Emergency, which falls under the remit of the disaster management wikiproject. It is currently a mix between an article and disambiguation page. I suggest turning it in to an article, and moving the other content out to Emergency (disambiguation). This has been the subject of some debate and i have now created a sample article which can be found here (in my name space), and the debate as to whether this will be suitable is on the Talk:emergency page. I would appreciate the input of anyone in the project who has feelings either way as to whether this should be an article! Many thanks in advance Owain.davies 07:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Adam Air Flight 574

Please go to the above peer review and leave comments as I push this article towards featured status!

NGOs

I notice some articles mentoning the Red Cross, while there literally is an army of other non-governmental organizations, some of them national, some international. Below mention of the official department of governmental to manage disaster recovery, perhaps sub-section linking to organizations that are the equivalent of Salvation Army, other religious groups, and non-religious charities that get involved in disaster relief. User:AlMac| 22:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bridge disasters categorisation

There is some discussion going on about this at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Bridges#Bridge failures category. -- Paddu 04:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the points raised in that discussion is whether all engineering failures are disasters. Specifically, it has been suggested that Millennium Bridge (London) was an engineering failure that wasn't a disaster. In the light of this, should we rethink about having Category:Engineering failures as a descendant of Category:Disasters? -- Paddu 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Air accident task force

When the Aviation WikiProject was reconstituted a few months ago, provision was made for an "Air accident task force", but the task force was not formally established at that time. Since we seem to have a fairly dedicated group of editors who are spending time on this subject, and since there's been discussion of developing some notability and other guidelines, I thought it was time to start putting electrons on screen to establish the task force. Currently, I've started the group's page at one of my sandboxes, and I'd like to invite any and all interested folk to join in drafting the material. Since this task force stradles the line between this WikiProject and Aviation, I'm starting this out as a joint effort between the two Projects. Akradecki 16:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens FAR

1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 13:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sustainable development Portal

I recently started The Sustainable development Portal and offered it up for portal peer review to help make it a feature portal down the road. Please feel free to to help improve the portal and/or offer your input at the portal peer review. Thanks. RichardF 17:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sustainable development Portal now is a Featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. RichardF 02:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

RMS Titanic FAR

RMS Titanic has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming: "Flight *"

Hi, I though about starting articles about the only airliner accidents in Finland, at Mariehamn and Koivulahti. Apparently the naming convention is "airline" flight *. One of the confusing part is that Finnair was during those days called Aero O/Y. O/Y here (Osakeyhtiö, today shortened Oy, not O/Y) means Ltd. Is this supposed to be included in the title? I don't think Lufthansa is called in those as Lufthansa AG. On the other hand, Aero is just too common name, and not even clear that it is an airline company.

The other thing is, Finnair still uses same route numbers, route number AY311 still flies eventhough Aero Flight 311 crashed at Koivulahti in 1961. It's okay though because back then Finnair was under the other name? Those sources call it a Finnair flight, but it should be here under the name which the airline operated back then? --Pudeo (Talk) 21:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm something of a project specialist on aviation accidents and incidents. The way I see it, the article should be at Aero Flight 311 with a note to say that Aero is now Finnair and that the route designation still exists with the same company. I'll arrange for some other air crash people to come contribute to this discusion. Blood Red Sandman 06:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I also think you should title the article as "Aero Flight 311". We can then make a re-direct so that if a person searches for "Finnair Flight 311" they will be taken to the proper page. I wouldn't include O/Y or Ltd. in the article title; it seems that we are using the most common usage for airlines (example: Pan Am Flight 103 as opposed to "Pan American World Airways Flight 103") Lipsticked Pig 07:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks, seems fine. I have made the article with the name Aero Flight 311 then. I'm making the redirects now too. PS. Feel very free to fix the grammar and airliner -related vocalbulary as they're not my strongest parts. ;) --Pudeo (Talk) 13:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to look over it soon, but I promise nothing because I'm busy in real world. Still, things are just cooling off, I should be free by the weekend! ;-) Blood Red Sandman 16:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I third the motion.... AKRadecki 17:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Accident/incident notabilility guidelines discussion

