Talk:Manfalut railway accident

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There doesn't seem to be any consensus here that the term "accident" is inconsistent with human error/negligence or is biased. This close should not prejudice a new move request if for example there is data suggesting a different name is more common, etc. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 01:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Manfalut train accident → Manfalut train collision – The word "accident" is used less frequently now since the misnomer implies it was outside of human control. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable to me. 66.87.69.165 (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds unnecessary. Did anyone intend for the collision to occur? Not according to the article. If the incident was not intended, it must have therefore been an accident. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't necessarily saying that it was intentional (though it is very presumptive for us to say it wasn't purposeful before it can be investigated) but accident implies no one is to blame (a human failure can always be found in any incident). Collision is strictly neutral and factual. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NPOV. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's simply not true that "accident" implies nobody is to blame or that it is a misnomer. It merely implies that the incident was unintentional. The OED defines it as an "unfortunate and unforeseen event involving damage or injury"; blame is not mentioned. It is true that official agencies are moving away from "accident", but that's no reason to change perfectly good English. It is in no way POV. As to it being "very presumptive for us to say it wasn't purposeful before it can be investigated", oh please... Let's not throw away common sense in the name of dogma! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infoboxes
Why are there two infoboxes in this article? Why isn't the map displaying in the first one? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)