This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Norilsk oil spill 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 Norilsk oil spill was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 June 2020. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Norilsk-Taymyr Energy Company (NTEK) diesel fuel spill page were merged into Norilsk oil spill. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (June 2020) |
The initial text in this article has been derived from the text in this version of the Nornickel article, of which the main contributor is Andrew Davidson. DieRadfahrerin ( talk) 12:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I propose to merge Norilsk-Taymyr Energy Company (NTEK) diesel fuel spill into 2020 Norilsk oil spill. The content in the two articles are duplicates. Alcea setosa ( talk) 22:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
It looks like they've got their cinch because of the corrosion and failed maintenance to blame. B137 ( talk) 15:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( non-admin closure) Vpab15 ( talk) 11:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Norilsk oil spill →
Norilsk-Taymyr Energy Company (NTEK) diesel fuel spill – Hi all, I'd like to propose a renaming of this article to "Norilsk-Taymyr Energy Company (NTEK) diesel fuel spill." After seeing that an article of that title was merged into this current one, I'd essentially like to make the argument for the reverse.
Looking at a variety of English language sources, the spill is not given a consistent name. I'm seeing it referred to as an "Arctic Circle oil spill" (BBC), "fuel spill in Norilsk" ( Tass Russian News Agency), "fuel spill in Siberian river" ( CGTN), "diesel spill in the Arctic city of Norilsk" ( Energy Voice), “diesel fuel spill” ( WWF), ”Siberian fuel spill” ( SP Global), ”oil spill from the Norilsk Nickel mine” ( NPR), etc. My point is, it's not consistent. It is certainly not called "Norilsk oil spill" consistently enough to warrant that being the article title because of popular use. And although many of these sources mention the geographic location as a way of contextualizing the phrase "diesel fuel spill," they do so briefly and unceremoniously. I must also assume that these sources are rather US/Euro-centric, or at least written for an audience who is not familiar with NTEK or the larger Nornickel. I don't see that as a justification for contextualizing the spill in terms of its geographic region, rather than its cause.
In addition, press coverage focuses on NTEK/Nornickel's handling of the spill and the Emergencies Ministry’s criminal investigation as much as (if not more) than the environmental impact to the Norilsk region. (Ex: BBC, Meduza, Bloomberg, WSJ, The Moscow Times, CNN, Bellona). The current content in the article reflects this popular narrative about the spill, how NTEK could have avoided it, and Nornickel's subsequent handling of cleanup. The article title should also represent that.
Not to mention, the magnitude/impact (and therefore notability) of this event is unique. It's the largest accident in the Arctic Circle region ever and possibly the largest environmental fine in Russian history. Apparently it’s in line with the top 10 spills in human history. It seems logical then that the article follow the naming convention of the Exxon Valdez oil spill article, an event to which many sources are drawing comparisons, or articles like Murphy Oil USA refinery spill and Taylor oil spill—titling the page after the company responsible, rather than the geographic region of the damage. -- Cassiville ( talk) 23:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Norilsk oil spill 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 Norilsk oil spill was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 June 2020. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Norilsk-Taymyr Energy Company (NTEK) diesel fuel spill page were merged into Norilsk oil spill. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (June 2020) |
The initial text in this article has been derived from the text in this version of the Nornickel article, of which the main contributor is Andrew Davidson. DieRadfahrerin ( talk) 12:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I propose to merge Norilsk-Taymyr Energy Company (NTEK) diesel fuel spill into 2020 Norilsk oil spill. The content in the two articles are duplicates. Alcea setosa ( talk) 22:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
It looks like they've got their cinch because of the corrosion and failed maintenance to blame. B137 ( talk) 15:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( non-admin closure) Vpab15 ( talk) 11:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Norilsk oil spill →
Norilsk-Taymyr Energy Company (NTEK) diesel fuel spill – Hi all, I'd like to propose a renaming of this article to "Norilsk-Taymyr Energy Company (NTEK) diesel fuel spill." After seeing that an article of that title was merged into this current one, I'd essentially like to make the argument for the reverse.
Looking at a variety of English language sources, the spill is not given a consistent name. I'm seeing it referred to as an "Arctic Circle oil spill" (BBC), "fuel spill in Norilsk" ( Tass Russian News Agency), "fuel spill in Siberian river" ( CGTN), "diesel spill in the Arctic city of Norilsk" ( Energy Voice), “diesel fuel spill” ( WWF), ”Siberian fuel spill” ( SP Global), ”oil spill from the Norilsk Nickel mine” ( NPR), etc. My point is, it's not consistent. It is certainly not called "Norilsk oil spill" consistently enough to warrant that being the article title because of popular use. And although many of these sources mention the geographic location as a way of contextualizing the phrase "diesel fuel spill," they do so briefly and unceremoniously. I must also assume that these sources are rather US/Euro-centric, or at least written for an audience who is not familiar with NTEK or the larger Nornickel. I don't see that as a justification for contextualizing the spill in terms of its geographic region, rather than its cause.
In addition, press coverage focuses on NTEK/Nornickel's handling of the spill and the Emergencies Ministry’s criminal investigation as much as (if not more) than the environmental impact to the Norilsk region. (Ex: BBC, Meduza, Bloomberg, WSJ, The Moscow Times, CNN, Bellona). The current content in the article reflects this popular narrative about the spill, how NTEK could have avoided it, and Nornickel's subsequent handling of cleanup. The article title should also represent that.
Not to mention, the magnitude/impact (and therefore notability) of this event is unique. It's the largest accident in the Arctic Circle region ever and possibly the largest environmental fine in Russian history. Apparently it’s in line with the top 10 spills in human history. It seems logical then that the article follow the naming convention of the Exxon Valdez oil spill article, an event to which many sources are drawing comparisons, or articles like Murphy Oil USA refinery spill and Taylor oil spill—titling the page after the company responsible, rather than the geographic region of the damage. -- Cassiville ( talk) 23:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)