Jump to content

Talk:2008 Channel Tunnel fire/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merge proposal

I've proposed this merge as the main article can (and does) cover this in ample detail. Remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper - Wikinews does that well enough! Booglamay (talk) - 16:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why was this page even created? Please delete.84.13.197.82 (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
While I think the creation of this page was premature, at the moment (19:00 BST) all we have is what is clearly a highly controlled news output (all the reports I've read are identcial). We do not know how extensive the damage it, what caused the fire, the safety systems or the consequences, all covered by the article on the 1996 fire. I would suggest that in a weeks time this will be sufficient information for an article. Edgepedia (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I echo Edgepedia's thoughts, this may turn out to be a fairly major article worth keeping. If not, then give it a week or so and then decide whether the article should remain or not. Dollsworth (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Having seen the updates since I added the proposal, I agree. As Dollsworth said, give it time then make the decision. Booglamay (talk) - 20:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I've removed the merge tag for the time being. I don't see the point in keeping it there if the consensus is to see how things pan out. It's in my watchlist. Booglamay (talk) - 20:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this is highly premature. How can it be asserted that consensus has been reached in less than four hours? I think that what is obvious here is that it should be kept under review. In the meantime the merge tag should be left in place - it is still under consideration after all. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It is now next morning and the latest reports are that the fire in the tunnel is still burning, although under control. Although it is speculation I think that it will be some days before it Eurotunnel re-opens with a reduced service, and then weeks before there is going to be a full service. I think that this is a major incident. Edgepedia (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I feel a merge is not needed (yet), and to suggest one at such an early stage is unecessary. There have been developments almost every hour - the article, by looking at the history, has been constantly updated. Until a full report has been released into the cause and aftermath of the fire, and this data has been analysed and published in it's rightful article, i think the merge tag should never have been published at such an early stage. Wait a week, to allow for developments, and if the article remains too short or notable, then suggest a merge. Dollsworth (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Quite the opposite. The fire is out, nobody has died, the safety systems and plans all look to have worked ok. I have just edited it further, and still only have 3 paragraphs of unique content. That can clearly be held in the main article, and be split out if further developments warrant it. On first impressions, I very much doubt that will happen, and waiting around until it does is a violation of policy. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Important factors such as the cause of the fire and how much damage has been caused have not yet been released. With regards to the 1996 article, this has a detailed analysis of how the event unfolded, including a timeline and evidence. This cannot be obtained at such an early stage as today, and may take several days, maybe weeks, before this is readily available. This, when released, may prove the article notable.Dollsworth (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The other fire article is so bad its unreal. If that article had been developed first as a section in the main article, it might not contain so much useless duplication, and shockingly bad rafts of uncited and unlinked text. The same principle applies here. I will repeat, this is not how we handle content forks. MickMacNee (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject merge. It is too soon to say how long this incident (including subsequent repairs, closure etc.) will last. The previous incident lasted several months and the Wikipedia article is sufficient to justify standing as an article in its own right. This one too should be allowed to develop in a similar way at least until the significance of the incident can be judged in a historical context. As for renaming this article, I think it should have been left as it was, to match the earlier incident. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    • What has how long the tunnel might be closed got to do with whether an article is currently warranted? As above comment, this looks like a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, creating a needless stub fork diverting readers all over the shop in the hope that future events will produce enough content to become a good article. This is not how we develop articles or handle content forks. MickMacNee (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I think its worth noting that there are already questions being asked about the implications of this fire. Major British media organisations have qoutes from members of the haulage industry suggesting this could lose companies millions of pounds (exactly at a time when costs are spiralling and consumer spending is falling). Also the BBC have asked why the lorry drivers felt it necessary to smash windows in order to escape? That to me suggests safety issues have already been raised and thus the suggestion that keeping the article is only in the 'hope' of it developing, seem flawed. I'm pretty certain it will develop and as such would oppose the merge 77.96.49.30 (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Merge I think the article has grown to an adequate length and depth to remain as an article, rather than merged into another article. It is clear developments are continuously added every hour, updating the article with the latest evidence into how and why the fire was started and the knock-on effects. Keep. Dollsworth (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
On quick inspection, the only "growth" seems to have been the creation of section headers and the addition of another superfluous image. If you honestly think this is growth, then I bow out, because I can't compete with this kind of ridiculous opinion. Maybe I will come back in a year and properly fix both articles per wikipedia policies. For now, I leave this article to become what it will. Given the IP comments above, I can only dread the outcome. MickMacNee (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
On inspection further, the "expansion" is mostly a load of rubbish. Qualifying that Operation Stack is between this junction and that. Come on. This whole "article" is creating duplication of pre-existing content, through people's belief that they think they are properly playing the interactive game called wikipedia by copy pasting text. And somehow we have yet another duplicated image. What absolute amateurish rubbish. MickMacNee (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Quite the opposite, it is partly merged information from reliable sources, rather than having information scattered all over the internet. This creates an in-depth article which is rapidly developing, rather than one that only has a few pieces of information. With relation to junction numbers, Operation Stack is implemented between different junctions depending on the severity of the situation. In this case Kent Police chose to shut a 14 mile section of the motorway to cater for the vast number of freight vehicles waiting to use the Channel Tunnel. It has a major knock-on effect not just on the road network but also local businesses. There's no need to get angry, it is merely an article that is constantly updated, so some information is likely to expire as more comes to light. If this is the case then simply updated the information rather than delete it to make the article short enough for a merge. Dollsworth (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a major accident shutting down travel across an important international border crossing. This has interrupted 50 Eurostar trains per day crossing the tunnel, which is roughly 25,000 passengers per day (@ 500 per train. max 750). Additionally there is automobile (with passengers) and freight transport. I'm confident this will be considered a major event in rail tunnel safety (fires for more than 12 hours!), many of which are under construction or in planning phases now. This page is the right place to collect details of the event, the eventual accident report that will come out, and various other information. Wikipedia is not limited by size, as long as the information is verifiable and editors care to maintain it, we should not eliminate this page. —fudoreaper (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a major incident. The damage caused by the blaze is estimated to be worse than that of the fire in November 1996.. Merging can not be done now without losing information. Edgepedia (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose A major event. Even if a merger was considered, it should be mereged into the 1996 article, and that renamed to something like Fires in the Channel Tunnel. If. Lugnuts (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


