Talk:Ghost Ship warehouse fire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 4 August 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

  • Support move to Ghost Ship warehouse fire. Agreed that Oakland is not necessary as a qualifier, but I think it's important to keep the word warehouse in the title so as not to mislead a reader into thinking this was a maritime fire. StonyBrook (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. I guess I have a slight preference toward Ghost Ship warehouse fire, but I'm not 100% sure. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I boldly moved the page to what had been suggested shortly after the fire. I agree that "Ghost Ship warehouse fire" is probably the best title. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The city of Oakland failed to protect the artists that used the dangerous structure therefore their name should remain in the title. I struck my previous reasoning. The nickname "Ghost Ship" is relatively unimportant. It is even relatively unimportant that this entity is an artist collective, although that is irrelevant to this question. The fire took place in a structure housing relatively young people often engaged in "experimental" practices. That is what art often is. It is highly experimental. An encyclopedia shouldn't fall victim to hype and creative language. There is nothing ghost-ship-like about a place to live and work, largely experimentally. A disaster was bound to happen. Why should we lop off the term "Oakland"? Is "Ghost Ship" an entirely meaningful term? The title is fine the way it is. Is it so important to make it shorter? Who cares if "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)[reply]
    • @Bus stop: You and I both know that comment is not grounded in policy and is from its start nonneutral.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jasper Deng: I struck my previous comment. Thank you. I've provided alternative reasoning. Bus stop (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • We are not compelled to arrive at the shortest possible title. "Ghost Ship" sounds stupid @Bus stop: Sorry, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a run-around of WP:PRECISION. As for the argument about confusing actual ships with "Ghost Ship", the alternative title "Ghost Ship warehouse fire" does not have any problem with that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is not primarily a "warehouse", meaning that "warehouse" is not an essential term. "Oakland" happens to be an essential term. The present title is entirely WP:PRECISE. We are not necessarily aiming for the absolutely shortest title. "Oakland" is the location. The city of "Oakland" had the responsibility to see that codes were met concerning fire safety and habitability. This wasn't a rural forest fire. This took place within the city limits of "Oakland". The "Oakland" fire department responded to the blaze. It had a fanciful nickname, the "Ghost ship". The term "Ghost ship" modifies the term "Oakland". There is nothing wrong with the present title. Bus stop (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Oakland" isn't essential. The city's responsibility for the matter has literally nothing to do with the title, which is dictated by policy. "Oakland" isn't any more precise than "Ghost Ship".--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Bus stop You said ...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)[reply]
  • Support. No other Ghost Ship fires to confuse the matter. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Adding that I don't think we need to say "warehouse" in the title, as there is no particular need for disambiguation by using that word, and noting that the sources largely omit the word warehouse from the title of the blaze, bringing it in later, like NPR, for instance. Binksternet (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is completely silly to call it the "Ghost Ship fire". It doesn't matter if there are "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)[reply]
  • "Cocoanut Grove" was the name of a nightclub. "The Cocoanut Grove was a premier nightclub during the post-Prohibition 1930s and 1940s in Boston, Massachusetts." It was coconut-themed. "Support columns in the main dining area were made to look like palm trees, with light fixtures made to look like coconuts." It was coconut-themed. "The lounge was lit by low-powered light bulbs in coconut-styled sconces beneath the fronds." "Cocoanut Grove" was its official name. Others called it the "Cocoanut Grove". Others didn't even know the "Ghost Ship" existed. Probably some of the artists that lived there were not aware of the nickname "Ghost Ship". Bus stop (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bus stop: Others didn't even know the "Ghost Ship" existed. Probably some of the artists that lived there were not aware of the nickname "Ghost Ship" You're wrong on both counts according to reliable sources, which have the final say on matters like the name of an event. In any case, it doesn't support your argument for keeping "Oakland", which does literally nothing to further disambiguate the title, and is of no help for anyone who called the warehouse anything else.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jasper Deng: You were comparing the names of two entities, one of which had an outwardly facing moniker—the Coconut Grove. It was nightclub. In the other instance the entity was merely called that ("Ghost Ship") by some insiders. I am addressing your comparison. Bus stop (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't matter. At the end of the day, we're talking about the fire, which reliable sources call the Ghost Ship fire, and which any local here will know of when that is mentioned.