This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ghost Ship warehouse fire 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving Ghost Ship warehouse fire was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 4 December 2016. |
It is requested that an image or photograph of Ghost Ship interior view, at any date prior to the fire be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
On 4 August 2019, it was proposed that this article be moved from Oakland Ghost Ship fire to Ghost Ship warehouse fire. The result of the discussion was moved. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The result of the move request was: moved to Ghost Ship warehouse fire. Not an easy close, but there's pretty clear consensus for this alternative. The fact that the "stable" title was the result of a unilateral move about an hour before did not help matters, though I did consider that the actual stable title had "warehouse fire" in it (maybe that's not worth much, since it also had "Oakland"). Given some time, a future discussion could bring more clarity, but let's not rush that. -- BDD ( talk) 19:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC) BDD ( talk) 19:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Oakland Ghost Ship fire →
Ghost Ship fire
@ Cullen328: "Oakland" is redundant, there is no other fire called the "Ghost Ship fire".-- Jasper Deng (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
"there is no other fire called the 'Ghost Ship fire'? This is an article about creative housing in the city of Oakland that went horribly wrong. We are not compelled to arrive at the shortest possible title. "Ghost Ship" sounds stupid. A "Ghost Ship fire" really does sound like something that takes place at sea. But you pair "Ghost Ship" with "Oakland" and it immediately becomes clear that this is not a ship at sea but rather a fanciful name for a place in Oakland, California. Bus stop ( talk) 22:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
...you pair "Ghost Ship" with "Oakland" and it immediately becomes clear that this is not a ship at sea but rather a fanciful name for a place in Oakland, California.How so? Oakland is a port city. StonyBrook ( talk) 06:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"No other Ghost Ship fires to confuse the matter.""Ghost Ship" is a fanciful nickname. It may warrant a place in the title. But it should not be the only significant term in the title, and the location of "Oakland" is a significant term in identifying this event. Bus stop ( talk) 05:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"which any local here will know of when that is mentioned"Which any local where? What general vicinity are you referring to? Bus stop ( talk) 09:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The present title is entirely WP:PRECISE. We are not necessarily aiming for the absolutely shortest title.That is not a correct interpretation of the policy, which actually insists on brevity in titles. There's no room for any additional words. Once we say Ghost Ship fire, that separates it from every other fire in the world. That's it, no need to say anything more to pinpoint what the article is about. I only suggested re-adding warehouse to clarify that Ghost Ship is not a ship (which I think makes sense, plus plenty sources do use it) but it's not absolutely necessary to have - it's only an aid to help the reader not to be confused. Please explain now why it is additionally critical to add the city name in the title. Were there other Ghost Ship fires in Berkeley and Fremont that we need to differentiate this one from by calling it Oakland Ghost Ship fire? If the answer is no, we are adding additional words for no purpose against policy. StonyBrook ( talk) 22:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"I agree that 'Ghost Ship warehouse fire' is probably the best title."There are a multitude of possible titles, including the one you are suggesting, with the word "warehouse" in it. I am suggesting we allow the title to remain as it has been for a few years. Bus stop ( talk) 23:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME requires the predominant designation by reliable sources which is "Ghost Ship fire".The "common name" is "Ghost Ship". "Fire" is a reference to combustion. I did not argue that "Ghost Ship" be omitted. Nor did I argue that the term "fire" be omitted. Nor did I argue that the term "Ghost Ship fire" be omitted. You are tossing out the acronym WP:COMMONNAME for no reason. There would be a discussion involving WP:COMMONNAME if we were disputing whether or not "Ghost Ship" should be in the title. But we are not disputing that. In fact we are both in agreement that "Ghost Ship" should be a part of the title, therefore WP:COMMONNAME has no applicability to this discussion. Bus stop ( talk) 23:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Move to 2016 Oakland Ghost Ship fireGhost Ship warehouse fire per
WP:NCEVENT naming conventions; the location and date should be part of the article title, and "Ghost Ship" tells most readers absolutely nothing about the location(yet is needed to distinguish it from other 2016 Oakland fires).
Lurking shadow (
talk) 16:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
1993 Russian constitutional crisis. When: 1993. There are no other "Russian constitutional crisis" articles in Wikipedia, but the year is a useful identifier as constitutional crises reoccur, and other incidents in Russian history could be construed as a constitutional crisis.There are no other Ghost Ship fires this can be confused with. Following this logic, the same thing goes for Oakland. StonyBrook ( talk) 17:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The denominator "Ghost ship fire" could easily re- occur as Ghost ships exist and they can catch fire, too. Lurking shadow ( talk) 17:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
It looks like the most popular two move targets are Ghost Ship fire and Ghost Ship warehouse fire. My personal stance is that the word warehouse is not required for disambiguation, and that most of the sources don't use it in this exact manner. Can the people in favor of "warehouse" explain their positions? Binksternet ( talk) 23:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
hat|@ Bus stop: it's been explained to you several times, your position doesn't have consensus, drop the WP:STICK and move on.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Can someone explain why it is of crucial importance that we arrive at the shortest possible title?