  • Comment Revisiting this article after a few weeks, the only expansion I can see is the lengthening of the article by adding a redundant image of the tunnel section, adding section headings, and the addition of extra verbiage. In terms of unique information, this article is still only a section's worth of content at best. The fire being a "major event" doesn't mean anything in this context, having a separate short article that needs to be puffed out is conuter-productive. MickMacNee (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    Off-topic: Mick, are you sure about your sense of time ("after a few weeks")? The event happened one week ago. —Sladen (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Not much has been added because after reopening of the south tunnel things are happening slowly. The north tunnel is still closed. A restricted service is operating and as Eurostar are advertising the same service until 30th Sept, I expect that the undamaged 2/3 of the north tunnel will be closed at least until then. Putting the tunnel back into operation is going to take time. Also, we are not going to discover more about the cause etc of this fire until the French complete there report, although there may be interim report. Edgepedia (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This incident is still causing delays, although there wasn't that much damage to the tunnel, the disruption of service that it caused and will cause for the next few weeks justifies this article, by the way there are many smaller Wikipedia articles.NicholasNCE (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
    • We make articles for major traffic jams now? And as for other stuff exists - without a comparable child/parent example, that's a meaningless comment. MickMacNee (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Oppose When you actually live in the region affected or were in the heart of the disruption, then you can probably suggest a merge! For those who live nearby, this affects their businesses quite badly, especially Operation Stack which not only affects the M20 but has a major knock-on affect on roads surrounding the motorway, for some several miles away. As this is one of the major ways of travelling to the continent and back, i think it has it's own right to remain as one article rather than squashed and removing as much information as possible so that it fits nicely into the article about Channel Tunnel, which in itself discusses how, why and when it was built rather than damage caused to it by fires. Referring back to NicholasNCE's comment, I too have come across articles that have only 1 or 2 lines of information and no pictures, and it should be these articles that are merged or edited rather than this one. Dollsworth (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
        • We do not create articles for events just because they caused major traffic chaos or affected people's businesses. Period. Where you live is also quite irrelevant. Other articles are also irrelevant, see the link provided. MickMacNee (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Judging by the narrow scope of your edit history, I advise you to spread you wings and get some experience in other topic areas, then you will get to understand some our core policies and principles. If you are voting oppose (which fiy there is no need to do multiple times either) purely because this is your creation, then I would say you need to step back and consider whether your views are entirely balanced and in line with the general policies we apply here. MickMacNee (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I do think some of your comments here are getting personal MickMacNee. I think that Dollsworth was raising an answer to your objection that the fire wasn't somehow important enough because noone died, and raising the impact on the local economy. I am struggling to try to understand your objection to this article, and quoting 'general policies we apply here' is not helpful as it is unspecific. Perhaps you could help me here. Edgepedia (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Exactly - however I accept what MickMacNee is saying, but fail to see how my edit history is relevant to the merge of this specific article? We all have to start contributing to articles somewhere, and most people will probably start by writing something closely related to the contributor, such as a music band/group, an author, hobby or simply about the region in which they live. In this case i chose to contribute to the article because I live in the region affected, and probably have a greater understanding of the knock-on effects and implications that an event like this can have on the region Dollsworth (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I have repeatedly linked the relevant policies above, and the policy based reasons as to why a separate article is not currently needed, and is a detrimental over-complication/over-expansion of the wiki for the most dubious and transient of reasons, such as crystal ballery, other articles exist, 'major incident', ILIKEIT, pet project etc etc. Bizzarrely, you are actually currently removing [1] actual factual and relevant information about the fire, in deference to how this article should read for some kind of traffic reporter news service. MickMacNee (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