Given that there have been a number of AfD discussions relating the borderline notable aviation accidents and incidents (such as United Airlines Flight 897 and especially Brisbane Light Plane Crash), I've initiated a discussion of developing some project-based notability criteria over at the Aviation accident task force talk page. Though this is a task force project, because the issue is fairly significant, I am seeking input from the entire project. Thanks! AKRadecki 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

List of disasters

This page is way too long and should direct readers to other lists.

This is my plan, basically all the sections would link to somewhere else:

– Zntrip 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Ckimpson

A new incarnation of user:Cgkimpson, who created tornado-related hoaxes. Please watchlist Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cgkimpson. Circeus 20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for changing a guideline

I notice: "A naming convention for such articles is also definitely required. It has been decided that all articles concerning individual disasters should be <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>. To illustrate the point with an example, the article October 11, 2006 New York City plane crash was recently renamed to 2006 New York City plane crash"

If there is only one notable event of the given name, i.e. the Our Lady of the Angels school fire, then shouldn't the year be omitted? The school fire is the only notable fire that occurred in that school, and the year is not often included when the disaster is mentioned (i.e. people do not say the 1958 Our Lady of the Angels school fire) - Why not give exceptions for cases like OLA? WhisperToMe 04:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It goes on to list exceptions, such as where it is apropriate to have a particular building or small company in the name - a school fire is a good example of this. That said, we should clarify the exceptions so people understand better things like the disaster you're using as an example, since we're currently relying on far too much being inferred with really quite vague guidlines. A rewrite is what's in order here, IMO. Blood Red Sandman 15:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Zaca Fire

Now that the Zaca Fire has crossed the 150,000 acre mark, I decided it was high time to at least start a stub on it. Additions invited. AKRadecki 05:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Adam Air Flight 574

There is currently a large-scale collaboration effort underway to bring this article up to FA standard. Any help on this undertaking would be greatly apreciated. Also, Hamlet chicken processing plant fire has been requested to be Today's Featured Article in a few day's time, if it is accepted, people should be on hand ready to sort out any problems/questions the exposure causes. Blood Red Sandman 18:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

9-1-1 dispatch

The English Misplaced Pages has a fine article about the 9-1-1 emergency number, but I miss an article describing the functions it manages. Such article could describe how calls are received and how alarms are send out. I am currently working on a Danish article about this function and I try to include some international aspects. --|EPO| 18:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for article on the Hexayurt

An article on the Hexayurt would be very worthwhile, I believe. However as it's a colleague's project, it's better if someone else starts it. More info (including NY Times ref) at Talk:Emergency_management#Hexayurt. --Chriswaterguy talk 15:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

1755 Lisbon earthquake

1755 Lisbon earthquake has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

UTC?

