Talk:Loafers Lodge fire

(Redirected from Talk:Wellington hostel fire)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by 125.238.225.184 in topic Is 20 missing still relevant?


Requested move 16 May 2023

edit
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: Move to Loafers Lodge fire (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 08:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply


Wellington hostel fire2023 Wellington hostel fire – Previous name too generic. Multiple hotels and hostels have burnt down in Wellington, a city of nearly half a million people. It doesn't make sense for this title to be so simplistic. Aubernas (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NEM18981215.2.9 This is just one example. Aubernas (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

That didn't happen at a hostel. Have there been any other notable hostel fires in Wellington? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support Loafers Lodge fire - it's how it's being reported and is consistent with other events such as the Ballantyne's fire or Grenfell Tower fire. I don't think concerns about the descriptiveness of this hold water, as that's what the lede and short description are for. I also don't think there's a need to further disambiguate Loafers Lodge fire with the name of where it happened in the title. Turnagra (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Wanted to mention Ballantynes's before but couldn't remember what it was called. I support a move to Loafers' Lodge fire Aubernas (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support move to Loafers Lodge fire - no apostrophe per signage visible on Google Street View. This matches how similar disasters are named e.g. Grenfell Tower fire. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Move to Wellington hostel arson attack because it's more descriptive. The vast majority of people outside NZ haven't heard of Loafers Lodge. The police are treating the fire as an arson attack & a suspect has been charged with arson. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Just as we do not title an article "murder of" until someone is convicted, we cannot include arson unless someone is convicted. WWGB (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support “Loafers Lodge fire” or “2023 Loafers Lodge fire” as it is referred to by that name in the local media. The police are treating it as a case of Arson, so it should be in the category “Arson in New Zealand” even if no-one has been convicted. And also in the category “2023 disasters in New Zealand” as the category “Fires in New Zealand” is a subcategory of “Disasters in New Zealand”. Hugo999 (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Okay, let's move the page to Loafers Lodge fire. It's both how it's referred to in the media and follows the precedent of such events like the Ballantyne's fire and the Grenfell Tower fire. All agreed? Aubernas (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2023 (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.

Remove aftermath section?

edit

Now that reporting of the victims identities and ages has been moved to a separate section, is it appropriate to now remove the aftermath section in it's entirety? Whilst it's factually correct and was appropriate at the time, I don't feel it's continuing inclusion contributes anything of on-going value to the article. 222.155.184.142 (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Done. WWGB (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, but just moving the contents of that section to the Victims section doesn't make a lot of sense to me - and the tense of it appears to be wrong now that remains of the victims have been removed.
If anything, saying "a Karakea was performed prior to beginning removal of the remains of the deceased" would be more accurate (if it was indeed performed -- I've not read anything conclusive one way or the other -- so obviously that would need to be confirmed first).
Personally, I just don't see the relevance of that part at all anymore (any more than saying "people prayed for the victims" would be relevant), but that may just be me. 125.238.225.184 (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Done 222.155.184.142 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is 20 missing still relevant?

edit

Should information about 20 missing people be removed? The implication initially was that they'd probably eventually be found deceased, but it's now clear that that's not the case and they appear to have just moved elsewhere (if the number was ever accurate to begin with). 222.155.184.142 (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Done. 125.238.225.184 (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply