Talk:2022 Sitakunda fire

apparently cosmetic edit

Jim Michael 2, i admittedly do not understand the purpose of this edit. would you mind enlightening me?

it appears to be a purely cosmetic edit to me, as it does not seem to change the html that my browser receives. dying (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing a space where there shouldn't be one. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Jim Michael 2, why should there not be a space there? is there a bot that will malfunction if there is one there?

i admittedly also have the same questions about this edit, which also appears to have no effect on the html that my browser sees. dying (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to have spaces there; it doesn't do any good. We don't usually include pointless spaces. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Jim Michael 2, i think these spaces do good; they help me proofread my edits. as i understand that in many cases, the idiosyncratic habits of the editor who created a page (or the editor who contributed most to a page) are generally respected as long as these habits do not break any other established guidelines, and in this case, i created the page (and appear to have contributed most to it as of this writing), would the fact that these spaces help me be a good enough reason to keep these spaces in the article?

also, i understand if you wish to remove pointless spaces, but these spaces are obviously not pointless if they help me. dying (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

day of the week

Jim Michael 2, in response to your removal of the day of the week mentioned in the lead sentence with this edit, i had included it because i referenced sunday later in the lead, as seen in this edit. is there a good reason to remove it? dying (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

We usually include dates but not days of the week in articles. An exception is if it's particularly relevant, such as in Ondo church attack, which took place during a Sunday service. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Jim Michael 2, i can certainly understand that. however, in this case, since reliable sources tended to state that the fire continued into sunday (instead of, for example, that the fire continued for a second day), i had decided to keep that choice of framing in the lead, so had added "Saturday" to the start of the lead to provide the proper context. does this go against any guidelines that i am currently unaware of? dying (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not it's stated in a policy/guideline, but for as long as I'm aware it's been standard on WP to not include days of the week unless they're particularly relevant, such as the 2022 Peshawar mosque attack being carried out during Friday prayer. This was an accidental fire & explosions; the days of the week aren't relevant, so it's not usual to include them. I've reworded the lead accordingly. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Fire or explosion?

Should the article be retitled to "2022 Sitakunda explosion"? Because the large explosion is the ultimate disaster similar to the Beirut explosion. This would require some reframing of the event within the article as well to focus more on the main explosion. Jiaminglimjm (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

This was a fire followed by explosions. How should we name articles which are a combination of fires & explosions, such as this & Hapur chemical plant explosion? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The Beirut explosion was also preceded by a fire, it was just much less prominent and not framed in that way by the media. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

In the 2020 Beirut explosion, the vast majority of the damage was caused by the second explosion, so the focus is on that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Wait so in this event the vast majority of damage (or casualties) were from the fire and not the explosion(s)? I didn't get that impression –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The article is unclear about that. What should its title should be? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jiaminglimjm: In Bangladeshi media the event is known as "Sitakunda fire". So the title is ok I think. Mehedi Abedin 13:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be ‘explosions’ as there were more than one explosion which then led to the fire Abyan Malek (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Abyan Malek: Is there any source that can verify your statement? Mehedi Abedin 17:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Aljazeera’s headline https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/5/16-killed-170-injured-in-bangladesh-container-depot-fire Abyan Malek (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Abyan Malek: Its headline is "Bangladesh: Deadly fire and explosions at container facility". It didn’t point that explosions happened before fire. According to sources provided in the article, "On the night of 4 June 2022, a fire and then explosions at a container depot in Sitakunda Upazila, Chittagong District, Bangladesh, killed at least 49 people and injured more than 450 others." Mehedi Abedin 18:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mehediabedin Well yes, I worded it wrong but it does state that there were more than one explosion. Abyan Malek (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Abyan Malek: But it is possible that the explosions were caused by the fire. Even after 16 hours fire service couldn’t put off the fire. So the event is almost depend on fire. Newspapers in Bangladesh calls the accident as "Sitakunda Fire" not "Sitakunda Explosions". Mehedi Abedin 19:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mehediabedin If you put it that way, then yes possibly. The introduction is enough I guess. Abyan Malek (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Title

Due to being a major disaster which is the only notable one in Sitakunda, the year need not be in the title. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael 2 Yes, it looks weird too. I suggest that the title be changed if another disaster in Sitakunda occurs after 2022. Abyan Malek (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that you'd like the title changed back to Sitakunda fire and explosions? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not agree, WP:NCEVENTS is pretty clear on how this article should be named, and the current name is in line with that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Michael 2 yes, I would’ve preferred that title but the current tile is ok too and as the rules state (WP:NCEVENTS). Abyan Malek (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a major enough disaster to fit WP:NOYEAR. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps. But as with our past discussions, for an event that happened three days ago it is far too early to tell how we'll be referring to this in 5 years time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2022

