Talk:2008 Universal Studios fire/Archive 1

Merge

• I agree the article should be merged. When it was thought that the fire had destroyed the film vault, this had the potential to be culturally devastating to the United States, however a press conference just confirmed that what was destroyed as a video vault, some sort of back-up and archiving facility, not the vault containing original negatives. 23skidoo (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree This article has potential to become very large when an investigation gets underway, and would cause the Universal Studios article to become choked with irrelevant information for someone who wishes to read the article to find out more about the studio itself. Ecopetition (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree - Following the reason given above. 80.192.11.174 (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with the merge. Wikipedia is neither a news servive (go to wikinews) nor a crystal ball. No prejudice against recreation/spinning-out when the section in Universal Studios becomes too large. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's my point. Even with the investigation, this can be handled in a couple of paragraphs since the outcome will likely be either arson or mishap related to filming, or something like faulty wiring. It's not terrorism otherwise we'd have heard that already. The head of Universal says the film archive is safe. Wisteria Lane was nowhere near the fire. So really there's nothing that justifies a separate article. I agree that perhaps a spinoff can be created if Al Queda claims responsibility or something. 23skidoo (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The merge has effectively taken place, since the same text is on the Universal Studios article. It is appropriate to redirect this page to the Universal Studios article at this point. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have merged the one unsourced sentence into Universal Studios and boldly redirected there. Please revert if this still needs more discussion. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. However, if the event progressees and farther information arrives so that a section in the main article would get too long, then it may become suitable to unmerge it. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is what I already said farther above. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• This should be merged to Universal Studios Hollywood instead because that should be the relevant target article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree, but a proper discussion needs to be set up elsewhere, not this redirect talkpage. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Specifically Talk:Universal Studios as the redirect goes there and a section on the fire exists at that article. Universal Studios Hollywood, however, is generally used to refer to the theme park, not the studio facility itself (at least I don't think so), so having the information at the main studio article is probably more appropriate. 23skidoo (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)