Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management

Archives
Disaster definition, scope & structure Event naming convention Jan 2006 - Jun 2006 Jul 2006 - Dec 2006 Jan 2007- Jun 2007

Template:Disaster‎ created

Hi, this is a heads-up to inform everyone that I have created Template:Disaster‎, a template for starting disaster-related articles similar to Template:Biography. Comments are welcome. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Emergency page

Hi there, I have been looking at trying to edit the page Emergency, which falls under the remit of the disaster management wikiproject. It is currently a mix between an article and disambiguation page. I suggest turning it in to an article, and moving the other content out to Emergency (disambiguation). This has been the subject of some debate and i have now created a sample article which can be found here (in my name space), and the debate as to whether this will be suitable is on the Talk:emergency page. I would appreciate the input of anyone in the project who has feelings either way as to whether this should be an article! Many thanks in advance Owain.davies 07:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

NGOs

I notice some articles mentoning the Red Cross, while there literally is an army of other non-governmental organizations, some of them national, some international. Below mention of the official department of governmental to manage disaster recovery, perhaps sub-section linking to organizations that are the equivalent of Salvation Army, other religious groups, and non-religious charities that get involved in disaster relief. User:AlMac|^(talk) 22:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Air accident task force

When the Aviation WikiProject was reconstituted a few months ago, provision was made for an "Air accident task force", but the task force was not formally established at that time. Since we seem to have a fairly dedicated group of editors who are spending time on this subject, and since there's been discussion of developing some notability and other guidelines, I thought it was time to start putting electrons on screen to establish the task force. Currently, I've started the group's page at one of my sandboxes, and I'd like to invite any and all interested folk to join in drafting the material. Since this task force stradles the line between this WikiProject and Aviation, I'm starting this out as a joint effort between the two Projects. Akradecki 16:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Accident/incident notabilility guidelines discussion

Given that there have been a number of AfD discussions relating the borderline notable aviation accidents and incidents (such as United Airlines Flight 897 and especially Brisbane Light Plane Crash), I've initiated a discussion of developing some project-based notability criteria over at the Aviation accident task force talk page. Though this is a task force project, because the issue is fairly significant, I am seeking input from the entire project. Thanks! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

List of disasters

This page is way too long and should direct readers to other lists.

This is my plan, basically all the sections would link to somewhere else:

• Man-made disasters
  • Air disasters → List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft and List of notable incidents and accidents involving military aircraft
  • Rail disasters → List of pre-1950 rail accidents, List of 1950-1999 rail accidents and List of rail accidents
  • Ship and ferry disasters → List of shipwrecks (preferable renamed "List of notable maritime incidents and accidents" and organized by date)
  • Road disasters → List of road accidents
  • Nuclear disasters → List of civilian nuclear accidents, List of civilian radiation accidents and List of military nuclear accidents
  • War disasters → Omitted for lack of sources
  • Dam/dike/levee disasters → New page, maybe "List of floods"
  • Environmental disasters → List of environmental disasters
  • Mining disasters → New page, maybe "List of notable mining accidents"
  • Industrial disasters → Industrial disasters (preferable renamed "List of notable industrial accidnets")
  • Explosion disasters → New page, maybe "List of notable explosions and fires"
  • Fire disasters → List of historic fires (preferable renamed "List of notable explosions and fires")
  • Miscellaneous → Most can be moved into other lists; a page called "List of building collapses" should also be created

• Natural disasters (chronology replaced bu sections)
  • "List of volcano eruptions" page for notable volcano eruptions
  • "List of floods" for floods and tsunamis
  • List of earthquakes fot earthquakes
  • List of epidemics merged with List of historical plagues into "List of epidemics and plagues" for epidemics and plagues
  • List of avalanches, landslides and mudslides" for avalanches, landslides and mudslides
  • Refere to tropical cyclone seasons for typhoons, hurricanes, and cyclones
  • List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks for tornados
  • Winter storms of 2006–07 for severe winter weather; more pages needed
  • and any other lists as needed

– Zntrip 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My only suggestion, both working and doing research in this field, is that you might want to further subdivide Human-caused. Unfortunately, within recent years 'accidental' and 'deliberate' have become increasingly important distinctions. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ckimpson

