Template talk:2010 Haiti earthquake

A huge collection of unrelated stuff

This template connects places and people because they are connected to a single event. This is not a strong connection between these elements. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree about those geographical locations that were destroyed by the quake, since there is a strong connection between those; the depopulation caused by the quake, and infrastructure loss would be extended impacts. 70.29.211.138 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If we extend this logic in other cases we will end up to have navboxes to many places, all in almost the same area, connected to a specific single event. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The box was not excessively large that it was unusable. These links were relevant, and important, and removing them did nothing to increase knowledge (rather, the opposite). Grsz¹¹ 01:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And on the most basic level, the connection is the 2010 Haiti earthquake, and that's exactly what this template is for. Grsz¹¹ 02:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost all facilities have been damaged by the earthquake. So why choose these? The country has been struck by a big earthquake so it's obvious that all buildings were affected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

We obviously aren't listing every building, this are notable, important facilities ie the Palace and the National Cathedral. Grsz¹¹ 02:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

At first glance, I'd say the template is still of reasonable size and scope. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the buildings should not be in the navbox. There not dealing with the earthquake directly. I suggest reading WP:NAVBOX. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories in the template

Regardless of whether or not the 2010_Haiti_earthquake_conspiracy_theories article is deleted (and as of this moment there is still an open debate on that), I don't think it has any business being at the top of the template. A matter of fact, I don't think it should even be in the template. It is essentially composed of theories by people/groups/movements that had no direct relationship with the earthquake and are exploiting it for their own political or person goals. People can find it through the 2010 Haiti earthquake category tag. David Straub (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. But since I'm a strong supporter of deleting the conspiracy theories article, I'd rather let other people make the decision about the template. Even if the AfD ends up keeping the article, it is in such a woeful state that it's an embarrassment compared to the fairly solid write-up of the other articles in the template. Pichpich (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Amazing Survivals

There have been deaths and there have been survivals. There is a story of a 6 year old boy who got stuck in the debris and he drank the rain water that came down. They found him 6 days later alive. Another story is about a ship that flipped over because of a tsunami wave. The men survived because they were very well expirianced. They were washed up on shore 3 days later.

-Dylan Oakes-