Talk:2024 Mangaf building fire

List of victims not needed
@അദ്വൈതൻ, we don't need a list of every single victim by name. It's not encyclopedic and the list you added did not have a RS. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Cease the deletion of others contribution that too with Reliable Source.
 * Addition of the List is in progress, with Citation അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What is your argument for adding every single name? What value does it add for the reader? If it is available at a RS, the reader can pursue it there. It entirely clutters the page and distracts from the main content of the entry. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lives lost, Victims and whereabouts are the central piece of information in incidence such as these. Else what is the purpose of this page if victims are not worthy of mention. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because it is reliably sourced does not automatically mean it is WP:DUE. Unfortunately, what you have done is turning this encyclopedic article into an obituary. Suggest you learn about WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:MEMORIAL. Borgenland (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Furthermore your edits have just been flagged for WP:COPYVIO, which is also a serious offence for an editor to make here. Borgenland (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:COPYVIO is understood.
 * See WP:CASL for the inclusion of Names of Casualties. Unlike English speaking world, lives lost in incidence such as these here in South Asia are given importance including their status before death. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears you left out Victim lists at the very bottom. And the fact that South Asians have their own POV regarding such matters does not mean they automatically set the precedent for writing articles such as these. Borgenland (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would second the points made by Borgenland, the Victims List guidence provided by Wikipedia gives a good guide on what should be considered. One key point from WP:Victims List is that this applies to the english speaking world and thus could vary for non-English speaking countries. Jurisdicta (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the key point is that WP:VICTIMLIST applies to the english speaking world and it varies here in the page for non-English speaking countries. It clearly states the example of Finns, doesn't it make any difference here? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * not enough English Wikipedians in the essay refers to those working in English Wikipedia, not countries of origin. If you want to bloat the page with an exhaustive victim list maybe you could do it in your native Wikipedia but the rules in the English version makes what you want less likely to be accepted. Borgenland (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So the English wikipedia rules doesn't apply for Jokela school shooting and other these kinds of non-English Western wikipedia pages? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Jokela appears to have consensus, which you don't. Furthermore you seem to have neglected WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:WHATABOUTISM. Borgenland (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Jokela incident doesn't seem to have reached consensus via it's talk page. It just exists there as it is.
 * Why mention WP:OTHERSTUFF WP:WHATABOUTISM here as Jokela incident is featured in Victim lists. When talking about WP:VL this incident will naturally gets attention as the WP:VL gives special consideration for the Jokela school shooting. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because it is mentioned does not mean it sets a precedent that you could automatically use to bloat this page, only that it is a example that Other Stuff Exists. If you want to cherry-pick another country again, then why did you ignore the Erfurt massacre,an incident of worse body count? Borgenland (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Furthermore you missed the entire point. The fact that Jokela was used as an example in the essay was an argument against indiscriminately listing a whole body count for the sake of consistency in an encyclopedic article such as this. Borgenland (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:CASL is an essay. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, it is the opinion of one editor. As others have noted, the individual names are available in the sourced references and their inclusion does not improve the article. Celjski Grad (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What about the mentioning rough status of the casualties sans referring their names? അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

"Majoritively"
@അദ്വൈതൻ, "majoritively" is not a legitimate word according to these major English dictionaries:

https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=majoritively https://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/english/?q=majoritively https://www.dictionary.com/browse/majoritively https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/majoritively https://www.collinsdictionary.com/submission/8288/Majoritively

Inclusion in a Wikipedia article (a total of 10 out of 7,000,000) or wiktionary does not prove validity as these articles are editable by anyone. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree. Furthermore the word does sound clumsy and archaic and an unnecessary waste of keyboard time when other more commonly understandable terms exist. Borgenland (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A sentence containing the word mostly which is followed by another sentence starting with the same word "mostly" minimises the impact of the first sentence when reading, especially when 46 of the 50 casualties are Indians. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That does not give licence to use wording incomprehensible to the common reader. Borgenland (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The word “mostly” doesn’t appear anywhere in the article—what exactly are you referring to? You’re welcome to rewrite any sentence as you see fit using valid English. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Th issue is fixed അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Number of residents
The Reuters say that the Indian foreign ministry reported 176 residents in the building. This must be mentioned alongside the 196 figure. Ruled Paper (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)