I noticed a lot of articles about earthquakes (although not all) seem to use UTC as the primary time not local time, even some featured articles 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. However this doesn't really seem to agree with WP:MOSNUM#Time zones. I appreciate that UTC is prefered in a scientific context and also given that earthquakes can affect places in multiple timezones it can get confusing but personally I still feel the WP:MOSNUM#Time zones recommendation is best and we should use local time of the epicentre. Comments? Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Earthquakes, I beleive (but I stand to be corrected on this) are extensively studied even in the context of individual cases by the scientific community. As a result, there will likely be an unwritten rule to use UTC, and I can sympathise with that. But at the same time, in the context of the history of an area, as you say, local time is better. I propose that we should state the local time, then add the equivilant UTC time in brackets. This also saves readers looking up different time zones, particularly in cross-zone events. Blood Red Sandman 12:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Using both times should be standard, as well as some description, eg. makng clear whether the local time is before or after local sunrise/sunset, and what the weather was like and the time of year. There is a difference between an earthquake striking in the middle of a freezing winter's night, and one that strikes at 4pm in the afternoon on a hot summer's day, or one that strikes at sunset during a heavy storm. Carcharoth (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Good points... In other words as in 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake it should be 07:58:53 local time (00:58:53 UTC) rather then what it is now. This isn't a big issue obviously but one I wanted to make when I noticed this. It perhaps matters most when it comes to events that have a large time difference from UTC and also when it means a different date in local time, e.g. 2006 Kamchatka earthquakes. Or using a made up example, if a major earthquake were to hit Wellington tomorrow at 12:30 in the afternoon, it would surely be remembered as the 15th December 2007 earthquake by most of us New Zealanders, not the 14th December one (what 14th December 2007 earthquake???) and for the average readers point of view, it's usually more meaningful to know it happened in the early afternoon of 15th December (a Saturday) in Wellington not on the 14th December just before midnight UTC (except when your trying to work out when it happened in your local time which is one of the reasons we should also obviously provide the time in UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Renaming 1703 Genroku earthquake?

Please note that this has been posted simultaneously at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Japan#Renaming 1703 Genroku earthquake?.‎ --Ooperhoofd (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The naming of this newly-created article provides an opportunity to raise a few questions which seem worthy of further discussion. Up until today, the staid style of an article about Mt. Fuji exemplified the model I most preferred:

Gregorian calendar date?
A first blush, I wondered how useful is it to begin an article name with a Gregorian calendar date -- especially when the event is better known by in relation to a specific nengō or Japanese era name? But I have noticed that there are a number of Misplaced Pages articles about earthquake disasters which incorporate the date as an essential part of the title. Would each one be improved significantly by deleting that date?

Would it be better to remove Gregorian calendar dates from these titles? In my view, these dates are likely to become a kind of stumbling block for the ordinary/non-specialist Misplaced Pages user; but maybe I've got it precisely backwards? Maybe it's best to accept that this format has become a Misplaced Pages convention; but if so, how shall I be guided in creating new articles in the future? For example, the following list of significant pre-Meiji period fires in Kyoto comes from Ponsonby-Fane's Kyoto: the Old Capital, 794-1869. Would these as-yet-unwritten articles be significantly improved if the titles were formatted with a Gregorian calendar date?

Great?
Many events are conventionally known as "great" -- as in the Great Hanshin earthquake of 1995, which includes the following explanation:

In early reports, the disaster was often referred to as the "Great Kansai Earthquake" (関西大地震 Kansai-daijishin). Its official name designated by the Japan Meteorological Agency is "The South Hyogo Prefecture Earthquake of 1995" (平成7年兵庫県南部地震 Heisei-shichinen-Hyōgoken-nambu-jishin). Official Japanese publications generally use the phrase "Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake Disaster" (阪神・淡路大震災; Hanshin-Awaji-daishinsai), which was selected by the cabinet around February. Some news reports also use the name "South Hyogo Prefecture Earthquake" (兵庫県南部地震 Hyōgoken-nambu-jishin), which is the shortened form of the official JMA title.

As we all know, there are many earthquakes and many fires in Japanese history. In the context of Japanese history and Misplaced Pages, which ones need to be called "great"? For example: The Significant Earthquake Database lists an earthquake at Kyoto on the 25th day of the 7th month of the 13th year of Bunsei (文政十三年六月二十五日) or Friday, August 19, 1830 (equicenter: 35.000 latitude/136.000 longitude); but no Richter scale approximation was suggested.<ref.>Online "Significant Earthquake Database" -- U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC)....Click link for NOAA/Japan: Significant Earthquake Database<./ref> Nevertheless, the earthquake was perceived by Emperor s Ninkō as sufficiently "great" for the era name to be changed:

  • Tenpō gannen (天保元年); December 10, 1830: The new era name of Tenpō (meaning "Heavenly Imperial Protection") was created to mark the disasters of a great fire in Edo and an earthquake at Kyoto. The new era name was created from an hortatory aphorism: "Respect and worship the Ways of heaven. Eternally keep the Mandate of Heaven" (欽崇天道、永保天命).

