Talk:2010 Connecticut power plant explosion

Disaster / explosion title

Any objections to making the title a little more objective? "2010 Kleen Energy Systems explosion" seems to be more accurate. Clubmarx (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

On further reflection I moved it to 2010 Connecticut power plant explosion, as there aren't any sources refering to it as a "Kleen Energy Systems" event. The title was even a bit misleading for someone unfamiliar with the subject, and not very easy to find, and that is the main consideration when choosing a title. It was a power plant that exploded after all, not "Energy Systems". Similar articles follow this new title such as 2008 Georgia sugar refinery explosion.--Pontificalibus (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Location

Here is a document from the Connecticut Siting Council about the Kleen Energy Systems site, which includes maps. --Cam (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I added that to external links.  fetchcomms☛ 22:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Links

I've gone through and updated all of the redirects and links to those redirects. Chadlupkes (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

I'm impressed by the diligently thoro documentation of sources in the accompanying early-stage, fast-rise-time article. The dozen-and-some editors so far involved are doing a great job, far better than i expected.
--Jerzy•t 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that. Good work! unlike many breaking stories, this one is succinct and well sourced. All to often these types of articles are orphaned after just a few weeks and later, when the event is no longer in everyone's consciousness, the article reads like a long-winded blow-by-blow account of news as it rolled in (which is exactly what most are). This one looks like it will stand the test of time. Impressive work by the editors! Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

LA Times reference

Does anyone know why the ref labeled as LA Times goes to a Hartford Courant article here? I'm not sure who added that, but it doesn't make any sense to me. Thoughts? C628 (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How odd. I added an LA Times ref early on, but it was certainly to the LA Times site (I recall the logo). Must've gotten changed somehow... :s  fetchcomms☛ 05:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The URL still goes to an LA Times article; I can only assume the article is now a redirect to the Courant article. I'm not sure why this would be, but it's the only thing I can think of. It poses a problem, since the Courant article doesn't verify any of the claims it's a reference for, and I haven't been able to find anything that does elsewhere on the internet. Incidentally, the ref name for the first reference, a Courant one, is "LA Times," which further confuses things, since the problem ref is labeled "LA Times 2." *sigh.* C628 (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The LA Times 2 ref is supposed to refer to a statement by Al Santostefano claiming less than 50 were injured. A search shows this was widely reported, but every single one of those articles in the search results list has been altered to remove this quote. I can only assume that the original AP report they were derived from was retracted. In any case the injury toll now appears to be 27, so the article can be edited to remove the unsupported statement and include updated information.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I updated the injured to 27. And not to be annoying or anything, but the infobox isn't showing the casualties for me, but I'm sure why. Does anyone else have that problem? C628 (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Those fields weren't part of template:Infobox News event. I'm sure they used to work, so maybe someone changed the infobox type without altering the field names. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still trying to get the hang of infoboxes and the differences between them, so I wasn't sure how to fix that. C628 (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

notable

too minor for an encyclopaedia, wikinews would be better.(Lihaas (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)).

You tagged the article as requiring more reliable secondary sources to establish notability. It has plenty of reliable secondary sources, so if you don't think it meets WP:EVENT would you take it to AfD instead of leaving the tag there? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, don't take it to AfD, that would be wasting other editor's time. The article is clearly going to be kept. This story has appeared in multiple sources. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We can cover a lot more, as long as there are sufficient independent, reliable sources, which is clearly the case here. Jehochman ^Talk 20:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment, Wikinews would never work for this, they only publish news that's occurred within the past few days; it's not like you'd be able to trans-wiki it into their archives. C628 (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)