WP:PRECISION doesn't take precedence over all other considerations. We are battering our heads trying to see if a term can be eliminated. Seriously? If you want to eliminate the term "Oakland" you should be able to provide a good reason for doing so. The reason shouldn't be that WP:PRECISION says so. That constitutes slavish adherence to words that were written by mortals such as you and me. Examples are given at WP:PRECISION that are not necessarily applicable to our question. Punctilious adherence to guidelines that may be only imperfectly applicable can lead us to degrade the title. In short—there is nothing at all wrong with the present title, therefore why would anybody try to fix it?
Bus stop (
talk) 15:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
"Your oppose arguments to keep Oakland in the title ring of advocacy against the city of Oakland"Are sources providing in-depth coverage of the municipality's shortcomings in the period of time preceding the fire? If so, then perhaps the term "Oakland" is a term that is relevant for inclusion in the title. Is this just an article about a fire? Is this just an article about an artist's collective that came to a tragic end? Or is this also an article about a governmental failure to enforce policies relating to fire hazards? Human beings are known to take shortcuts that put them and others in danger. "The 36 deaths in the Dec. 2 Ghost Ship warehouse fire in Oakland, Calif., are a grim reminder of why cities need not only effective building codes but also diligent building-code enforcement." [1] Bus stop ( talk) 15:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Reading this article for the first time and it feels like many sections of this page read more like a narrative re-telling rather than a factual and objective account of events.
For example, the last line in the “Fire” section is entirely subjective. an opinion and personal anecdote of maybe a few firefighters rather than the whole, and even though it has a citation, shouldn’t be allowed in this account.
There are many bits and pieces like that throughout the whole article and they overall detract from the professionalism of it.
I request that someone go through the article to remove all parts of opinion and bring this article up to the standard it should be held too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:344:4102:4720:1076:BA87:2241:45B5 ( talk) 04:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Eyewitness accounts of firefighters and those who lived there seems relevant. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ozone Disco fire which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ghost Ship warehouse fire 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 |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving Ghost Ship warehouse fire was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 4 December 2016. |
It is requested that an image or photograph of Ghost Ship interior view, at any date prior to the fire be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
On 4 August 2019, it was proposed that this article be moved from Oakland Ghost Ship fire to Ghost Ship warehouse fire. The result of the discussion was moved. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The result of the move request was: moved to Ghost Ship warehouse fire. Not an easy close, but there's pretty clear consensus for this alternative. The fact that the "stable" title was the result of a unilateral move about an hour before did not help matters, though I did consider that the actual stable title had "warehouse fire" in it (maybe that's not worth much, since it also had "Oakland"). Given some time, a future discussion could bring more clarity, but let's not rush that. -- BDD ( talk) 19:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC) BDD ( talk) 19:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Oakland Ghost Ship fire →
Ghost Ship fire
@ Cullen328: "Oakland" is redundant, there is no other fire called the "Ghost Ship fire".-- Jasper Deng (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
"there is no other fire called the 'Ghost Ship fire'? This is an article about creative housing in the city of Oakland that went horribly wrong. We are not compelled to arrive at the shortest possible title. "Ghost Ship" sounds stupid. A "Ghost Ship fire" really does sound like something that takes place at sea. But you pair "Ghost Ship" with "Oakland" and it immediately becomes clear that this is not a ship at sea but rather a fanciful name for a place in Oakland, California. Bus stop ( talk) 22:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
...you pair "Ghost Ship" with "Oakland" and it immediately becomes clear that this is not a ship at sea but rather a fanciful name for a place in Oakland, California.How so? Oakland is a port city. StonyBrook ( talk) 06:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"No other Ghost Ship fires to confuse the matter.""Ghost Ship" is a fanciful nickname. It may warrant a place in the title. But it should not be the only significant term in the title, and the location of "Oakland" is a significant term in identifying this event. Bus stop ( talk) 05:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"which any local here will know of when that is mentioned"Which any local where? What general vicinity are you referring to? Bus stop ( talk) 09:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The present title is entirely WP:PRECISE. We are not necessarily aiming for the absolutely shortest title.That is not a correct interpretation of the policy, which actually insists on brevity in titles. There's no room for any additional words. Once we say Ghost Ship fire, that separates it from every other fire in the world. That's it, no need to say anything more to pinpoint what the article is about. I only suggested re-adding warehouse to clarify that Ghost Ship is not a ship (which I think makes sense, plus plenty sources do use it) but it's not absolutely necessary to have - it's only an aid to help the reader not to be confused. Please explain now why it is additionally critical to add the city name in the title. Were there other Ghost Ship fires in Berkeley and Fremont that we need to differentiate this one from by calling it Oakland Ghost Ship fire? If the answer is no, we are adding additional words for no purpose against policy. StonyBrook ( talk) 22:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