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • A local of the San Francisco Bay Area. And in any case, you don't even need to take my word for that. Show that reliable sources predominantly refer to it as the "Oakland Ghost Ship fire" and I might reconsider, but checking current sources shows that your argument does not hold as a WP:COMMONNAME, not to mention that "Oakland" is redundant and therefore in contravention of WP:PRECISE which asks for no more precision than needed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we are not writing for locals of the San Francisco area. Bus stop (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You completely ignored the rest of my comment. You're not likely to get consensus for your position, especially when you ignored my clear policy-based arguments.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have not failed to observe WP:COMMONNAME by titling the article Oakland Ghost Ship fire. The title change that you are recommending is pointless. There is no benefit to be gained by shortening the title unless our only aim is to come up with the shortest possible title. The term "Ghost Ship" does not have the standing of the name of an enterprise—such as the Cocoanut Grove nightclub. A transient population intermittently resided in or worked in or visited a disused warehouse that was informally dubbed the "Ghost Ship". We are making more of that flimsy moniker than is warranted by removing the term "Oakland" from the title to arrive at a new title of "Ghost Ship fire". The structure was hardly a "Ghost Ship". It was a place where artists worked and lived and partied. The name "Ghost Ship" never enjoyed the status that you are according it posthumously by arguing to remove the term "Oakland" from the title. Bus stop (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, you're flat-out wrong on all counts. Reliable sources don't prepend "Oakland", therefore we shouldn't either. Period.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cited WP:COMMONNAME. That policy has nothing to do with this discussion. I am assuming this discussion is about the proposed change of title from "Oakland Ghost Ship fire" to "Ghost Ship fire". If this discussion is restricted to just that suggested change then WP:COMMONNAME is irrelevant. The only term that could be examined in light of the guidance provided by WP:COMMONNAME is the term "Ghost Ship"—and it is present in both titles. The present title, "Oakland Ghost Ship fire", is not in violation of the guidance provided by WP:COMMONNAME. It is simply including an additional term, that term being the additional term "Oakland". If we were for instance contemplating changing "Oakland Ghost Ship fire" to "Artist collective fire", then WP:COMMONNAME would be a relevant guideline. Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. "Oakland" is not part of the COMMONNAME used by reliable sources. Any "additional term" must be supported by use in reliable sources. I suggest you concede that your position is untenable, given that you're the only one arguing for it and that you are having to resort to increasingly twisted interpretations of policies just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop to clarify: The policy you referenced above is WP:PRECISE. Specifically, you said 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)[reply]
The title "Oakland Ghost Ship fire" is the preferable of the two titles due to the failure of Oakland to prevent the tragedy. "The Alameda County District Attorney's office launched an investigation into the causes of the fire. In March 2017, emails from 2014 were reported to have described serious electrical problems in the building." Still these problems were not remedied. This isn't a fire without a cause. This is not merely the "Ghost Ship fire", as the proposed title would portray the subject of this article. No, this is the "Oakland Ghost Ship fire". It could be titled the "Oakland artist collective fire". I realize that would fail WP:COMMONNAME, but "Oakland" is an essential term in the title of this article. Bus stop (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are skirting WP article name policies. It is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT so I am done. StonyBrook (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, you are in error about the name Ghost Ship. Please take a look at the photo in the article of the gutted warehouse. By the way, I took that photograph. You will see that the name "GHOST SHIP" was painted on the front of the building in letters about three feet high and running about twenty feet long, highly visible from the public street. Please also read the coverage in reliable sources well over two years after the fire. There are plenty of current articles because two people are now on trial. I just did a Google News search for "Oakland warehouse fire trial". Note that I did not search for "Ghost Ship". About 80% of the reliable sources used "Ghost Ship" in their headlines. Your determination to keep Oakland in the title because of the city's alleged negligence is soapboxing and advocacy. Personally, I am quite upset with Oakland officials, but I do not express that in my Wikipedia editing because NPOV is a core content policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRECISION says "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." "Usually" means we are not as bound to the absolutely shortest possible title, as is being argued. And you are saying "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)[reply]
But the current title is barely older than this discussion. @Bus stop: "Oakland is responsible" is not a valid policy reason to deviate from "usually". WP:COMMONNAME requires the predominant designation by reliable sources which is "Ghost Ship fire". It should be clear now that your suggestion will not get consensus, so I'm not going to keep arguing with you. I don't understand why you're continuing to argue.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: You say 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)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: I now see that the page was recently moved therefore I stand corrected about the length of time with the present title. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Bus stop (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

