Talk:Ghost Ship warehouse fire

I started another page on this fire because I could not find an article on it when I searched. I'm happy to merge the content from that article into this one. Funcrunch (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Content merged and page redirected. Funcrunch (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think we should rename this to Oakland Ghost Ship fire. If you look at the List of nightclub fires, most of them are named in the same format - the venue name is prominent, sometimes prefixed with the city name. The year 2016 doesn't need to be there to ensure a unique title. --Clorox (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

That was what I named my article before I found this page, but I redirected it here, per the section above. The other fires listed in the "Nightclub fires and disasters" template currently on this page all seem to start with the year, though the Ghost Ship was not actually a night club... Funcrunch (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Looking again at that template, I now see that the year is not actually part of the article title for most of the articles. Funcrunch (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Check it out, news outlets are already referring to it as the Oakland Ghost Ship fire: [1] --Clorox (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The majority of the sources I'm seeing (including the one you linked to) are referring to "warehouse" in the headline. I think as long as the various Ghost Ship redirects are in place, people won't have trouble finding this article. Funcrunch (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think the best title would be 2016 Oakland artists warehouse fire. I think that is the substantial information. I don't think (disclaimer: WP:CRYSTAL) "Ghost Ship" will edge out that basic information with the passage of time. I think the word "artists" should be included in the title because that single word identifies this tragedy uniquely among similar major fires. Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Club fires template has been added and removed here a couple of times. The Ghost Ship was hosting a concert the night of the fire, but it was not a nightclub, so I'm not sure it's appropriate to include in that list. Funcrunch (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Depends on how literally you want to interpret "nightclub". For what it's worth, I noticed that, if you search for the article List of concert fires, you get re-directed to List of nightclub fires. Seems to me that it would be okay to include this on the list, so long as there's a note that clarifies the normal use of the warehouse. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I should have checked the list article more carefully. Someone has already done what I had suggested. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The number of deaths listed keeps going up, yet the missing number on the infobox keeps staying at 35. That can't be right. We need either a corrected total, or it should just be removed. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Agreed - at this point, with 36 confirmed dead, I've seen no official updates to the number missing. So I've just removed it from the infobox and updated the article to say "a number of others" are (still) missing. Funcrunch (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

For the sentence "The effort involved 11 fire engines and three fire trucks" it would be preferable if we could link internally to definitions of the two. Bus stop (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The distinction is somewhat interesting, but "fire truck" on Wikipedia currently redirects to "fire engine", so we can't easily distinguish that way. Maybe by putting in a footnote, but I don't think it's that important to the article as it stands... Funcrunch (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The author of this article of explanation concludes by saying "Having worked with both an engine company and a truck company, the differences blur a bit in a situation where the sky is red, the smoke is thick and the water is streaming." I just find that our sentence distinguishing between the two asks the logical question as to what the difference is. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering about the distinction myself when I added the information to the article. I just wikilinked both "fire engines" and "fire trucks" so people can read up on it for themselves, though someone might remove the link since it's a pretty common word/phrase. Funcrunch (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think that is a good provisional approach. Bus stop (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Fire truck is a redirect to Fire engine, which says the terms have different meaning in North America, but does not appear to explain the differences, so this is just a frustrating and pointless unexplained distinction, an all-too-common Wikipedia result. It is useful to check wikilinks when providing them. The trucks were ladder trucks. But this article doesn't give the information, and then taking me twice to the same article that also doesn't give the information doesn't help. --KP Botany (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Assuming these are actual photos of the space the fire took place in the article would be easier to understand if it included some of them. I don't know if wikicommons will accept them, there is no copyright I could see on the page. I don't know the procedure for fair use pictures.

http://www.oaklandghostship.com/

Geo8rge (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Fair use" is not allowed on Commons, and none of these photos would likely fall under that exception anyway. The photos would need to be released under a Commons-acceptable license. Funcrunch (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Can someone tell me what this Los Angeles Times source provides that the Mercury News does not? Because this is otherwise a very pointless citation and the Mercury News citation is enough support for a launched investigation. Parsley Man (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see no harm in leaving the additional source at this time because it is another good quality source and this is still very early in this article's development and very early in the investigation being noted but I totally object to the name-calling edit summary left with the addition of that source. Bus stop (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

+1 to Bus stop's reply. Funcrunch (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I absolutely disagree. In my opinion, unless Los Angeles Times provides something about the investigation that Mercury News doesn't, I just don't see the point in another citation. Parsley Man (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

When I read a statement in a Wiki article that I want to either verify or simply research further, I first look at what source(s) are provided. Then I choose one that seems promising for what I am looking for. As I said, it may be for verification purposes, but it could also be for further research purposes. Perhaps I have a preference for one source over another. Having two sources gives me options. I think you are taking a cut-and-dry approach, when an open-ended approach may be preferable. We don't know what the reader is looking for. The article itself serves as an outline of a topic, in a certain sense. Wiki is not the only place a reader looks. Thus we should write as if our article is a jumping-off point for further research. Bus stop (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just me maybe but I look for at least three independent sources (not A repeating B repeating original source C, but independent journalism). Links go dead, sometimes websites are reorganized for archive and the article is there but moved, sometimes old news articles get deleted. More than one source is good with me and I suspect others. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

"It appears people either made it out, or they didn't"

Is this necessary? That seems to cover all possibilities. What else could happen beside someone making it out or not? Natureium (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Definitely doesn't seem necessary in my book. To me, it just states the obvious. Either people died or survived. Of course we all know that. Parsley Man (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think the quote should be left in. Bus stop (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

What he was trying to say was that people either escaped from the building or died on the spot (not later at the hospital from injuries). Rescuers couldn't get into the burning building to save anyone, especially on the second floor. The phrasing is somewhat awkward, but it was poignant enough to make it as a headline for the sourced article; I think it should stay. Funcrunch (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Those words have a colloquial sound to them, they are the actual words of an official, and the quote acknowledges a grim reality of this tragedy—that few injuries resulted but a lot of deaths. Bus stop (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think the quote is worthwhile. Keep it in. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I requested pix from a Flickr user and she agreed to upload them to Commons; I've added them to the category for the fire. One of them should probably replace the current infobox picture, but I wanted to get input here before doing that. Funcrunch (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I chose one for now, but if anyone thinks one of the others would be a better choice feel free to swap of course. Funcrunch (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I changed to another one that I believe better illustrates the topic, but I am interested in hearing other opinions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply