Talk:Torre Ejecutiva Pemex explosion

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Torre Ejecutiva Pemex explosion article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A news item involving Torre Ejecutiva Pemex explosion was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 February 2013.

Wikipedia

This page incorporates content from Explosión de la Torre Ejecutiva Pemex de 2013, a page hosted on another Wikimedia Foundation project. Please consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 31, 2018 and January 31, 2021.

Death C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Explosives

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives 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.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

From the Spanish article[edit]

I have added incident aftermath and timeline sections which are translated from the Spanish article. Can someone who knows how add the requisite template reflecting this? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added Template:Interwiki copy. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of poor references[edit]

Please, oh please can we stop adding the mainly unreferenced "timeline" to this article, at least until it's no longer on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Except for the one single line marked reference needed every item is either refd in the timeline or in the body already. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good call, 13 lines without in-line references, and a bunch of entirely messed up references added to an article on the main page of Wikipedia. Pure genius. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Twitter-related terminology[edit]

I noticed that the article uses the word "tweet" and related terms to refer to Twitter posts. I feel that this is non-neutral in a subtle way -- to fully understand this article, you must accept Twitter's marketing terminology. I would prefer more descriptive terms like "Twitter post" or "Twitter message". Does anyone know if there are any style guidelines pertaining to this? 138.16.21.199 (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean, however most major media outlets use the word "tweet" as the accepted terminology for a post on Twitter. -- LuK3 (Talk) 05:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. If you don't know what a "tweet" is, then you likely don't know what Twitter is. Hiberniantears (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three disappeared[edit]

There are three people missing. Let's stay tuned. [1] ComputerJA (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drug cartel[edit]

So I'm hearing stories that authorities are withholding information that it was drug cartel related because it sheds light on the incompetence of the administrations "War on drugs". Any truth?

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.169.187 (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard about those rumors too, but nothing has been confirmed. ComputerJA (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cause[edit]

Preliminary reports indicate that gas accumulation was the cause of the explosion. [2] ComputerJA (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible writing, awful article[edit]

this: "The building was completely evacuated in the minutes following the explosion.[6] In the hours after the blast, about 30 people were reported to be trapped in debris,[6] and searches continued into the next day, as Pemex CEO Emilio Lozoya said there were indications that some people remained under the rubble.[7]"

is contradictory the building was EITHER "completely evacuated in the minutes following the explosion" OR "In the hours after the blast, about 30 people were reported to be trapped in debris"]

could do with a total rewrite too! 188.220.151.59 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you see any mistakes, you can correct the grammar/spelling errors yourself. ComputerJA (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading article title: The main tower was not involved at all[edit]

This article must be revised to change its present title, as the main building (Tower) was not involved at all in the explosion. It needs to refer to "Edificio B-2" as this was the building affected by the explosion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.20 (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is truth in what you say. Abductive (reasoning) 16:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]