NCEVENT states "If there is an established, common name for an event (such as the Great Depression, Cuban Missile Crisis or a "Bloody Sunday"), use that name". "Ghost Ship fire" is just such an established, common name for this incident.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly everyone uses "The Great Depression" "The Cuban Missile Crisis" or "a Bloody Sunday". A high number of the sources here, however, say "Oakland fire" or "Oakland warehouse fire", and do not use "Ghost Ship" as de facto title. It's not an established, common name.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lurking shadow you include Ghost Ship in your title, which seemingly contradicts your assertion that Ghost Ship is not an established descriptor of this event. The policy NCEVENT you refer to makes clear that a date is only helpful to distinguish between similar sounding events. Quoting the policy: 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)[reply]
It is a partially used description; sources use either "Oakland fire" or "Ghost ship fire" or both. The title I proposed includes both plus the date, but you are right; it doesn't need the date which means it should stay where it is. The current title is the most fitting we can have, it combines the three descriptions most commonly used when describing the event.

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)[reply]

Lurking shadow I am confused, if you think the current title is ok then maybe you should strike your MOVE vote. But I raised the same concern as you did about ghost ships and why readers might think this was a ship fire. Oakland doesn't help this because the ghost ship could have been an attraction moored in the Port of Oakland. Also I am not sure what NPOV has to do with the name question. The point is not if any of these names favor someone's narrative but rather what it is known as for easy reference. StonyBrook (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.. and Ghost Ship fire is not precise enough for this task. Good point on the rest, but I think that Ghost Ship warehouse fire would be better(as it is more precise, avoiding all these potential confusions).Lurking shadow (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely correct, Lurking shadow. "Ghost Ship" is merely an offhanded reference. I would add that such a moniker is not in keeping with the tragic nature of the article. It may have been called the "Ghost Ship" when it was functioning but now the aura of death hovers over it. We do not have to be so tasteless as to omit the municipality under whose aegis this occurred. That municipality is "Oakland". It is a more significant term in the title than the term "Ghost Ship". Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We are not WP:HERE to WP:RGW, Bus stop. Tastelessness is not important for Wikipedia. What matters is the neutral point of view, we should have a title that names the event according to the sources.Lurking shadow (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Ship fire versus Ghost Ship warehouse fire[edit]

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)[reply]

Binksternet to repeat: Agreed that warehouse is not required for disambiguation. But it does serve to modify the phrase Ghost Ship, since anyone not intimately aware of the incident will logically assume that it refers to a boat fire of some kind. That seemingly violates WP:ASTONISH, since we are trying not to waste people's time with a 'bait and switch', in this case steering maritime enthusiasts toward a non-maritime article. In my opinion that is an entirely valid reason to add in the extra word, which does appear many times in the sources in close proximity to Ghost Ship. StonyBrook (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet, I believe that the word "warehouse" clarifies that this was not a maritime fire. That word is used quite prominently in headlines and lead sentences by many, many recent reliable sources. It is not a super big deal to me, but after thinking about it quite a bit, I believe that it is helpful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine either way. Personally, I don't see much in the way of confusion since "Ghost Ship" is in capitals; "Ghost ship fire" would be indeed quite ambiguous, but I won't explicitly oppose "Ghost Ship warehouse fire" either.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oakland again[edit]

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)[reply]

@Jasper Deng: please don't hide my argument. I would not do that to you. Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

This was addressed at length in the above move request, but as a courtesy I will respond. The onus would be on you to explain why having a WP:CONCISE title in keeping with policy is inappropriate in this case. You are seemingly arguing WP:IAR, which is also a policy, but only where following it improves the encyclopedia. Your oppose arguments to keep Oakland in the title ring of advocacy against the city of Oakland, so please explain why your attempt to right a perceived great wrong through the use of an article title is an appropriate course of action when it is in contravention to the rules. StonyBrook (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"But the city of Oakland was evidently complicit, having failed to carry out required inspections diligently and to close the unsafe warehouse because of obvious code violations and fire hazards."[2] This isn't also an article about the city of Oakland? I'm not "advocating" anything. A term is relevant for inclusion in a title if it is an important part of the subject of an article. We all should be indignant about governmental failure, but we are not exactly engaging in "advocacy" when we argue for an article title that includes the term of governmental complicity in the tragedy being addressed in the article. I understand that consensus is against me. I'm ready to drop this at any point. But you asked me a question so I'm responding. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Support The word Oakland is not needed because Ghost Ship is distinctive enough. However, to clarify that the fire was not on board a ship, I support as others have suggested a title similar to a related incident, The Station nightclub fire. Ghost Ship warehouse fire is succinct and descriptive. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 21:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed. Sources feel the need to introduce "Ghost Ship" and an Oakland warehouse. Words to be considered for the title include "warehouse" and "2016". Oakland is a must. This is known as the most deadly fire in Oakland's history. It is one of the most deadly fires ever in America. From a national perspective, it happened in Oakland. No one cares that locally the illegal warehouse entertainment venue was called "Ghost Ship". The previous 2016 Oakland warehouse fire was a better title, counting usage by source count overweights the local coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Revert the undiscussed move [3]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

“Fire” and other sections of this article do not read correctly.[edit]

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)[reply]

Eyewitness accounts of firefighters and those who lived there seems relevant. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghost_Ship_warehouse_fire&oldid=1207415155"