This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2018 Yilan train derailment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving 2018 Yilan train derailment was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 21 October 2018. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), the year is not need only when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. There is likely to be more than one derailment in Yilan, so the year is needed. Szqecs ( talk) 17:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Why would future derailments be likely?There has been seven derailments in the past two years in Taiwan.
The guideline you linked clearly says "Bridge collapses and train wrecks should be named according to the "where and what" convention."Sure. But I don't suppose you would name the article Taiwan train derailment or Earth train derailment right? That clause does not take disambiguation into consideration, so it is often ignored. Yilan is a reasonably-sized county, so the level of disambiguation needed would be Su'ao train derailment, but compared with the current name it is less recognisable. However, 'Yilan' can refer to either Yilan City or Yilan County, so Su'ao train derailment is perhaps better. Szqecs ( talk) 19:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I have started a request for comment to determine the proper title for this article. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@ DabitDodo: Could you explain why this was removed? The material is sourced directly from the BBC article: both the driver statement, the prosecutor's opinion and the speed limit are taken almost verbatim from the source, with changes to avoid copyvio. The Taiwan News quote was rewritten (to be able to include the speed information, but also...) because it's not the newspapers opinion, rather it's a statement of fact about the investigators' opinion (as reported by Taiwan News), which doesn't require attribution (no need to tell if it's the BBC [note: which says the same thing too [1]], the New York Times or whichever other source). 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 13:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
References
It is now restored. DabitDodo talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@ 107.190.33.254: the page was protected because goatse vandal by other ip user, not edit war or else. For DabitDodo block, wiki admin seldom not blocking sock that evade block. Matthew hk ( talk) 17:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
3O Response: I don't have a strong opinion on this one. See alsos have been a perennial topic with no consensus in refining their use (aside from WikiProject Medicine which discourages their use altogether).
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout § "See also" section (MOS:SEEALSO) states The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.
and as mentioned inclusion is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense
. List articles need a reliable source to show that the association made by listing the items is notable, and not just a collection of things the editor feels is important. But I don't believe this applies to See alsos, and the MOS quote above suggests to me that it is entirely up to the editors to decide what is important enough to be included. I can understand the desire that the reader not infer a connection between the causes of the accidents in linked articles – and while placement in the See also does not in itself make such connections, the text after the item ("relevant because") might be suggesting a commonality. Perhaps that text should be removed, leaving it up to the reader to determine how (or if) the other articles are relevant? Or otherwise perhaps it should just link to a "list of" article from which the reader can then decide which particular articles are of interest? (It wouldn't hurt to link
Rail transport in Taiwan as well.) –
Reidgreg (
talk) 15:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: no-break space character in |title=
at position 34 (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: no-break space character in |title=
at position 26 (
help)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2018 Yilan train derailment article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving 2018 Yilan train derailment was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 21 October 2018. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), the year is not need only when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. There is likely to be more than one derailment in Yilan, so the year is needed. Szqecs ( talk) 17:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Why would future derailments be likely?There has been seven derailments in the past two years in Taiwan.
The guideline you linked clearly says "Bridge collapses and train wrecks should be named according to the "where and what" convention."Sure. But I don't suppose you would name the article Taiwan train derailment or Earth train derailment right? That clause does not take disambiguation into consideration, so it is often ignored. Yilan is a reasonably-sized county, so the level of disambiguation needed would be Su'ao train derailment, but compared with the current name it is less recognisable. However, 'Yilan' can refer to either Yilan City or Yilan County, so Su'ao train derailment is perhaps better. Szqecs ( talk) 19:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I have started a request for comment to determine the proper title for this article. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@ DabitDodo: Could you explain why this was removed? The material is sourced directly from the BBC article: both the driver statement, the prosecutor's opinion and the speed limit are taken almost verbatim from the source, with changes to avoid copyvio. The Taiwan News quote was rewritten (to be able to include the speed information, but also...) because it's not the newspapers opinion, rather it's a statement of fact about the investigators' opinion (as reported by Taiwan News), which doesn't require attribution (no need to tell if it's the BBC [note: which says the same thing too [1]], the New York Times or whichever other source). 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 13:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
References
It is now restored. DabitDodo talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@ 107.190.33.254: the page was protected because goatse vandal by other ip user, not edit war or else. For DabitDodo block, wiki admin seldom not blocking sock that evade block. Matthew hk ( talk) 17:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
3O Response: I don't have a strong opinion on this one. See alsos have been a perennial topic with no consensus in refining their use (aside from WikiProject Medicine which discourages their use altogether).
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout § "See also" section (MOS:SEEALSO) states The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.
and as mentioned inclusion is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense
. List articles need a reliable source to show that the association made by listing the items is notable, and not just a collection of things the editor feels is important. But I don't believe this applies to See alsos, and the MOS quote above suggests to me that it is entirely up to the editors to decide what is important enough to be included. I can understand the desire that the reader not infer a connection between the causes of the accidents in linked articles – and while placement in the See also does not in itself make such connections, the text after the item ("relevant because") might be suggesting a commonality. Perhaps that text should be removed, leaving it up to the reader to determine how (or if) the other articles are relevant? Or otherwise perhaps it should just link to a "list of" article from which the reader can then decide which particular articles are of interest? (It wouldn't hurt to link
Rail transport in Taiwan as well.) –
Reidgreg (
talk) 15:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: no-break space character in |title=
at position 34 (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: no-break space character in |title=
at position 26 (
help)