Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management/Naming

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDisaster management Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Naming conventions?[edit]

In Wikipedia:Naming conventions, the closest thing that comes to a standard convention for disasters is Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've put this subject up for discussion (and hopefully consensus building) at the official policy page, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (it's at Wikipedia 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)[reply]
I went to the page, only to discover that it has already been decided to add it to Wikipedia: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)[reply]
Given the above, I've taken the liberty to copy the text from there to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). Akradecki 18:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my edit to Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Naming: "Flight *"[edit]

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)[reply]

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 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I third the motion.... AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for changing a guideline[edit]

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)[reply]

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 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming 1703 Genroku earthquake?[edit]

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

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia user; but maybe I've got it precisely backwards? Maybe it's best to accept that this format has become a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
________________________________
Further context for these questions
The following may prove helpful -- illustrating the way Wikipedia conventionally evolves:

Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Responding to Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
Ooperhoofd, thanks for your exhaustive analysis of this subject. I agree with Carcharoth above in that all alternative names should be retained in the form of redirects. As for the applicability of the WP:DM naming convention, I want to remind everyone that the convention was put in place in order to make articles - and thereby disasters - unique. Certain events, such as those Historic Fires that you mentioned above do not require a gregorian date to make them unique. Furthermore, in the cases where the word Great has been used, it is unlikely that a greater event will occur in the future. If I have understood your argument correctly, it is possible to achieve such uniqueness for specific events in a specific region in a specific period; and that, most importantly, this alternative naming standard is more intuitive and wide-spread for the specific subset of events. Under these circumstances I see no problem with side-stepping the convention as long as redirects are created in accordance with Carcharoth's suggestion. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 22:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current standard of this wikiproject is insufficient and does not name when there can be exceptions to the rule. Ax rxnd points out, the overriding purpose of the standard is to make the article names sufficiently unique. So one obvious exception must be when the disaster already has a unique name (as an example Hurricane Katrina is clearly named correctly even though it defies the WP's naming standards; 2005 Florida-Louisiana-Mississippi hurricane would be far worse). The question comes in when there is a commonly accepted name for an event that is not official or that may not be accepted worldwide. The Great Kantō earthquake may be such an example (this probably applies to many other Japanese events as well). In this case using the name is appropriate but to avoid confusion the date should be thrown on as well. A related situation is named events that do not have a unique name - again the name should be used but with the year appended, as with Hurricane Emily (2005). Now, for the managers of the wikiproject, my advice to you is to make your naming "rules" more flexible so that they CAN cover everything and DO mention all the exceptions - otherwise you're going to keep running into problems when you overlap with other wikiprojects who already have their own conventions. Integrating ooperhoofd's suggestion would be a good start. — jdorje (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote the current naming convention listed with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (as opposed to the somewhat more stringent convention applied internally in the Disaster management WikiProject):
(my emphasis added). --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Talk:Coalinga, California earthquake[edit]

Please feel free to chime in at Talk:Coalinga, California earthquake on the name of the artilce. Bebestbe (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2021 Boulder County fire[edit]

I support this proposed naming convention for the reasons I describe in Talk:2021 Boulder County fire. This article's discussion helps highlight the two most important features of this naming convention that make it superior to other naming conventions, which are (1) to guarantee a unique page title for disaster events and (2) it's more clear to an international audience what the article is about at a glance. Any additional assistance with supporting this naming convention on this article would be appreciated. Codered999 (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disaster_management/Naming&oldid=1161332425"