"I agree that 'Ghost Ship warehouse fire' is probably the best title."There are a multitude of possible titles, including the one you are suggesting, with the word "warehouse" in it. I am suggesting we allow the title to remain as it has been for a few years. Bus stop ( talk) 23:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME requires the predominant designation by reliable sources which is "Ghost Ship fire".The "common name" is "Ghost Ship". "Fire" is a reference to combustion. I did not argue that "Ghost Ship" be omitted. Nor did I argue that the term "fire" be omitted. Nor did I argue that the term "Ghost Ship fire" be omitted. You are tossing out the acronym WP:COMMONNAME for no reason. There would be a discussion involving WP:COMMONNAME if we were disputing whether or not "Ghost Ship" should be in the title. But we are not disputing that. In fact we are both in agreement that "Ghost Ship" should be a part of the title, therefore WP:COMMONNAME has no applicability to this discussion. Bus stop ( talk) 23:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Move to 2016 Oakland Ghost Ship fireGhost Ship warehouse fire per
WP:NCEVENT naming conventions; the location and date should be part of the article title, and "Ghost Ship" tells most readers absolutely nothing about the location(yet is needed to distinguish it from other 2016 Oakland fires).
Lurking shadow (
talk) 16:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
1993 Russian constitutional crisis. When: 1993. There are no other "Russian constitutional crisis" articles in Wikipedia, but the year is a useful identifier as constitutional crises reoccur, and other incidents in Russian history could be construed as a constitutional crisis.There are no other Ghost Ship fires this can be confused with. Following this logic, the same thing goes for Oakland. StonyBrook ( talk) 17:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The denominator "Ghost ship fire" could easily re- occur as Ghost ships exist and they can catch fire, too. Lurking shadow ( talk) 17:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
It looks like the most popular two move targets are Ghost Ship fire and Ghost Ship warehouse fire. My personal stance is that the word warehouse is not required for disambiguation, and that most of the sources don't use it in this exact manner. Can the people in favor of "warehouse" explain their positions? Binksternet ( talk) 23:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
hat|@ Bus stop: it's been explained to you several times, your position doesn't have consensus, drop the WP:STICK and move on.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Can someone explain why it is of crucial importance that we arrive at the shortest possible title?
WP:PRECISION doesn't take precedence over all other considerations. We are battering our heads trying to see if a term can be eliminated. Seriously? If you want to eliminate the term "Oakland" you should be able to provide a good reason for doing so. The reason shouldn't be that WP:PRECISION says so. That constitutes slavish adherence to words that were written by mortals such as you and me. Examples are given at WP:PRECISION that are not necessarily applicable to our question. Punctilious adherence to guidelines that may be only imperfectly applicable can lead us to degrade the title. In short—there is nothing at all wrong with the present title, therefore why would anybody try to fix it?
Bus stop (
talk) 15:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
"Your oppose arguments to keep Oakland in the title ring of advocacy against the city of Oakland"Are sources providing in-depth coverage of the municipality's shortcomings in the period of time preceding the fire? If so, then perhaps the term "Oakland" is a term that is relevant for inclusion in the title. Is this just an article about a fire? Is this just an article about an artist's collective that came to a tragic end? Or is this also an article about a governmental failure to enforce policies relating to fire hazards? Human beings are known to take shortcuts that put them and others in danger. "The 36 deaths in the Dec. 2 Ghost Ship warehouse fire in Oakland, Calif., are a grim reminder of why cities need not only effective building codes but also diligent building-code enforcement." [1] Bus stop ( talk) 15:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Reading this article for the first time and it feels like many sections of this page read more like a narrative re-telling rather than a factual and objective account of events.
For example, the last line in the “Fire” section is entirely subjective. an opinion and personal anecdote of maybe a few firefighters rather than the whole, and even though it has a citation, shouldn’t be allowed in this account.
There are many bits and pieces like that throughout the whole article and they overall detract from the professionalism of it.
I request that someone go through the article to remove all parts of opinion and bring this article up to the standard it should be held too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:344:4102:4720:1076:BA87:2241:45B5 ( talk) 04:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Eyewitness accounts of firefighters and those who lived there seems relevant. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ozone Disco fire which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 01:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)