Talk:2018 Yilan train derailment

Significant photos
for example: 1, 2, 3

Title
According to Naming conventions (events), the year is not need only when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. There is likely to be more than one derailment in Yilan, so the year is needed. Szqecs (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would future derailments be likely? Past ones weren't. If we were concerned about how anything might happen, we'd preemptively attach currently useless qualifiers to everything. Best to wait until hypothethical similar events actually happen before distinguishing the only one, particularly given WP:COMMONNAME. "Yilan trail derailment" trails the less-precise "Taiwan trail derailment", but no source at all mentions a "2018 Yilan train derailment". InedibleHulk (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The guideline you linked clearly says "Bridge collapses and train wrecks should be named according to the "where and what" convention." List of rail accidents (2010–present) shows this advice is sometimes followed, sometimes not. I'd like to think this rule of thumb is only ignored for good reason, but I doubt it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Why would future derailments be likely? There has been seven derailments in the past two years in Taiwan.
 * The guideline you linked clearly says "Bridge collapses and train wrecks should be named according to the "where and what" convention." Sure. But I don't suppose you would name the article Taiwan train derailment or Earth train derailment right? That clause does not take disambiguation into consideration, so it is often ignored. Yilan is a reasonably-sized county, so the level of disambiguation needed would be Su'ao train derailment, but compared with the current name it is less recognisable. However, 'Yilan' can refer to either Yilan City or Yilan County, so Su'ao train derailment is perhaps better. Szqecs (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Seven derailments in Taiwan, perhaps, but any notable ones in this reasonably-sized county over the past (however long trains have run there)? If not, that indicates sufficient uniqueness to me. "Su'ao train derailment" is better in its precision, but probably worse in familiarity and there's nary a source online that calls this that (in English, anyway). That's about all I've left toward this argument, I'll leave the decision to you. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 *  Comment - I have started an RFC below regarding the article title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on article title
I have started a request for comment to determine the proper title for this article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is premature (the above section was a good start). Nevertheless, I think the current name is appropriate - see, for example, the similar incidents listed at the bottom, or look at a list of railway accidents (for example, the template at the bottom). All follow the same "[Year] [Place] train derailment" format, some omitting the year (because there's no need to) and some using terms other than "train derailment", but those are minor details. WP:COMMONNAME might be the usual policy for this kind of stuff, but it is only a guideline not an absolute. The real criteria we should be looking at are outlined at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Going criteria by criteria:
 * Recognizability: Now, of course sources tend to use "Taiwan" (hint: maybe because the majority of the Western world wouldn't have a clue where "Yilan" is), but they usually tend to add "in Yilan county" or some other form of precision about the location, usually in the first sentence. No reason we shouldn't. Additionally, per WP:COMMONNAME, "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."
 * Naturalness: Goes with the above. There's nothing which prevents us creating a redirect from "2018 Taiwan train derailment" to here, if need be.
 * Precision: Unambiguously refers to this particular incident.
 * Conciseness: Yes, no explanation needed here.
 * Consistency: the comment I made above about similar articles ("[Year] [Place] train derailment") seems quite convincing, no need to repeat it.
 * 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: Maybe best would be 2018 Xinma station train derailment, since that is exactly where the train derailed (passing through the station)?


 *  Comment - Pinging and . --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Year. Not Taiwanese but can read Chinese. There is another train related accident in 2007 (zh:2007年臺鐵大里車站列車事故) in Toucheng, Yilan, train collision. Western media may use Taiwan (or English media in Asia), but it seem overseas Chinese media (such as Oriental Daily) use more precise Yilan for the 2018 event. Su'ao is too precise and not popular in the source. The rest just follow [Year] [Place] train derailment format (e.g. 2017 Washington train derailment). Matthew hk (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 2018 Taiwan train derailment may be a good redirect to be created. BBC use Taiwan and then Yilan in the article title, and may be no other major derailment in Taiwan this year. Matthew hk (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No objection here, you can go ahead and create it yourself. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yilan train derailment is still my preference, though I also still believe that's about all I've left toward this argument and will leave the decision to you, and am just repeating myself because I was pinged. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not something like Puyuma Train Derailment or 2018 Puyuma Train Derailment? Puyuma being the name of the train involved. A.K.R. (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because while WP:COMMONNAME allows us to not use the name given by reliable sources if that name is not precise enough, it doesn't allow us to make up names as we fancy. In this case, we need to compromise between a recognizable name and a precise name, and, no ill will, but your suggestion isn't either of those. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal
Could you explain why this was removed? The material is sourced directly from the BBC article: both the driver statement, the prosecutor's opinion and the speed limit are taken almost verbatim from the source, with changes to avoid copyvio. The Taiwan News quote was rewritten (to be able to include the speed information, but also...) because it's not the newspapers opinion, rather it's a statement of fact about the investigators' opinion (as reported by Taiwan News), which doesn't require attribution (no need to tell if it's the BBC [note: which says the same thing too ], the New York Times or whichever other source). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It is now restored.  DabitDodo  talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong version. Should be this version (15:32, 23 October 2018‎). Thanks 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Or maybe, just add it back manually (copy paste from the diff), avoids removing the things which were added since. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure it's a misclick too, and I'd fix it if I could, as described above. Thanks, 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, the user had been reported to ANI and at the same time blocked by checkuser.... Matthew hk (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Should have guessed there was a WP:CIR issue. Now I'll wait till the protection is over and I'll fix it myself, ... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)