Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

Mississauga house explosion on AfD

I have nominated an article within the scope of our project, Mississauga house explosion, to be deleted. Please join the discusion. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Disaster Mitigation and Risk Reduction and the term "Non-Structural"

Congrats on the work so far. And glad you are open to more inputs. Two general observations: "mitigation" is presently getting short shrift. In addition to "assessement" I think it should be expanded with "risk reduction measures" where the various types of risk reduction measures can be elaborated and links made to the other good material already available. Reading the archives we should try to keep this internationally relevant. N. American may provide examples, but good to keep them as such so that many other models can be offered side by side.

I'm distressed to see the huge categorization of "Structural" and "Non-Structural". This is using "structural" loosely to mean what engineers refer to as "load-bearing" which is an odd way to define the world of disaster risk reduction. The widespread use of the terms in this way does not qualify it as a NPOV. From a social scientist or community organizers pov it is just unhelpful.

In the area of physical risk reduction an important set of actions is known by the term "non-structural mitigation" and refers to fasten furnishings, building contents and non-structural building elements to reduce the impacts of falling, hitting, sliding and flying objects in earthquakes and windstorms. Is this "non-structural" really "structural" or is it a subset of the big non-structural? See, it gets confusing? Similarly is planting mangroves structural or non-structural?

Any objection to calling these categories: "physical risk reduction measures" and "social, political and educational risk reduction measures" instead and expanding the mitigation section to reveal this richness?

M Petal 17:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! I've been dinking with trying to wrestle Structural and Non-structural into separate corners. I would recommend using the word "mitigation" still as part of the label ("physical mitigation", etc) but I do like your suggestion of using non industrial terms. (And I fully support using "risk reduction" and similar wording throughout the narrative). --Parradoxx 00:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I am all for your suggestion MPetal. All we need is a reference using your suggestion as Original Research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Now we are using Alexander. Welcome to Wikipedia BTW! I suspect that we are colleagues IRL. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 13:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

2006 Milwaukee explosion

There is some discusion about renaming the above article on it's talk page. Although the new name goes against the naming convention, it is not without it's merrits, and should at least be considered. Please join the discusion. Thanks Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

2007 Iberian Peninsula earthquake

A newly created article. Please help update it. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 13:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire/archive1

Comments at the above peer review from members of this project would be greatly apreciated, I am pushing for FA status on this article. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Pressed on to the next stage. Please now see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Creation and Improvement Drive - Tunguska event

This article is a current candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive.
Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination.


The Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive is now closed. Please remove this template.

What is the point...

Just curious, what is the point in putting the Disaster management on a lot of tropical cyclone articles? The scope of the project is defined as any article relating to policies as well as implementations of disaster management. However, is there really a need to include it in every single landfalling tropical cyclone? The template was recently added to Tropical Depression One (1992), which has very little related to disaster management. I just wanted to get a word on this. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, historically the disasters articles form a nice subset. This WikiProject should theoretically cover both the management of disasters and the history of disasters, despite the name. I tried to generate interest in a historical subset, working group, separate group, what-have-you, but not really enough. FWIW, hurricanes and other weather events are well covered by the Tropical Cyclones and Meteorology WikiProjects. I suspect that the other large categories of non-weather disasters are also covered by things like the Aviation WikiProject (air crashes), though as far as I know there are no WikiProjects on Earthquakes. Military History WP covers wars and stuff. Industrial disasters would be a nice group of articles for some people to work on. What would you suggest is the best way to handle this? Carcharoth 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess I sort of see the point, though it seems like attempting to cover the history of disasters is making the project needlessly large. I would think the best way to handle it is including only those that did have significant problems or successes in the management of disasters. Some tropical cyclones would and should still be included, such as Katrina or Andrew, though I'm not sure where an appropriate cutoff would be. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you can integrate the templates? that's what we did over at WP:PLANTS with the carnivorous plants and Banksia projects.Circeus 21:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe that could work. I'm really not sure, now. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I must say I like the idea of integrated templates. I feel kinda silly adding the tag when it's already covered by the Tropical Cyclones project. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If it's not too much work, then I suppose it's a good idea. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the project is renamed to WP Disasters. "Disaster management" inherently less-clear - do the effects of a minor TD have anything to do with disaster management? Because of POV issues the scope of the project should exclude War, "Terrorism" and other conflicts of that nature; but include natural disasters and things like plane crashes. If this was done, then this project could act as a central clearing house for disaster-related projects: for instance "how should we best present monetary cost of disasters?" is relevant to all projects with disasters in their remit. As it is not entirely clear if ALL tropical cyclones would be within the scope of this project (could you really say Tropical Storm Lee (2005) is)? If the project members here want it, I will edit {{hurricane}} to do the following:

  • Add an optional disaster parameter - if =yes then it is included in this projects scope.
  • This will add it to the WP 1.0 categories for the project (which are not hard to establish, again if you want that say), in a similar manner to how the meteorology ratings are handled: automatically use the WPTC class but leave the importance blank for editors of this project to determine.