            • And I have no clue why there is now detailed information about traffic closures/reopening in the lead, when there is supposedly a Closure section talking about traffic and opening/closure (or is that info more properly classed as Aftermath?). The attempts to justify this as a standalone article just make it read and look quite jarring, it doesn't know whether it is supposed to be a detailed traffic report or an account of the fire so comprehensive it needs its own article. The former, this is not what wikipedia is, the latter, it clearly doesn't stand on its own yet. 19:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
            • I haven't removed anything, only added - unless you were referring to a different user? Dollsworth (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC).
        • (Edit Confict) I removed a bit about one third of the tunnel being affected Dollsworth. See below:
        • How is 'one third of the tunnel is affected' factual? I have no time at the moment to check the sources, but I recall a comment saying the damage affected more than the 1996 fire, where (from the article) "500 m of track had to be replaced, as did 800 m of catenary, 800 m of refrigeration pipe and signalling equipment over a length of 1500 m." At the moment the whole of the north tunnel is closed. When it is open from the British end to the French crossover then you can say one third is affected. There is an ongoing investigation which will report. However I do not believe WP:NOTCRYSTAL is relevant as the event has happened. Looking at WP:NOT#NEWS the question is was this event notable in an historical context. I believe it was. (Sorry real time now intervenes and I'll be back in a day or two) Edgepedia (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
          • You don't know the difference between affected by the fire - smoke/burn etc, and closed because of the fire? That sort of factual (read encyclopoedic, not travel) information. And not news is not my argument for not having a separate article. Crystal refers to all the arguments to keep because there might be ramifications from an investiagation beyond traffic disruption and repair. It is hardly surprising that an investigation was started now is it? From what I have seen all systems worked, at worse they might change the cargo rules, but again, that is speculation - keeping an article open as a holder for any future info, while making the actual present article a mess of navigation and an unreadable dichotomy, is not what we do. MickMacNee (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
            • It seems pointless merging this article and then unmerging it when the report is released and gives, in detail, how, why and when it happened. It is probably best to keep it as it is until all the information is readily available, which it isn't at present time. Dollsworth (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
              • It is not automatically unmerged just because the report is released. If the report merely concluded that nothing major went wrong and there are no major recomendations, then clearly that is not enough information to warrant a split. I am repeating myself, but we do not hold articles that can be merged (or rather were too short to warrant creation in the first place) open until information becomes available. MickMacNee (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Again I'm confused by your comments Mick. The verified factual information I have is that more of the tunnel than in the 1996 fire has been damaged. This as had the effect of closing the north tunnel for (currently) two weeks, with the consequent traffic difficulties. A third of the tunnel has not been damaged, or affected except it is likely to be closed for longer than the rest of the tunnel. It is notable just by comparison with the 1996 fire and different reactions then. Also, if you look at the sources, there have been injuries, reports there were problems opening the doors on the train, and the breaking of the windows. So not all the systems worked. And again you are saying 'this is not what we do' rather than quoting specific MOS. Edgepedia (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming