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The proposed title has been universally opposed on COMMONNAME and precision grounds. But several opposers independently had different ideas on what title is the best; another RM may be needed to sort that out. In addition, I will submit an undiscussed move revert request back to remove "explosions" from the title, as it was added without discussion last week. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

---

2022 Sitakunda fire and explosions → 2022 Sitakunda disaster – "fire and explosions" is too long, "disaster" is a shorter and better catch-all term Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dunutubble but it better describes the event Abyan Malek (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. A Google search for "sitakunda disaster" gets all of 5 hits, 2 if which are Wikipedia links. It is not the term being used in sources, and WP:COMMONNAME plus descriptive title mean we should retain the current name.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Can confirm. Of those five sources, two are this article on Wikipedia with one being the redirect created by this move request, two are tweets referring to comments made by Md. Enamur Rahaman, and one is an unrelated UNOCHA report on the Rohingya Refugee Crisis that seemed to have a link to one or both of the tweets that referred to comments by Enamur Rahaman. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: While there is no clear common name yet, "Sitakunda disaster" plus or minus the year is not used by any reliable media sources on this incident. A stronger case could be made for "2022 Sitakunda depot fire", "2022 Bangladesh depot fire", "2022 Bangladesh container facility fire", "2022 Sitakunda container facility fire", "2022 Sitakunda container depot fire", or "2022 Bangladesh container depot fire" as those do seem to be in use across multiple sources. The split between Bangladesh and Sitakunda seems to be along international versus local media lines, with international media preferring Bangladesh and local media preferring Sitakunda. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and above evidence. "2022 Bangladesh depot fire" would make sense if a change were to be made. Retswerb (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose because disaster is not specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consensus1 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
• comment: i agree with Sideswipe9th's reasoning and observations (although admittedly "Sitakunda disaster" appears on a few more pages now), but am refraining from !voting the same way, simply because i also believe that the current title has the same issue as the proposed one: it is not a name used for the incident in any reliable sources that i have seen. the "and explosions" in the current title was added during this move, done apparently without prior discussion, with the edit summary "The fire caused explosions.", which, to me, does not seem to be a good enough reason for renaming the page. (the fire also caused deaths, but "2022 Sitakunda fire and deaths" does not seem like an appropriate title either.) the year was also inexplicably dropped during the move, although this removal was reverted by another editor shortly thereafter.
  although there does not appear to be a single common name for the event, i believe most sources quickly settled on referring to the event as a fire rather than either an explosion, a disaster, or a fire and explosions. now that some days have passed, it seems that reliable sources have largely settled on calling it either a fire, depot fire, or container depot fire that happened in either sitakunda, chittagong, or bangladesh. although "fire and explosions" may better describe the event than "disaster" does, i think there may be even better ways to describe the event (such as "explosive chemical fire"), but do not think they would be appropriate as they would break from the pattern of names that reliable sources have used.
  i should also point out that this article appears to now be the only article on wikipedia that contains the phrase "fire and explosions" in its title. while the currently proposed move may be an improvement as it uses a noun phrase more commonly used in the titles of other wikipedia articles, it feels a bit like jumping out of the fire (and explosions) into the frying pan.
  my original choice of title was "2022 Sitakunda fire", and i admittedly still see no major issues with it. i currently feel that it may be more appropriate to reference sitakunda rather than chittagong or bangladesh because, although i do not know how often fires occur at container depots in the area, apparently another one happened yesterday in the district, but outside of sitakunda. i also think "2022 Sitakunda depot fire" would be an appropriate title. dying (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

photos by voice of america

i do not know much about uploading photos to wikipedia, but voice of america appears to have published three photos that may be in the public domain. the article they appear in credits the photos to "Minhaz Uddin/VOA". i assume this means that, according to voa's copyright statement, the photos are in the public domain, but am not sure if there is anything else i may be missing.

1. dragging a hose across the depot
2. fire raging amongst the containers
3. firefighters carrying one of the dead

dying (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

However, voanews.com content may also contain text, video, audio, images, graphics, and other copyrighted material that is licensed for use in VOA programming only. This material is not in the public domain and may not be copied, redistributed, sold, or published without the express permission of the copyright owner. The problem is finding which photos in public domain. Mehedi Abedin 21:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

correction (I think)

The sentence I deleted WAS NOT a WP:NEUTRAL problem, but I feel like it should have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somewhereattheendofspace (talk • contribs) 00:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)