Talk:Lake Suviana

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dams Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dams, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dams on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DamsWikipedia:WikiProject DamsTemplate:WikiProject DamsDam articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lakes Low‑importance

	Lakes portal Lake Suviana is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed merge of 2024 Lake Suviana explosion into Lake Suviana

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge the 2024 Lake Suviana explosion article into the relatively new Bargi hydroelectric power station article, as a more specific target. Klbrain (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. Now that Lake Suviana has been created, and absent sustained coverage or lasting effects which would justify a standalone article, this tragic disaster can be adequately summarised for encyclopedic purposes at Lake Suviana. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support ditto Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As the aftermath is ongoing you can't judge yet over the lasting effect. It's a bit too soon what the legacy is of the explosion, but it is of high importance in Italy see that there is every view minutes a new article with updates of that aftermath about the accident. So it has the full chance of meeting WP:Event in a period of time. And because the the nominators rationale is "absent sustained coverage or lasting effects" we Don't rush to delete articles. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note It is not an Lake Suviana explosion but an explosion of the power plant located on the lake. The article covers an Explosion --> in a power plant --> located on a lake. Thats's a step too far. As example, a few days ago the 2024 Orsk Dam collapse happened, that would mean a merge propose of that article not to the Orsk Dam article but to the Ural River. So if you understand my point, it might be even better to rename the article into the name of the power plant. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a deletion, but a merge. Per WP:NOPAGE, standalone articles are not justified when understanding would be easier as part of a broader topic; this applies to the dam as it does the explosion. Lake Suviana provides context on the dam and its construction. Many of the details added to the explosion article are trivial or routine for this kind of disaster – e.g. that the power was turned off, or Meloni's comments. We are really talking about two paragraphs, maximum, in a separate section of Lake Suviana. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the article can always be recreated if WP:NOPAGE justifies a standalone article. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's just how you write the sentence. You san also say Many of the details added to the explosion article are how all pages about notable explosions starts. You can't judge on the notability while it's a current event. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tension between WP:DELAY and WP:RAPID is by no means original. In my view, what distinguishes this case is that there is an obvious merge target (Lake Suviana) that precludes having to delete the hard effort and good work already expended by editors at 2024 Lake Suviana explosion. The right approach would have been to detail the explosion at Lake Suviana (which did not exist at the time), then create 2024 Lake Suviana explosion only once notability was ascertained. Now that Lake Suviana exists, we have the possibility of reverting to this course.

Finally, my worry is that 2024 Lake Suviana explosion is doing no better than tracking, as you say, every few minutes a new article with updates of that aftermath about the accident, but these are primary sources. Consequently, the article is violating WP:NOTNEWS.

The comparison to 2024 Orsk Dam collapse is unfair, given the evidently larger scope of the damages that collapse is causing, which are outlined in the article's lead. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) I never said the articles I pointed to are secondary sources. 2) It's about the logic I mentioned the 2024 Orsk Dam collapse; apart from that it's not about a "larger scope" but about sources. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support We often have a single article for a dam/power plant and its reservoir. This seems reasonable to cover in one article at this point and split later if necessary. Reywas92^Talk 16:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I changed the content into the power plant. As said above, that is a better entry than the lake. A better title would be Bargi hydroelectric power station. (Like the foreign article in Ukrainian. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The explosion and power plant are SEPARATE things. Your decision to tamper the article based on unagreed and drastic assumptions is extremely reckless and irresponsible as it altered the entire thing from what it was originally made when you could have instead made a separate article. See your warnings on the talk page and in the explosion talk page. Borgenland (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did the same thing as yesterdays 2024 Kowloon residential building fire that was moved to New Lucky House. I didn’t remove content. I only added content to place it in a broader perspective. And fits in the line of thoughts made in the discussion here. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you placed a move proposal but proceeded to make unilateral changes without seeking consensus resulting in an article whose title does not match with its contents (see that infobox you remade). That is very inappropriate and reeks of tampering. You don't just rename an event into a place without seeking a consensus, especially if they are strictly speaking two separate things. Furthermore, 2024 Kowloon residential building fire was converted into a redirect of the building, which is incomparable to you tampering with a whole article and changing it into something that contradicts the title. Borgenland (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see your point. But in line with the points made in this discussion I thought it would be better. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a calmer mood now. Please do see my other reply in explosion talk. Borgenland (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: copying my !vote from Talk:2024 Lake Suviana explosion#Requested move 11 April 2024 which is of relevance here:

We have a draft article on the power station awaiting AfC review and an ongoing merge discussion into Lake Suviana. This requested move is well-intentioned, but as the previous !vote and !votes at the merge discussion outline, the prior question to ask is how Wikipedia should organise its encyclopedic coverage of the lake, dam, and explosion. There is clearly a discussion to be had about whether the dam merits a standalone article to the lake, and a discussion to be had about whether the explosion merits a standalone article to the dam. On these questions, between the merge discussion, AfC, and this RM, we are likely to be speaking across forums rather than helping to build consensus.

My preference would be to merge the dam and explosion articles into Lake Suviana, then see whether standalone articles are justified per WP:NOPAGE. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note the dam is not the same as the power station. The dam is part of the lake and is there since 1932. The power plant is built in 1975 and also uses other surrounding water reservoirs. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If a merge is wanted, it would be better to have a page about the Power Plant; like merging it into Bargi hydroelectric power station article that is now a draft I created. Because 1) The explosion was in the power plant; not in the lake 2) the power plant uses te lake; but also more water reservoirs 3) the power plant is a commercial building; the company doesn’t own the lake. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good compromise to merge this into a power plant article, especially since the plant was built separately from the dam and lake. Reywas92^Talk 02:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now there have been national protests over this explosion, that might be regarded as/contributing to WP:Lasting "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else". 82.174.61.58 (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

So much text I will place the things I said above in a tree:

There is a parc: Suviana and Brasimone lakes regional park
- There are two lakes in the park: Lake Suviana (with a dam downstream) and Lake Brasimone
  - There are five villages around Lake Suviana including Suviana [it] (namesake) and Bargi
    - Bargi is located upstream of the lake. In Bari is located the Bargi hydroelectric power station (namesake of Bargi); that uses water of Lake Suviana but àlso of other water bassins in the region (what I understand also of Lake Brasimone, but I'm not 100% sure of that)
      - The explosion took place 30 metres below the ground, inside this power plant; not in the lake.

Looking at this tree, to me it's not the most logical thing to merge the explosion article into the article of the Lake Suviana . (apart from the fact that to me also mot logic the explosion article carries the name of the lake where it not even didn't happen in.) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the alternative proposal to merge the explosion into the Bargi hydroelectric power station article. Now that that new page is stable, it seems like the better long-term location for information about the explosion, which is not currently mentioned on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klbrain (talk • contribs) 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]