Talk:2006 Falk Corporation explosion

Renaming
I think that the article should be renamed to include the company name as in the case of the PEPCON disaster. After all, those injured and killed were concentrated to the company and not spread over the city (correct me if am wrong). My suggestion Falk corporation explosion. --  rxnd  ( t  |  &#8364;  |  c  ) 11:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Whilst, generally speaking, I would opose such a move, in this instance I am going to (albeit, a little reluctantly) agree since it puts the article into a better context, as you rightly say. Also, this is an encyclopaedic record, so we have to think of it in the terms of a historic event (even if it is tagged as a current event), meaning that in 5-10 years time someone may not immediatly be reminded simply by the present title about the subject, but the one suggested is more likely to jog people's memory, which is what a descriptive title should, by definition, do. However, I'd recommend leaving the move 'till the AfD is complete, just in case it screws it up in unforseen ways (but I wouldn't expect that anyway). Blood red sandman 17:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the change, and I agree with waiting. Parradoxx 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Referring to this as the 2006 Milwaukee explosion is an appropriate title. The event is directly related to the city as well as the company. Renaming it the Falk explosions makes it seem not very important or significant.++ aviper2k7 ++ 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:DM has recently decided upon an official naming convention for disasters. The article currently follows the convention, so we should keep it that way. Renaming as proposed would violate the convention. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart  -  Receive My EviLove  11:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I think Falk Corporation explosion would be more appropriate. The current title is just weird to me. Putting a year in the title implies there are notable Milwaukee explosions in other years. (I can't think of any in recent memory, and I'm from Milwaukee.) Also I don't see how a WikiProject can determine something like this, as so many disaster articles already exist which don't conform to WP:DM's naming convention. See LZ 129 Hindenburg, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (recent FA - neither of which indicate a location or year in the title. --Fang Aili talk 22:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... this is going nowhere - as a low traffic article, there simply arem't enought interested readers passing by. I'm going to put in a request for discusion at WP:DM. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart  -  Receive My EviLove  19:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that in cases like this, where an event probably doesn't have a recognised name, we have to use a descriptive one. Following the recently established disasters naming convention is one possibility, though that convention shouldn't be applied rigidly. If another name is better, use that instead. Also, it is best to make a sustained effort to try and see whether a name has 'taken hold' in the media an literature, and use that. Then use lots of redirects to cover 4-5 other possible names, based on what people might search for. The categories should cover these as well. The point about descriptive names is that they are malleable, and change over time. Close to the event in time, there seems little need to mention the date, and the location is used to identify the event. A few centuries later, the date becomes more important than the location. In the local area, there is little need to identify the location, and the date is often used to name the event. Compare Good Friday Earthquake with Great Alaska Earthquake and 1964 Alaska earthquake. The other thing is, that though this event seems notable now, it is possible that in 100 years time, it will be no more than a footnote in history. So my advice is to create a lot of redirects, see what name is most commonly used to refer to the event, and if that fails, toss a coin. And remember to put common names used for the event in bold in the first few sentences. Carcharoth 20:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now moved the article to the present title - 2006 Falk Corporation explosion. Note the year is nescesary as Falk had two other explosions (see the article), including a fatal one that damaged a vehicle almost a mile away, and is almost certainly notable in it's own right. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart  -  Receive My EviLove  21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Review by: IvoShandor

More Specific Comments:


 * Criteria #1: Well written.


 * Prose:
 * Less than compelling. Quite choppy at parts. The first paragraph of the 'Falk Corporation' section should probably be rewritten for a better flow.
 * Use far less time dependent terminology, such as 'recently,' 'to date' and similar phrases, they can quickly become outdated and make an article harder to maintain.
 * Structure
 * 'Legal action' could probably be merged with 'Aftermath', it is something that could be construed as a slant in the article against the company.
 * MOS
 * Copy edit the entire thing, have some users unassociated with the article look over sometimes it is easy to miss one's own mistakes.
 * Perhaps some non notable red links in here, perhaps, the affiliated projects surely would have a better idea than I.