A new incarnation of user:Cgkimpson, who created tornado-related hoaxes. Please watchlist Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cgkimpson. Circeus 20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This user is again back to old tricks, please monitor edits. Evolauxia (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Zaca Fire

Now that the Zaca Fire has crossed the 150,000 acre mark, I decided it was high time to at least start a stub on it. Additions invited. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Adam Air Flight 574

There is currently a large-scale collaboration effort underway to bring this article up to FA standard. Any help on this undertaking would be greatly apreciated. Also, Hamlet chicken processing plant fire has been requested to be Today's Featured Article in a few day's time, if it is accepted, people should be on hand ready to sort out any problems/questions the exposure causes. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

9-1-1 dispatch

The English Wikipedia has a fine article about the 9-1-1 emergency number, but I miss an article describing the functions it manages. Such article could describe how calls are received and how alarms are send out. I am currently working on a Danish article about this function and I try to include some international aspects. --|EPO| ^da: 18:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for article on the Hexayurt

An article on the Hexayurt would be very worthwhile, I believe. However as it's a colleague's project, it's better if someone else starts it. More info (including NY Times ref) at Talk:Emergency_management#Hexayurt. --Chriswaterguy talk 15:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

1755 Lisbon earthquake

1755 Lisbon earthquake has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

UTC?

I noticed a lot of articles about earthquakes (although not all) seem to use UTC as the primary time not local time, even some featured articles 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. However this doesn't really seem to agree with WP:MOSNUM#Time zones. I appreciate that UTC is prefered in a scientific context and also given that earthquakes can affect places in multiple timezones it can get confusing but personally I still feel the WP:MOSNUM#Time zones recommendation is best and we should use local time of the epicentre. Comments? Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Earthquakes, I beleive (but I stand to be corrected on this) are extensively studied even in the context of individual cases by the scientific community. As a result, there will likely be an unwritten rule to use UTC, and I can sympathise with that. But at the same time, in the context of the history of an area, as you say, local time is better. I propose that we should state the local time, then add the equivilant UTC time in brackets. This also saves readers looking up different time zones, particularly in cross-zone events. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Using both times should be standard, as well as some description, eg. makng clear whether the local time is before or after local sunrise/sunset, and what the weather was like and the time of year. There is a difference between an earthquake striking in the middle of a freezing winter's night, and one that strikes at 4pm in the afternoon on a hot summer's day, or one that strikes at sunset during a heavy storm. Carcharoth (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Good points... In other words as in 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake it should be 07:58:53 local time (00:58:53 UTC) rather then what it is now. This isn't a big issue obviously but one I wanted to make when I noticed this. It perhaps matters most when it comes to events that have a large time difference from UTC and also when it means a different date in local time, e.g. 2006 Kamchatka earthquakes. Or using a made up example, if a major earthquake were to hit Wellington tomorrow at 12:30 in the afternoon, it would surely be remembered as the 15th December 2007 earthquake by most of us New Zealanders, not the 14th December one (what 14th December 2007 earthquake???) and for the average readers point of view, it's usually more meaningful to know it happened in the early afternoon of 15th December (a Saturday) in Wellington not on the 14th December just before midnight UTC (except when your trying to work out when it happened in your local time which is one of the reasons we should also obviously provide the time in UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Renaming 1703 Genroku earthquake?

Please note that this has been posted simultaneously at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Renaming 1703 Genroku earthquake?.‎ --Ooperhoofd (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have take the liberty to move all current and past discussions on the naming convention to a new page here and the existing conventions here. The discussion can continue there in a more coordinated manner. My conclusion is that all discussion so far have pointed to the convention being a guideline to be followed when there is no existing name for the event. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 09:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

First transport accident with Nitroglycerine

This event with Wells Fargo in San Francisco could warrant an article on its own. It is current only mentioned in passing in the Nitroglycerine article. Any takers? --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 13:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam Air Flight 574

The above article, which falls into the scope of this project, is up for WP:FA. Please leave comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adam Air Flight 574. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Natural disaster vs Natural hazard

