Talk:2015 New Taipei water park fire

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

Use of romanisation[edit]

The page currently has Tsǎisuh Pàitweì as a transliteration of the party's Chinese title. This doesn't seem to correspond to any system of romanisation that I am familiar with. Should this be changed to Hanyu Pinyin (Cǎisè Pàiduì) or some other system? Davidreid (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the event was on Taiwan, this is almost certainly in the Taiwanese Romanization System. --Thnidu (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Taiwanese Romanization System is for the romanisation of Hoklo Taiwanese (aka Minnan). Tsǎisuh Pàitweì is clearly based on the Mandarin pronunciation. I'm not sure whether there is consensus on Wikipedia about what system of romanisation should be used for articles about Taiwan. Davidreid (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidreid: The Taiwanese/ROC government has switched to Hanyu Pinyin anyway. It used to use Tongyong Pinyin but it switched around 2008 WhisperToMe (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Color Play Asia"?[edit]

The article does not make clear what "Color Play Asia" is. Is it a theme park? Is it a band? Is it a costume festival? Could some kind person describe what "Color Play Asia" is? Thanks in advance. Diphthong (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Color Play Asia is the name of the party and/or the organisation promoting the party. Davidreid (talk) 06:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Diphthong (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nightclub?[edit]

Does this article belong in the "Nightclub fires" category? The accident occurred on a stage during an evening concert, but I am not sure this is the same environment as a nightclub... ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "See also" entry has been disputed, so that Cat seems a bit tentative. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured rather than going back and forth, we could have a discussion about any nightclub-related links and come to a consensus. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the category and See also entry are inappropriate. This event was not at a nightclub, nor was it a structure fire as are all the others in the list at the link/the category. The only commonality is that people were dancing when a fire occurred. General Ization Talk 23:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The see also section should have at least one article in it. I had nightclub fires as "concert fires" but Anna Frodesiak moved it back (Talk:List of nightclub fires). I thought that there were recent ones with stage lights falling over and igniting curtains, or being placed too close to flammable material. There are multiple events per year of stage lights causing theatre fires. Maybe there should be a category like "famous fires" that would include Category:Theatre fires with the Iroquois Theatre fire and the Richmond Theatre fire, 1994 Karamay fire. Or maybe "stage light safety" - Stage lights fell on Curtis Mayfield and gas lights killed Emma Livry.
I just feel like there should be something in the see also. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A 'see also' section is not required, so we can simply remove it altogether if we don't think the nightclub articles is relevant enough. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for "*outdoor* nightclub" gets over 10,000,000 hits, including those for "indoor/outdoor nightclub". Also, "open air nightclub" gets 5,800,000 hits. The essence of a nightclub is the presence of a dance floor and music, usually from a DJ (disk jockey) but sometimes live music, and usually after dark, often into the early morning. The venue is characterized more by the equipment setup and the activities, and not a particular architectural structure or building. For example, nightclubs are common on cruise ships, both indoors and outdoors. Other venues include abandoned or redeveloped industrial sites (such as MassMOCA) or other improvised indoor or outdoor locations. There may be impromptu dancing at many pop music concerts, but they aren't set up for dancing the way that nightclub venues are set up. The presence or absence of audience seating is a strong indicator of whether a location is set up as a "concert" or as a "club" for dancing. Reify-tech (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This event and others like it are to a nightclub as a hot dog vendor on the street is to a restaurant. Yes, the primary purpose of both is to sell food, and they may both have flatware, condiments and napkins available, but they are not the same thing. A nightclub is not a one-time event or a transient enterprise. This was an event that replicated many of the circumstances of a nightclub in an outdoor setting, but that does not make the setting or the event an "outdoor nightclub". General Ization Talk 15:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By that criterion, "outdoor concerts" are impossible unless they take place in a "concert hall". The essence is the setup and the activities, not necessarily a dedicated single-purpose space. Reify-tech (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should say that. When typing the above, I started to point out that the holding of an outdoor concert in a city park doesn't allow one to describe a city park as a "concert hall", but I decided it was too much off the main point. Guess it wasn't really. We are discussing descriptors for the event, not for the venue, which already has one (in this case "recreational water park"). Concert halls are purpose-built to permit and support a recurring program of musical events. The city park in my example remains a city park even when a concert occurs within it, and a concert is a concert wherever it may occur. I would be surprised to see a park mentioned at List of concert halls because a concert had occurred there. As a notable example, Central Park doesn't appear in that list despite this. General Ization Talk 16:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not an explosion, but a deflagration[edit]

