Talk:2019 Delhi factory fire

Article title

Resolved

Good point noted by Jim Michael that two separate fire accidents happened in Delhi in 2019; Delhi hotel fire and Delhi factory fire. Why can't we have mainspace articles by mentioning the year as well because these fire accidents are quite regular in a country like India. So I propose to rename the two separate articles as 2019 Delhi hotel fire and 2019 Delhi factory fire. Abishe (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Although there have been many major fires in India, I'm not aware of Delhi having had any other factory or hotel fires than the 1 each this year. Adding the year to their titles would therefore simply, pointlessly, lengthen them. Jim Michael (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with User:Jim Michael. But I note that there was a factory fire last year as well in Delhi, but we dont have an article on it yet in the (Category:Fires_in_India. WP:ATDAB covers this. What do we do now Jim ? --DBigXrayᗙ 13:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Now I'm aware of the 2018 fire, this one should be at 2019 Delhi factory fire. There's no need to change the title of the hotel fire. An article on last year's fire should be at 2018 Delhi fire, unless another major fire occurred in Delhi last year. Jim Michael (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes but should we do the move now or after the 2018 fire article comes up ? --DBigXrayᗙ 14:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Each can be done as soon as possible - it doesn't matter which first. The 2018 fire was major enough to have its own article, so this article should have the year to disambiguate. An alternative would be to expand this article to cover both factory fires & move it to Delhi factory fires. Jim Michael (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I just saw the 2019 Surat fire the only fire incident to have taken place in Surat. I thank Jim Michael for creating a disambiguation page 2019 Delhi fire. To avoid complications, by taking Surat fire as example shall we have the year to make readers convenient. I also have an idea to move Delhi hotel fire to February 2019 Delhi hotel fire and Delhi factory fire to December 2019 Delhi factory fire. Well the places are different but the accident is caused by the fire. I think it is better to add the month in front of the year in order to avoid confusions. Abishe (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Abishe I think adding month would be excessive disambiguation. I would leave this article at its place for now until the 2018 fire article is started. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I got your point. I just wanted to get suggestions for the ideas that I put forward. Hope someone will create for the 2018 Delhi fire. When I searched for it, Google provides sources only for the 2019 incident. Looks like it would become difficult to focus 2018 fire incident right now. Abishe (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

you can use the keyword "bawana" which was the area where the 2018 fire happened in order to search relevant articles. You are welcome to start that. regards. DBigXrayᗙ 15:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I am sometimes finding difficulties when editing in desktop view through my smartphone especially the problems related to indenting. So sorry for that as my phone is depreciating with time. Abishe (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

February 2019 Delhi fire would be useful as a redirect for Delhi hotel fire & December 2019 Delhi fire as a redirect for this article. Jim Michael (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

another editor moved the page to the location Jim had proposed. Marking this as resolved. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Duplicated information on lead

Resolved

@DBigXray: The edit you reverted refers to information that IS duplicated in the lead paragraphs, the exact same phrase being found in the paragraph just before the one I edited. I don't see anything in MOSLEAD that says information should be duplicated in such a way.Zeratul2k (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

"WP:MOSLEAD The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."

Zeratul2k It is an important data point, you are free to reword it or summarize it in lead. But no need to remove it. If a few lines or quotes are duplicated in the lead as well as in the article then it is not a problem. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I had deleted the information because it was duplicated INSIDE the lead. In other words, the same words are found INSIDE the lead two times. Zeratul2k (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Zeratul2k my apologies. I failed to notice it was already added and your edit summary that you wrote did not help in in clearing this. Now that it is clear, I have reverted myself. thanks for this kind note. marking as resolved --DBigXrayᗙ 15:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)