Dear disaster managers, I come to you for guidance. I've come across Natural hazard while categorising things, reverted it to an earlier, seemingly forgotten version and cleaned up a bit. Then I came across natural disaster which seems to be if not a photocopy then something utterly similar. In light of all the hot talk around these two articles within the past few months (like this merge tag and this short discussion), I ask for your help on what to do. My proposal is to merge both articles into one, but which name would be more appropriate? Eager to read your input. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 16:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have commented on this on the Natural disaster talkpage. Today I will go on and implement my suggested changes. Any comments from WP:DM members or others are welcome. --rxnd (talk) 07:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now made the transition of material from natural disaster to natural hazard. Seeing that the Natural hazard article basically is the old natural disaster article, there was not much material left to put in the natural disaster article. I would hence appreciate any help to expand the natural disaster article. Please keep in mind that the disasters are past and current events and that hazards are the phenomena and threat. In the process on making the split, I discovered that there is a lot of work to do with the disaster-related lists, such as list of disasters. The natural disaster article is in essence a portal to the disaster lists, which list of disasters also is. This needs to be ironed out. --rxnd (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

These two concepts are distinct, a natural hazard is something that has the potential to cause a natural disaster. E.g., the hazard of severe weather causes the disaster of a flood. TimClicks (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with TimClicks. A Hazard is an unresolved issue or element of risk, with the potential to result in an adverse event of some sort. It has been identified, but hasn't happened yet. This is the definition that the concept of risk-based planning (as opposed to 'all-hazards'), and also the formal process of Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment used in Emergency Management, are based upon. A disaster is a hazard which has achieved its potential for occurrence, and has generated one more issue than the community has the resources to cope with. These are the definitions that I use, in any case. Hope this helps! Emrgmgmtca (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ckimpson

For those who remember this user, see this article. "Cameron Kimpson" is probably active around somewhere, so keep an eye out. Circeus (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Eddie Ho and Air France Flight 358

User:Eddiehosa removed a paragraph discussing Eddie Ho's photography of the AF358 evacuation and the controversy surrounding taking photographs during an evacuation. See: Talk:Air_France_Flight_358#Eddie_Ho_and_the_picture_taking_controversy WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

North American ice storm of 1998 GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed North American ice storm of 1998 and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues concerning sourcing that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with other WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Assessment

We discussed the introduction of Article Assessment in the latter part of 2006 (see archive), but we did not get all the way to launch it. Could someone who is experienced with it have a look at our Assessment template (WP:DM#Assessments) and add scales for importance and quality. It would be nice to have something like that of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment. --rxnd (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I have augmented the template to include assessments for Class and Importance, and I have also created the consequent category hierarchy. __meco (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your addition to the template is what triggered my post above. Good initiative from your side! To clarify my post, my intention is to develop Disaster management-specific scales for Importance and, if relevant, Quality. Our project encompasses two main concepts: (1) disaster events, and (2) emergency management-related tools, methods and concepts. For the importance we would hence have to develop duplicate recommendations, i.e. what is a disaster with high importance and what is a emergency management concept with high importance. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to liaise with our related projects/task forces, e.g. WP:AIRCRASH. Before that, we need to develop a draft similar to the Assessment guideline of the Medicine WikiProject above. --rxnd (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox template for road accidents?

I've tentatively created a template, based on that for aircraft accidents, in my sandbox: here it is. I'd appreciate any comments on its worth - I'm afraid I'm not much of a coder, so I did what I could with what I had to hand. It fills a gap I think needs filling, as there hasn't yet been a good infobox for road accidents.

Speaking of which...might there be interest in a subproject dedicating to creating articles for infamous road accidents? I notice a distinct lack of coverage on those here. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1071 articles are assigned to this project, of which 307, or 28.7%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Focus of project seems too event focused

Hi there, while I've only been here a while I have noticed that this project seems to be very focused on events themselves and a lot less on the management of disasters. There are some other avenues we could pursue:

• Hazardscapes of particular countries and regions within large countries
• Evaluation of different building standards
• Notable public education campaigns
• Academic institutions specialising in disaster management
• Organiations involved in disaster management

--TimClicks (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Itek Air 737 crashes

From Reuters. Looks likely to have claimed over 100... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Disaster management

