Talk:Victoria Hall disaster
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Victoria Hall disaster article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 16, 2008, June 16, 2011, June 16, 2013, June 16, 2015, June 16, 2016, June 16, 2018, and June 16, 2021. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Don't make collateral changes ! edit
Naming should follow the sources or, at least, should be discussed.
The very idea to make some collateral changes in some page very slightly related to the 2015 Mina disaster is probably a bad idea: it suggests that you are trying to influence a discussion in progress and this only by using unjustified procedural means.
Nevertheless, I agree that sometimes, somewhere, over-referrencing was to be addressed. I have keept theses changes. Pldx1 (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, your assumptions about my motive are wrong, and you have clearly acted with a lack of AGF. The decision there had no influence on changing the word 'disaster' to 'stampede'. 'Stampede' is more precise, not a euphemism like 'disaster', and accords with common usage. Therefore I think the words should probably be changed back again. However, I have better things to do. zzz (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Article Naming edit
An article which links to this, the article on Human crushes, gives this as an example of such, and contains an entire section which would discourage using the term "stampede" in this scenario. Should the article be renamed "Victoria Hall disaster", as it was originally called? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.69.197 (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Page move edit
This page was moved without discussion in September 2015 with the edit summary euphemism. Whether that is true or not, it is no reason to move the page from a stable title which accords to WP:TITLE, ie. the name that is most commonly used... in a significant majority of reliable sources. Here the term 'disaster' outnumbers 'stampede' by 5 to 2, with other |non-judgemental terms (tragedy, calamity) also in use. So I've moved it back. If anyone is unhappy with this I suggest it be taken to WP:RM for a wider discussion. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Crowd crush instead of human stampede edit
I changed every use of stampede to crowd crush as this is the correct modern term. It better describes what happens to a reader who doesn't know about crowd dynamics. Many of the references including contemporary accounts refers to the incident as a stampede, it may be good to call out this distinction. Lotu (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)