Both National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards dealing with venting deflagrations (NFPA 68[1]) and preventing explosions (NFPA 69[2]) define "explosion" as the failure of a container caused by pressure (that is generated by expanding product of combustion gases) exceeding the strength of the container. Aside from unconfined vapour cloud explosions, incidents involving the air open combustion of combustible powders or dusts, or of flammable vapours, are deflagrations not explosions. This is not a semantics exercise. The material difference between deflagrations and explosions is that explosions have damaging over-pressures whereas deflagrations dissipate without generating damaging pressures.

The fatalities and injured in this very unfortunate incident are unlikely to have suffered injuries from over-pressure, but from thermal effects. Had there been an explosion, casualties would have included injuries due to barometric trauma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.174.60 (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While technically correct, this is an overly-technical distinction and not one recognized in our sources, which describe the event as an "explosion" and/or fire. The commonly understood usage of "explosion", even if technically incorrect, is the sudden and violent ignition of quantity of a flammable substance or material, whether or not contained. While there may not have been barometric effects, the eruption of the fire was both sudden and violent, as evidenced by the video. General Ization Talk 16:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ NFPA 68
  2. ^ NFPA 69

Maybe not a classical dust explosion, as in flour mills. Maybe a flammable propellant gas was used (by mistake?) to disperse the coloured powder.[edit]

I do not understand wiki's editing procedures, and am tired of trying to make sense of the jargon. Here's a link to my own blog, setting out my views on what may have led to this awful tragedy.

http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/what-really-caused-taiwan-water-park.html

Or should that be [1] Colin Berry

89.227.73.58 (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(There we are - four tildes. What kind of geekishness is that, requiring one to insert four tildes? Get a life ffs)

This is what is called original research on Wikipedia and is expressly forbidden in articles. As editors, we are not permitted to document and/or offer our own theories concerning our subjects. If you're able to find a reliable, published source that suggests this as a possible cause, you're welcome to include the theory with a citation of that source (your blog doesn't qualify). Otherwise, it has no place here. Sorry. General Ization Talk 02:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The prohibition on "Original research" makes no sense in the context of a current news item when all one wished to do is question the veracity of journalists' reporting.

What's more authoritative? A news item written quickly by a journalist, or an opinion offered by a specialist with a track record of peer-reviewed publication. Is the latter supposed to get his views published in Nature journal before they are considered suitable for wiki?

See my latest posting for what I think about your "No OR" policy when applied to non-academic issues that are the focus of interest in the MSM, where spedy correction of errors or oversights is essential, where wiki can play a role.

http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.fr/2015/07/message-to-wikipedia-do-stop-taking.html

No tildes this time (I added them 2 hours ago and my edit failed to appear)

Colin Berry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.227.37.163 (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the core Wikipedia policies linked above. I'm not going to debate them with you, as they are not negotiable. The four tildes (~~~~) are responsible for the signature and timestamp that appeared after your first post above. Please always sign your comments on Talk pages. General Ization Talk 19:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please see Fringe theories which I, having taken the time to read your blog entry (the one about the explosion, not the one about Wikipedia), believe certainly applies in this case. General Ization Talk 19:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/what-really-caused-taiwan-water-park.html

So, wikipedia is prepared to take the first reports of a current affairs topic, obtained from news agencies, official spokesmen etc, and use those to compose the wiki entry. Anyone who attempts to challend the official record, those 'first impressions', barely a day or two old, is told they are proposing "fringe theories" no matter who they are, no matter their track record for getting to the truth via systematic lines of questioning. This is quite frankly appalling. Wikipedia has no right to preempt discussion and comment on current affairs, essentially crystallizing the first reports as if certain truth.