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Lists of victims

An anon editor has twice added a list of deceased victims to 2008 Chatsworth train collision, and I have removed it citing WP:NOT#Memorial. There is a link to the victims list in the external links, and generic descriptions of unusual circumstances like one victim who survived a previous fatal train crash. The only named victim is the engineer, who is at the center of the investigation, and even this is somewhat questionable, because of WP:BLP1E. The rest of the victims are apparently non-notable, and not named. I believe it is standard practice not to list all victims in disaster articles. Any thoughts on this? Dhaluza (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Agree - that lists of victims who are non-notable are inappropriate in such articles. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree - inappropriate and possibly listcruft. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 19:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Would that mean the list of victims found in the Boys in Red Tragedy article is not needed? --Kuzwa (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review: Mounted search and rescue

Please peer review Mounted search and rescue and leave comments on Talk:Mounted search and rescue. I would appreciate other eyes looking at the article. Specifically, what information did you expect to find in it that is not there? Thanks! --Una Smith (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Primarily what I expected to see were non-trivial references, which establishes an article's notability. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you put fact tags where you think citations are most needed? --Una Smith (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Great Fire of London

Great Fire of London has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Kuzwa (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 587

There is a dispute at Talk:American_Airlines_Flight_587#Sources_for_Jdey_citation over whether a man saying that he shoe bombed the flight counts as "al-Qaeda did later claim responsibility" WhisperToMe (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571

Have any other disaster survivors resorted to cannabalism in recorded history? ~ R.T.G 02:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The Cospatrick, the Dalles des Morts incident may count as a 'disaster' in its loosest sense, the Essex and the Méduse. Note how good shipwrecks are for it; I expected more airliners and maybe some other transportation too. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sandman. I overlooked this thread as I discussed elsewhere as well. I should bring to your attention on this project that Category:Incidents of cannibalism is largely overlooked in case some of you are writing in some related articles. ~ R.T.G 13:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Us airways plane crash

Us airways plane crash - I'm thinking of retargetting this to the crash section of the US Airways article, what do you think? Comment at talk:Us airways plane crash 76.66.198.171 (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Attributing and contextualizing minority 9/11 theories

Review of Talk:September_11_attacks#Conspiracy_theories would be appreciated. The debate here is not about whether the existence of non-mainstream "conspiracy" theories should be mentioned at all, but rather about whether they should be put in context. By "context," I mean the fact that "conspiracy" approaches have been both rejected and accepted by notable entities. In other words, I mean that which is being removed here and restored here. My position is that the National Institute of Standards and Technology and "the community of civil engineers" (both of which have opposed non-mainstream theories) and a third of the American public (which supports these theories), as reported by Time magazine (which even goes so far as to call them "mainstream," but not so far as to voice its own support of them) are all notable enough to mention. My position is that this balance is fully in accord with the spirit of WP:NPOV, and especially in accord with its WP:DUE section, which states that "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" and therefore, as far as I can tell, encourages the attribution of the minority perspective, regardless of how true or false that perspective may ultimately turn out to be. Indeed, in this debate I have cited WP:V, which states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Those who oppose the contextualization of these theories have also pointed to WP:DUE, but in a way that I view to be mistaken--namely, by suggesting that reliable sources should back a theory, while WP:DUE emphasizes the extent to which theories are held, regardless of their veracity, rather than "backed" by any particular types of evidence. Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: For those who do not share my position (although the spirit of it also applies to those who do), I've made what I feel to be a basic--yet an important--suggestion in this diff on the 9/11 talk page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:04, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Ten worst nuclear disasters

In March 2009, TIME magazine compiled details of the ten worst nuclear disasters: The Worst Nuclear Disasters. Thought it may be of interest to members of this wikiproject. Johnfos (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Swine Flu map NZ.PNG

File:Swine Flu map NZ.PNG has been nominated for speedy deletion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Added article (United States) National Strategy for Homeland Security

National Strategy for Homeland Security is a stub which is related to Comprehensive Emergency Management and seems to belong to this project as part of the management of disasters/terrorism. I took a stab at it after seeing the red link on the National Response Framework article... Hotfeba (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Invitation from a related project

Please accept this invitation to join the Tropical cyclones WikiProject (WPTC), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with tropical cyclones. WPTC hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming hurricane season. Simply click here to accept!

