Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
  1. Disaster definition, scope & structure
  2. Event naming convention
  3. Jan 2006 - Jun 2006
  4. Jul 2006 - Dec 2006
  5. Jan 2007- Jun 2007


Contents

[edit] Template:Disaster‎ created

Hi, this is a heads-up to inform everyone that I have created Template:Disaster‎, a template for starting disaster-related articles similar to Template:Biography. Comments are welcome. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency page

Hi there, I have been looking at trying to edit the page Emergency, which falls under the remit of the disaster management wikiproject. It is currently a mix between an article and disambiguation page. I suggest turning it in to an article, and moving the other content out to Emergency (disambiguation). This has been the subject of some debate and i have now created a sample article which can be found here (in my name space), and the debate as to whether this will be suitable is on the Talk:emergency page. I would appreciate the input of anyone in the project who has feelings either way as to whether this should be an article! Many thanks in advance Owain.davies 07:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NGOs

I notice some articles mentoning the Red Cross, while there literally is an army of other non-governmental organizations, some of them national, some international. Below mention of the official department of governmental to manage disaster recovery, perhaps sub-section linking to organizations that are the equivalent of Salvation Army, other religious groups, and non-religious charities that get involved in disaster relief. User:AlMac|(talk) 22:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Air accident task force

When the Aviation WikiProject was reconstituted a few months ago, provision was made for an "Air accident task force", but the task force was not formally established at that time. Since we seem to have a fairly dedicated group of editors who are spending time on this subject, and since there's been discussion of developing some notability and other guidelines, I thought it was time to start putting electrons on screen to establish the task force. Currently, I've started the group's page at one of my sandboxes, and I'd like to invite any and all interested folk to join in drafting the material. Since this task force stradles the line between this WikiProject and Aviation, I'm starting this out as a joint effort between the two Projects. Akradecki 16:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accident/incident notabilility guidelines discussion

Given that there have been a number of AfD discussions relating the borderline notable aviation accidents and incidents (such as United Airlines Flight 897 and especially Brisbane Light Plane Crash), I've initiated a discussion of developing some project-based notability criteria over at the Aviation accident task force talk page. Though this is a task force project, because the issue is fairly significant, I am seeking input from the entire project. Thanks! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of disasters

This page is way too long and should direct readers to other lists.

This is my plan, basically all the sections would link to somewhere else:

– Zntrip 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ckimpson

A new incarnation of user:Cgkimpson, who created tornado-related hoaxes. Please watchlist Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cgkimpson. Circeus 20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This user is again back to old tricks, please monitor edits. Evolauxia (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zaca Fire

Now that the Zaca Fire has crossed the 150,000 acre mark, I decided it was high time to at least start a stub on it. Additions invited. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Air Flight 574

There is currently a large-scale collaboration effort underway to bring this article up to FA standard. Any help on this undertaking would be greatly apreciated. Also, Hamlet chicken processing plant fire has been requested to be Today's Featured Article in a few day's time, if it is accepted, people should be on hand ready to sort out any problems/questions the exposure causes. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9-1-1 dispatch

The English Wikipedia has a fine article about the 9-1-1 emergency number, but I miss an article describing the functions it manages. Such article could describe how calls are received and how alarms are send out. I am currently working on a Danish article about this function and I try to include some international aspects. --|EPO| da: 18:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for article on the Hexayurt

An article on the Hexayurt would be very worthwhile, I believe. However as it's a colleague's project, it's better if someone else starts it. More info (including NY Times ref) at Talk:Emergency_management#Hexayurt. --Chriswaterguy talk 15:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1755 Lisbon earthquake

1755 Lisbon earthquake 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.--Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UTC?