 * Criteria #2: Verifiable
 * Decent I wonder, though, are there any voices from outside of the Milwaukee area?


 * Criteria #3: Thoroughness
 * Fairly thorough coverage, although I question if the talk about previous Falk disasters is necessary. As it automatically asserts in the reader's mind, this is obviously the company's fault, look they have a record, that info would be more pertinent to the Falk Corporation article under a history section. It looks almost as if you are trying to establish precedent for the explosion.


 * Criteria #4: NPOV
 * Fair representation:
 * This criteria needs to be worked on. The Falk Corporation section has one subsection, a prominent, 'Previous disasters involving the Falk Corporation,' is there nothing else related to the article topic that is worthy of a subsection. It creates POV at just a glance, a reader needn't even read the article to see which way it is slanted.
 * Certainly the company launched its own investigation as well?
 * Terms like 'although' and 'however' are sneaky POV words.
 * The sparse mentioning of the company involvement needs to be worked on. The only things mentioned are blame casting, a donation, but surely they haven't stood idly by and not investigated the events, what has the company said about that day. That's important for POV, despite the inclusion of the bits about their donation and plans to rebuild.
 * See comment under Criteria #2 above.
 * See comment under Criteria #3 above.


 * Criteria #5: Stable
 * Yes

IvoShandor 09:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Criteria #6: Images
 * No images. Free use is probably hard to come by, unless you or someone you know took some pictures. But I am inclined to think that a fair use justification may be applicable, someone else would know more. This criteria didn't affect my decision. Images are nice though.

Comments

 * If I had a camera at the time, I would've had a picture (drove right by it). I guess you can't claim fair use then. Maybe we could make a diagram of the impact, I'd be happy if you give me a rough sketch. I can also see if I can take a picture of the building now.++ aviper2k7 ++ 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, those would certainly help. I'm also hopeful that once the official investigation ends the final report will contain some public-domain images we can use, too. My only other comment to add in response to the above is that, so far as I can tell, the Falk Corporation did not launch it's own investigation. All other issues will be resolved over coming weeks. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart  -  Receive My EviLove  07:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If it is the case that they did not launch an investigation, confirm and add that. I tweaked my template so I tweaked the stuff above. Glad to hear that those involved with the article are moving on the other stuff. I think this article has great potential. Has anyone considered adding a current event tag to it? Might qualify. As for the photos, that's too bad, you never know, maybe someone will come along and ul them to Commons or something. I like the idea of some sort of graphic illustration, it could greatly enhance the article. Good luck and happy editing.IvoShandor 07:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I doubt the whole article qualifies, I've place a tag stating that the section on the legal issues is current (when the info is merged, the aftermath section will pick up that tag). To aviper2k7 - if it would help for producing a diagram of the building, I may be able to track down some arial images I saw of the plant before and after the explosion on a JS article. I don't know if it will be nescescary, though, as I have never personally seen the structure in question, so maybe you can see it easily enough for it without the photos? Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart  -  Receive My EviLove  17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/othercities/milwaukee/stories/2006/12/25/story2.html
 * In 2006 Falk Corporation explosion on 2011-05-26 02:02:24, 404 Not Found
 * In 2006 Falk Corporation explosion on 2011-06-13 17:33:22, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 2006 Falk Corporation explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110525145201/http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/othercities/milwaukee/stories/2006/12/25/story2.html to http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/othercities/milwaukee/stories/2006/12/25/story2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2006 Falk Corporation explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070119024426/http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/10496204/detail.html to http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/10496204/detail.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310041900/http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=538906 to http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=538906
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150725065346/http://www.biztimes.com/article/20070926/ENEWSLETTERS02/309269988/ to http://www.biztimes.com/article/20070926/ENEWSLETTERS02/309269988/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207141416/http://falk.rexnord.com/index1024.asp to http://falk.rexnord.com/index1024.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928010937/http://images.todaystmj4.com/documents/LawSuit1.pdf to http://images.todaystmj4.com/documents/LawSuit1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928010923/http://images.todaystmj4.com/documents/LAWSUIT.pdf to http://images.todaystmj4.com/documents/LAWSUIT.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)