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Name of project

I've been slowly working on emergency-related articles, as well as lurking around this project for a while, and I was wondering if it would be more accurate to rename this project "WikiProject Emergency management"? Disasters seem to only encompass large-scale occurrences, which would be a sub-set of all emergencies. Although individual disasters are more likely to be notable (and thus included in Wikipedia) than an average emergency, the topic of emergency management/preparedness is notable, and is already covered by this project. When this project was created in 2006, there was discussion regarding disaster management vs. emergency management for the article title in the main namespace (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management/Structure#Disaster vs. Emergency). Ultimately, emergency management was decided on as a better name for the article. I'm not quite sure why this project's name wasn't changed concurrently. Additionally, the main category for all of this project's articles is Category:Emergency management. Therefore, I am proposing that this project be renamed to "WikiProject Emergency management", so that the project's scope is more clear in the title. It encompasses all emergency management, and not just that of disasters. --Scott Alter 23:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of LANSA Flight 502

I have done a GA Reassessment of LANSA Flight 502 as part of the GA Sweeps project. The article is very close to meeting all the GA Criteria. There is one unreferenced section and some formatting issues along with two dead links that need to be repaired. My review is here. I am notifying all interested projects of this review and that I have put the article on hold for one week. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions of air disasters

Hi, I was wondering about the convention of using Airline Name Flight XXX as a naming convention for disasters. It seems conceptually wrong, as that flight number is shared by all the scheduled instances of the flight. If Foo Airlines 123 is the number of the flight from Here to There at 12 noon every day, if an aircraft serving that route crashes, it seems just wrong that the WP article named "Foo Airlines Flight 123" is about the disaster. That article should state "this is (or was, if it was subsequently removed or renumbered) a scheduled flight from Here to There at 12 noon every day. On day X it happened that..." and there should be a link to the disaster.

Basically I'm confused by the fact that the flight number is used as an alias for the specific flight, which is not. --Raistlin (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

2006 Kolkata leather factory fire GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed 2006 Kolkata leather factory fire for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

International platitudes

It has became an unfortunate sort-of convention on Wikipedia to include lengthy lists of international platitudes expressing sympathy with victims and condemning the perpetrators. As an example, see this list for the Jakarta Marriott attacks, where we're informed that the Swedish government, France, the OIC, and Marriott itself all oppose suicide bombings. Duh? I would like to suggest that these be removed from articles, unless the opinions offered are meaningful and/or surprising in some way. Jpatokal (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a governmetn propoganda rag-tag outlet -- it doesnt work on "duh" logic. The point here is to be encyclopedic. According to webster (widely acclaimed dictionary source): "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject." Accordingly, such notes of who said what (which are not always similiar in the remotest) can be of interest to X and/or Y studying matters of say terrorim in the future and the politics of such countries and allies. Therefore, without such valid grounds beyond "duh" the validity IS vital to all the hordes of readers who are NOT contributors.

These list provide little of notable or encyclopedic value. unless the opinions themselves are notable (say the opinions themselves were commented on), then merely listing predictable and numerous opinions of world leaders is of little value. I fully support the removal of the list in the Jakarta Bombing page. Further, i oppose the use of "other stuff exists" and "if you change this you have to change it across wikipedia first" logic to justify editing. ie, where is WP:PRECEDENCE? --Merbabu (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Make a new article listing all those who have condemned the actions :) Or just write something like "the actions were condemned by numerous countries and organisations". --|EPO| ^da: 14:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic in Hong Kong

I had began work on this article in my userpage subspace months ago, but then suddenly became very busy and stopped working on it. I've moved what I've already added to a main article space. There is really a wealth of information that can be found on the topic. There should be no difficulties finding sources. The Chinese version of the article (for those who can read Chinese) is a good guide for what to search for. The work here really is to collect, organise, and present the main relevant issues. The article might be of interest to those who are interested in the swine flu outbreak because Hong Kong was the first reported case in Asia, and also because much of Hong Kong government's response to the outbreak came from strategies that were planned after assessing what happened during the SARS outbreak in 2003. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

disastermanagement

advice a model for school project in Disaster Management topic

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.197.246 (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gravitational keyhole

While the gravitational keyhole article is about outer space, I think it is also relevant to this project. Please consider adding a project rating template. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Floods

Move? See Talk:November 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods#Requested move. Simply south (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Disasters vulnerable to delisting as a Featured Portal

Just to warn you that Portal:Disasters hasn't been maintained in over a year, so would be vulnerable to delisting as a Featured Portal. I've left a message for User:Nishkid64 as the original nominator of the portal, but Nishkid may need a hand... Bencherlite^Talk 21:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)