I noticed a lot of articles about earthquakes (although not all) seem to use UTC as the primary time not local time, even some featured articles 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. However this doesn't really seem to agree with WP:MOSNUM#Time zones. I appreciate that UTC is prefered in a scientific context and also given that earthquakes can affect places in multiple timezones it can get confusing but personally I still feel the WP:MOSNUM#Time zones recommendation is best and we should use local time of the epicentre. Comments? Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Earthquakes, I beleive (but I stand to be corrected on this) are extensively studied even in the context of individual cases by the scientific community. As a result, there will likely be an unwritten rule to use UTC, and I can sympathise with that. But at the same time, in the context of the history of an area, as you say, local time is better. I propose that we should state the local time, then add the equivilant UTC time in brackets. This also saves readers looking up different time zones, particularly in cross-zone events. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Using both times should be standard, as well as some description, eg. makng clear whether the local time is before or after local sunrise/sunset, and what the weather was like and the time of year. There is a difference between an earthquake striking in the middle of a freezing winter's night, and one that strikes at 4pm in the afternoon on a hot summer's day, or one that strikes at sunset during a heavy storm. Carcharoth (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Good points... In other words as in 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake it should be 07:58:53 local time (00:58:53 UTC) rather then what it is now. This isn't a big issue obviously but one I wanted to make when I noticed this. It perhaps matters most when it comes to events that have a large time difference from UTC and also when it means a different date in local time, e.g. 2006 Kamchatka earthquakes. Or using a made up example, if a major earthquake were to hit Wellington tomorrow at 12:30 in the afternoon, it would surely be remembered as the 15th December 2007 earthquake by most of us New Zealanders, not the 14th December one (what 14th December 2007 earthquake???) and for the average readers point of view, it's usually more meaningful to know it happened in the early afternoon of 15th December (a Saturday) in Wellington not on the 14th December just before midnight UTC (except when your trying to work out when it happened in your local time which is one of the reasons we should also obviously provide the time in UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming 1703 Genroku earthquake?

Please note that this has been posted simultaneously at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Renaming 1703 Genroku earthquake?.‎ --Ooperhoofd (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have take the liberty to move all current and past discussions on the naming convention to a new page here and the existing conventions here. The discussion can continue there in a more coordinated manner. My conclusion is that all discussion so far have pointed to the convention being a guideline to be followed when there is no existing name for the event. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 09:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First transport accident with Nitroglycerine

This event with Wells Fargo in San Francisco could warrant an article on its own. It is current only mentioned in passing in the Nitroglycerine article. Any takers? --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 13:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Air Flight 574

The above article, which falls into the scope of this project, is up for WP:FA. Please leave comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adam Air Flight 574. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natural disaster vs Natural hazard

Dear disaster managers, I come to you for guidance. I've come across Natural hazard while categorising things, reverted it to an earlier, seemingly forgotten version and cleaned up a bit. Then I came across natural disaster which seems to be if not a photocopy then something utterly similar. In light of all the hot talk around these two articles within the past few months (like this merge tag and this short discussion), I ask for your help on what to do. My proposal is to merge both articles into one, but which name would be more appropriate? Eager to read your input. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 16:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have commented on this on the Natural disaster talkpage. Today I will go on and implement my suggested changes. Any comments from WP:DM members or others are welcome. --rxnd (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I have now made the transition of material from natural disaster to natural hazard. Seeing that the Natural hazard article basically is the old natural disaster article, there was not much material left to put in the natural disaster article. I would hence appreciate any help to expand the natural disaster article. Please keep in mind that the disasters are past and current events and that hazards are the phenomena and threat. In the process on making the split, I discovered that there is a lot of work to do with the disaster-related lists, such as list of disasters. The natural disaster article is in essence a portal to the disaster lists, which list of disasters also is. This needs to be ironed out. --rxnd (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ckimpson

For those who remember this user, see this article. "Cameron Kimpson" is probably active around somewhere, so keep an eye out. Circeus (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie Ho and Air France Flight 358

User:Eddiehosa removed a paragraph discussing Eddie Ho's photography of the AF358 evacuation and the controversy surrounding taking photographs during an evacuation. See: Talk:Air_France_Flight_358#Eddie_Ho_and_the_picture_taking_controversy WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North American ice storm of 1998 GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed North American ice storm of 1998 and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues concerning sourcing that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with other WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Assessment

We discussed the introduction of Article Assessment in the latter part of 2006 (see archive), but we did not get all the way to launch it. Could someone who is experienced with it have a look at our Assessment template (WP:DM#Assessments) and add scales for importance and quality. It would be nice to have something like that of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment. --rxnd (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I have augmented the template to include assessments for Class and Importance, and I have also created the consequent category hierarchy. __meco (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, your addition to the template is what triggered my post above. Good initiative from your side! To clarify my post, my intention is to develop Disaster management-specific scales for Importance and, if relevant, Quality. Our project encompasses two main concepts: (1) disaster events, and (2) emergency management-related tools, methods and concepts. For the importance we would hence have to develop duplicate recommendations, i.e. what is a disaster with high importance and what is a emergency management concept with high importance. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to liaise with our related projects/task forces, e.g. WP:AIRCRASH. Before that, we need to develop a draft similar to the Assessment guideline of the Medicine WikiProject above. --rxnd (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)