Well, the last event of this sort is covered under Channel Tunnel fire (1996). When created, this article was named Channel Tunnel fire (2008). I can see an editor has moved it to this name. Anyone else than me thinking this was not called for? I'm almost a bit grr on it... (oh, and I'm not here much - so if you agree - please don't ask me to fix this... ) Formerly very active, now only occasional editor (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It crossed my mind yesterday (Thursday) to move it so I looked up WP:NAME for the naming conventions. It seems that both date after (as this page originally was) or before are acceptable. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) explains this further. However, as both are acceptable it seems an unnecessary move. However, having said that, User:Turkish Flame seems to have put it all back into shape with redirects. Booglamay (talk) - 22:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

? ...And now we've gone back-back again to 2008 Channel Tunnel fire. Is anyone willing to provide some reasoning behind the moves? —Sladen (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I’m the one that moved the article, I will explain. Having the year-event format has become the de facto recently. For example, look at Category:2008 disasters. I changed the page name to conform to the status quo, basically. Additionally the page was not in accordance with the naming conventions. The only two possible names are 2008 Channel Tunnel fire or Channel Tunnel fire of 2008. I just happened to pick the first. – Zntrip 20:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Channel Tunnel Simple layout diagram

This simple layout is far too simple for my liking and looks a lot like Original Research without the research, the cross passages are a lot longer than this diagram as shown by pages 58 and 59 of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority 1996 fire report--Sully (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there Sully, but it is the caption underneath that suggests it is "simple" thus not a complexed drawing nor to scale. Feel free to change it as necessary though Dollsworth (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
What would be added by having the diagram to scale? However, we already have an equivalent ans slightly more detailed diagram on the main Channel Tunnel article which also shows the ducts between the two main tunnels.
What is added by this diagram anyway? Nothing in the diagram is referenced in the article and unless that changes, with details of this specific evacuation (not simply a regurgitation of existing contents elsewhere) I see no reason to include it. CrispMuncher (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
It shows basic positioning of the tunnels, along with comparitive sizes. It does state that the north tunnel is where the fire started, which links with the article. Dollsworth (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

North tunnel/South tunnel

Just a basic bit of consistency checking:

  1. Trains in both France and the UK drive on the left.
  2. The tunnel lies roughly east-to-west/west-to-east
  3. The north tunnel is used for UK→France
  4. The south tunnel is used for France→UK
  5. The fire occurred close to the French end, on a train departing France

...if so, how? did the fire occur in the north tunnel? —Sladen (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The article now states that the train was bound for France, so this all makes sense now. Panic over. —Sladen (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Timezone

IMHO, quoting times in BST (British Summer Time) is utterly mad for an event that occured on French (CEST) soil. Can we stick to UTC/GMT, please. —Sladen (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a timezone border with BST on one side and CEST on the other. Surely adding another (GMT/UTC) just adds to the confusion? I went through yesterday, chasing links and changing GMT to BST, as the sources were just quoting local times. Edgepedia (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The BBC News (British)[2] and AFP (French)[3] are using GMT in a non-zero quantity of their articles. As you note, this event happened very close to a timezone border; which is all the more reason to use a standardised time that does not jump back-and-forth and does not favour one local timezone over another. The one possible exception is where the resumption of services happened just after midnight (UK local time) and it will be necessary to put both dates in. —Sladen (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Channel_Tunnel_fire/Archive_1&oldid=1144950376"