You have made an enemy wikipedia. I intend to expose your shoddy methods, your contempt for scholarship, or even plain detective work by those of us with enquiring or critical minds.

I have compared you on my latest blog posting with Nurse Ratched from "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest".

Colin Berry

89.227.105.117 (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or, given the verbose and convoluted barbed wire with which your surround and protect yourself, I'll repeat that again in the reverse order, with the four tildes first and my name second. 89.227.105.117 (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Berry

Other café fires – NOT[edit]

@Koika: This article is about a specific fire. It makes sense to link to List of nightclub fires under "See also"; it does not make sense to mention individual other nightclub fires, unless they have some particularly close connection with this one. The Volendam New Year's fire has no such connection. It is included in List of nightclub fires, which is under "See also", and that's all the cross-reference it merits here. Therefore, I'm removing the mention. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Names of the park[edit]

The Chinese characters given in the article translate to "Eight Immortals Paradise", the name used for the park in at least one source. (See Formosa Fun Coast.) I've inserted the characters for "Formosa Fun Coast" alongside that name, and added "Eight Immortals Paradise" alongside the characters for that name. --Thnidu (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article status?[edit]

I've not been following this event closely, or making substantial edits to this Wikipedia article, but it seems to be of decent quality and coverage, so I wonder if anyone more familiar with the event might be interested in nominating it for Good status? Perhaps others might recognize that it is not of Good article quality, but I figured I'd throw the idea out there and see if anyone had thoughts on the matter. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, AB. I have never nominated before, but would be willing to give it a go. any tips? petrarchan47คุก 06:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The process is not too daunting, assuming the article is actually close to meeting GA criteria, which are outlined at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. What is most important is that the article is accurate, fully covers the topic, is written in accordance with WP's manual of style, and is neutral. If nominating for GA status is intimidating for any reason, you could always request a peer review beforehand and get some feedback about the article that way. Both reviews would likely occur a while after you nominated the article. If you decide to move forward, best of luck! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, you're very kind. petrarchan47คุก 00:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

numerical breakdown of injured[edit]

As of 23 July 2015, nine of the 495 injured had died and 171 remained in intensive care, with 171 still in critical condition. The injured were treated in 57 hospitals across Taiwan, with 171 in intensive care, 171 in ordinary wards, while 57 others were discharged from hospitals after treatment.

This looks both redundant and suspicious:

  • Completely redundant:
    • 171 "remain in intensive care".
    • 171 are "in intensive care".
  • Same number: coincidence or error? (Two sets):
    • 171:
      • in intensive care
      • critical
    • 57:
      • hospitals
      • patients discharged after treatment
  • Are critical patients kept in ordinary wards? Thnidu (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a mess - thanks for catching it. For now, I'm going to trim this bit to the essentials and hopefully find a source we can use to update. petrarchan47คุก 09:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Petrarchan47: We still have the two 57s. --Thnidu (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abrupt renaming of article[edit]

Somebody abruptly renamed the article from "Formosa Fun Coast explosion" to "2015 Bali water park explosion" without any prior discussion or warning, and contrary to Wikipedia policy WP:BEFOREMOVING. I strongly doubt that many people know of the incident under the new name, and most people associate "Bali" with the island in Indonesia, and not a district in New Taipei that happens to have the same name.

I think that the previous name is more appropriate, and will be recognized by far more people as describing the incident. Before restoring the old name, I am asking here if anybody has a better alternative idea of what the article should be named. If so, please discuss it here and get consensus, before implementing it. Reify-tech (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"cadaver skin"[edit]

'Response'......urgent donations of cadaver skin,

No mention of cadaver skin in linked article. It would seem to be a subset of "Allogeneic" but this is not explicit. While other skins (artificial, pig, fish) are now available, I find pricing for cadaver skin online so I assume it is not obsolete; anyway should be explained for historical completeness. ~~ PRR (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_New_Taipei_water_park_fire&oldid=1196690371"