If we can get it established successfully for WPTC and its template; then we can make similar modifications to other templates that relate.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Renaming the project would be wrong. We could, however, create a subproject named Disasters. There are a lot of issues relating to Disaster/Emergency management that we have not yet covered. As for the scope of the disastrous events that we want to cover it should include human-induced, sociological and natural disasters. For my professional work, I use EM-DAT and GLIDE as references for what to define as a disaster. An integrated template for cyclones/hurricanes sounds like a great idea. It could also be useful to discuss whether we want include the GLIDE identifiers in the articles. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 10:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason I suggested that is when I see the tag on TC articles I get a bit confused; there is little info on disaster management in the typical article on a disaster. "Disaster management" is a clearly a subconcept of "disasters" themselves. The scope of this project would be unaffected it just clears the definitions up with this sort of thing.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should keep our existing structure - all disasters are included - but rename the project to 'WikiProject Disasters and disaster management', since both halfs of the equation - disasters and management - are likely to be of interest to exactly the same set of people, and might as well be treated together. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Someone be bold and do this, please, then we can get back to writing articles. We don't have one on Valparaiso earthquake for example - killed 20,000 people in Chile in 1906... Carcharoth 15:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll do it at some pint, but I'd need a list of everything that needs changed, since renaming an established project is a very major change and causes all sorts of things requiring rejigging (if you see what I mean). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
An easy, naughty, way of doing it would be to create WP Disasters as a subproject and move all disasters there. Currently, that would leave WP:DM quite empty in terms of articles, but there are enough potential articles out there to justify the project. Just an idea. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 07:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know - moving the template on every disaster article already tagged would be a Hell of a lot of work. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 06:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I hate it when I come into a discussion late! What is the current status of this discussion/current action being taken? I think rxnd's idea - creating WP Disasters as a subproject - is the right way to go (seems more intuitive), even if its the most labor intensive. I also like Nilfanion's suggestion of adding a parameter. Both of these things are way into the mechanics of Wiki, which I'm sooo not into; but if someone shows me what must be done, I'll certainly donate keyboard time as I can. Parradoxx 04:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, not too late. Current situation is this has frustratingly fizzled out - so reviving the discusion is good. I guess if people have the time, then go for that aproach - but we need to know we have the people and the time before we commit ourselves - maybe something bot-assisted? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 French coach crash for deletion

Mention since it seems in the scope of this project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 French coach crash.Circeus 21:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Project Award????

Are we gonna make a project award? Or are we gonna stay like this and I'll be template boy?--Pupster21 19:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

GA nominee: Civil engineering and infrastructure repair in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina

The article on Civil engineering and infrastructure repair in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina has been nominated for GA status. I think that it should be interesting for some of the participants in our project. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 18:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Major clean up of Disaster

FYI, I will try to clean up Disaster as per my descripton here. Comments and help will be appreciated. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 12:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Disaster management" of labor struggles?

I have created an inquiry about what (some of) you folks are doing, here:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organized_Labour#.22Disaster_Management.22_of_labor_struggles.3F

best wishes, Richard Myers 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sup?

Hey guys, I decieded to join due to my large interest in disasters. I am currently helping in keeping the Virginia Tech massacre article updated, so I gotta run, I just thought I would pop in to say "hi". Karrmann 20:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the project, and nice work on the VA Tech tradgedy. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Columbine High School massacre

Input at the FAR above is appreciated. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre

I felt that people might want to come and share their views at the above debate. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Massascre

The motives section of the Virginia Tech Massacre was deleted probably because the article was too long. Stalking is a serious issue particularly on college campuses. The narrative in the section on Cho's motives alluded to his stalking female students and disturbing behavior in the classroom. The section was probably deleted to make the article shorter, but by making the article shorter it left out valuable information that may prevent further death. By minimizing the importance of stalking incidents, females do not report the incidents, do not go to court to get a protection order, no action is taken against the stalker (including serious psychiatric intervention) and sometimes this leads to deadly consequences. In fact, if only a single female were killed by a stalker or a domestic violence incident, there would not even be a reference in Wikipedia. In some jurisdictions, reports of stalking result in legal intervention and in others multiple reports accumulate and no action is taken. If more follow-up had been done in 2005 when the first complaints were made against Cho perhaps 33 more people would be alive today. Cherylyoung 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


AfD that has overtones for the project

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brisbane Light Plane Crash is about a general aviation aircraft crash. We do not, at this point, have notability criteria that can be applied directly, but we probably should come up with something. I'd appreciate it if members would take a look, voice their opinion, and consider how this can lead us to better criteria. Thanks! Akradecki 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Columbine High School massacre FAR

Columbine High School massacre has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Airreg

Template:Airreg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — --Aude (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This template facilitates external links (often within body text in an article) for aircraft ID numbers. The vast majority of links are to a particular site that way over does the advertising, in relation to useful information given for aircraft ID numbers. --Aude (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Adam Air Flight 574/archive1

Please go to the above peer review and leave comments as I push this article towards featured status!

Bridge disasters categorisation

There is some discussion going on about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges#Bridge failures category. -- Paddu 04:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the points raised in that discussion is whether all engineering failures are disasters. Specifically, it has been suggested that Millennium Bridge (London) was an engineering failure that wasn't a disaster. In the light of this, should we rethink about having Category:Engineering failures as a descendant of Category:Disasters? -- Paddu 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens FAR

1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 13:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sustainable development Portal

I recently started The Sustainable development Portal and offered it up for portal peer review to help make it a feature portal down the road. Please feel free to to help improve the portal and/or offer your input at the portal peer review. Thanks. RichardF 17:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sustainable development Portal now is a Featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. RichardF 02:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

RMS Titanic FAR

RMS Titanic has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)