If a potential source does happen to provide more information about this specific fire, how should I reasonably expect to entitle a Misplaced Pages stub article?

For now, I guess I can't do better than to follow the excellent example set by Masterpiece2000 who created 1703 Genroku earthquake. I guess I would entitle any new articles with the Gregorian date included; and I'd simultaneously create re-directs from alternate plausible names as Masterpiece2000 has done. Am I correct in taking this to be the exemplar I should imitate?

If so, should I also need to initiate the process of renaming Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji so that it will read 1707 Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji?--Ooperhoofd (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
________________________________
Further context for these questions
The following may prove helpful -- illustrating the way Misplaced Pages conventionally evolves:

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disaster management#Naming convention covers names for earthquakes, tsunamis, eruptions, fires and other disasters. It says, in part, "It has been decided that all articles concerning individual disasters should be <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>. To illustrate the point with an example, the article October 11, 2006 New York City plane crash was recently renamed to 2006 New York City plane crash" with more detail and reference to the GLIDE numbering system. Fg2 (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disaster management#Naming convention
On its face, this is a reasonable guideline, of course -- but it's only an informed suggestion. We each reocgnize that Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style is naught but "a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." If this otherwise reasonable naming convention were adopted for events in Japanese history which already have non-Wikified names, then "Genroku" would be marginalized out of the commonly used name for a significant pre-Meiji period event. Following this immutable logic, there would be no place in Misplaced Pages for "the Great Fire of Meireki" or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji." No -- that won't do.

There must be a better alternative which isn't obvious yet.

No. What first appears entirely self-evident becomes unworkable too quickly. Now perhaps it begins to become clear why this seemingly "simple" question was presented in a complex context with so many illustrative examples? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

An important observation I probably should have made a priori: In my view, the over-arching assumption needs to be that there is general acceptance of the guidelines as proposed by the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disaster management. I'd guess that all questions about plausible exceptions to the wiki-consensus general rule become secondary in this broad context of agreement. Moreover, in this Japan-specific instance, the range of desired "exceptions" would be limited to events in the Japanese archipelago from 645 through 1945; and those who do concern themselves with this relatively small matter are most likely to focus on an even narrower time-frame -- from 701 through 1868. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My view is that all forms of the names should have redirects. Which title is actually used as the title of the article is not, in my opinion, that important, but if a widely-used name exists, then go for that in preference to the "<date> <location> <event>" convention. People often worry that the categories can only contain the main article name, but in fact the redirect can be categorised as well. See Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects. So all the Japanese-era names can be gathered together in one category, and all the "<date> <location> <event>" equivalents can be gathered together in another category. Or in a list, if you prefer working that way. Hope this helps. Thanks for researching this so thoroughly. If you need more specific advice (I haven't time at the moment to respond to all the points raised above), please ask. Carcharoth (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

_________________________
PROPOSED MODIFICATION
It seems to me that Miraceti (see cs:Wikipedista:Miraceti) got it just about right when Historic tsunami was initially crafted in August 2007. In that context, I would propose adopting something like this:

  • 1. MOS:JA should be modified to incorporate the guidelines suggested by Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disaster management, but with a modest exception-to-the-general-rule variation -- that disasters in Japan during the years 645 through 1945 are more fully described in this format: <<year>><<nengō>><<place>><<event>>.
  • 2. MOS:JA suggests that an explanation and internal link to Japanese era name should be incorporated into any article with a nengō in its title.

EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED CHANGE
Sanriku region

Nankai region

Kantō region

If this proposed modification gains general consensus, I will volunteer in mid-January to begin addressing the task of moving current articles to conform with this reasonable guideline. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)