Talk:Zolitūde shopping centre roof collapse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Links

[1](Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)).

Casualties

This article is bs - so far reported victim number is less than whats been written in this bogus article, it should be taken down until the rescue works are finished!

I dont know who wrote this entry, but youre a total moron and imbecile!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.198.224.91 (talk • contribs)

See WP:CIVIL. As far as this news article goes, as of 7:00, November 22, Riga time – Veikalā «Maksima» iegrūst jumts; vismaz 12 upuri – the number of victims and wounded is exactly as stated in the article. If need be it can always be updated. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Latvian television just confirmed 21 dead and 35 injured (which can't exactly be cited). It is likely that there are more coming, but to say that various sources claim as low as 6, which was information as of yesterday is misleading ~~Xil (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

A minor thing but later on it could be added that the death toll now is what the initial estimates of the total number of people trapped were, i.e., that it was underestimated. (When they reported 12 dead 30+ injured I kind of expected that it shouldn't go up since initially it was reported that "up to" (don't remember exact wording) 50 people are believed to be trapped.) Also a minor thing: isn't the surveillance footage recorded centrally? Even if the equipment went out they should have been able to go through it real fast(?) (Something to check with news stories.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the size of the building must be misinformation. Perhaps the collapsed area is 500m2? A 500m2 building would be too small to be a supermarket. Simply measuring side x side in google maps indicates its way over 2500m2. Mokopila (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The emergency services confirmed this morning that 28 people were taken to hospitals and 7 minorly injured either were treated on the spot or seeked medical attention themselves. There have been another statistic, as far as I gathered based on reports by police that 40 live people left the building, perhaps not injured or otherwise, but I don't think this should be reported as number of injured. They haven't found anyone alive since last night and it seems unlikely and there are only ~5 people estimated to be still buried. I'll fix the misinformation about 500 meters. There was surveilance footage, but they made map based on it only today, apparently, and as I understood it was not much help ~~Xil (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a map made by police based on where people were seen before CCTV went offline due to collapse, which has released to Latvian television and apparently only to them. Just FYI I counted 137 on it (it was not easy to tell the location markers apart in some places, though) ~~Xil (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

they made map based on it only today – that's what I thought, I saw a video of it being presented on some LV TV channel on tvnet (didn't watch it though.) I think it was Nov 23 that LV police posted on their Facebook wall (of all the places, lol!) that they are reviewing the surveillance tapes. At this point this is really a minor detail though, I think, they did review the footage after all, and, I guess, that proves that the surv. cams were actually functioning, and that's that. There are probably more "pressing questions," e.g., did the "būvprojekts" allow pavements, as could be seen from photos prior to the collapse (when visualizations of the project showed only grass,) etc. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Timing

Would it be fair to say that there was more than one collapse? Perhaps one at 17:41 and one at 18:00? How would firemen have died if they weren't already inside and caught in a second fall? Abductive (reasoning) 05:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't the article already say that several times? "After the initial collapse, firefighters were sent in but a second collapse occurred" Valenciano (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And a third collapse, as reported here on BBC (complete with a video) (thankfully without any rescue workers suffering injuries.) ­­­­Neitrāls vārds (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Not publishing fatalities

Regarding this [2] I could not find any such policy. There are lists of casualties in other highly published events resulting in multiple deaths like 2011 Lokomotiv Yaroslavl air disaster, List of casualties of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. And since the list was initially not realeased due to privacy issues then it follows that police has solved any such issues before releasing it ~~Xil (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that such lists generally don't go in, unless the people are notable in their own right. See the afd of the Virgina tech massacre for a comparable case. Valenciano (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Names are only published if the deceased was notable. WWGB (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The WP:NOTMEMORIAL guideline refers to someone making an article about a dead person as they would set up a memorial site, not to disaster victims. This does not support your claim that names of disaster victims are not to be published. The related Virgin tech case was deleted as a separate list, the main article still has list of victims ~~Xil (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

None of the articles at Riga supermarket roof collapse#See also include names of the dead. What makes this article any different? WWGB (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You claimed that victim lists are never published. Yet you now fail to demonstrate any such guideline. And you are know trying to narrow your claim to collapsed buildings specifically. There is however another article with victim list in this fairly narrow category - Collapse of the Hotel New World ~~Xil (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's agree that there is an inconsistent approach in listing the deceased in mass death articles. In this particular article, what is the benefit to the article of listing the names of the dead? The nationalities are noted, we could even include tables of ages, gender etc. I just don't see any reason to list every name. The names would mean nothing to the majority of readers. WWGB (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It gives the general idea of who these people were - their age, also possibly occupations could be later added. Arguably it is better than making them a mere statistic. Plus in Latvia a big deal was made that this should be published, because people believe there were children killed and what not. I don't see any major reason not to publish them - the list does not take up much space, any privacy issues apparently have been solved. ~~Xil (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Rescue services published information about 3 firefighters who died trying to save victims of the disaster. Would it make sense to list them in the article? CaptSolo (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: Note that the Latvian Wikipedia does not list the names of the deceased. -Mardus (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Which is not due to consensus against it. The casualties section there is prose and it lists names of the three firemen ~~Xil (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Spēlmaņu nakts

As "Spēlmaņu nakts" is red-linked, would an editor kindly add a translation and explanation to the article - or write an article if it is a notable event. Otherwise it is better deleted from English WP. Davidships (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a national level theater award ~~Xil (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The three images of the collapse/before

Why were they removed? I do not see any reasons why they can be classified as copyvio. EdwardRech (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone removed them because of alleged copyright violation. [3] Is there any way to prove that they are in public domain? --Երևանցի ^talk 15:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll be in Zolitude tomorrow with my camera. If no one has come up with better free images by then I can provide some. Valenciano (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be great --Երևանցի ^talk 17:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no Freedom of Panorama in Latvia, all pictures of the store should be marked as fair use anyway. ~~Xil (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Visited the disaster scene today and uploaded some files here, it's been a foggy day in Riga and a lot of the scene is cordoned off, so that's probably as good as it gets I'm afraid. Valenciano (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I have uploaded some pictures I made on the site today and saturdayRevivan —Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Records of collapse

I don't think it is relevant to description of the collapse, which media filmed it. I agree that the viewpoint from which BBC was shooting might provide some video evidence to what happened, but, if it does, this should be brought up in section descriing investigation. I haven't heard any expert opinion mentioning the video as proof ~~Xil (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that info on who filmed it is not important. CaptSolo (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The video itself is important, though as it gives a first-hand view of the collapse, as it happens, from a clear angle of view. It would give readers a richer experience of what it was like (similar to how photos illustrate an article).

How to correctly add it to the article then? It is more related to the things that happened and not to the investigation (at least for now). Add it as an external link? CaptSolo (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Article about another collapse (2013_Savar_building_collapse) even embeds a video clip, though it can not be done in this case because we are talking about copyrighted content. CaptSolo (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Just find somebody making a point based on the video, so it's importance is referenced fact and add it to the investigation section as the theories by the Estonian guy and building company's CEO are ~~Xil (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the video is relevant to the event itself (it is its depiction/recording) and not to the investigation. How about an external link? CaptSolo (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the primary source re. theories by the Estonian guy is not in the article and has been removed a number of times. CaptSolo (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is see cause section (which I meant by "investigation", forgot it was renamed), I just edited it to make clear it is based solely on pictures; the piece seems to be fine to me, if it is clearly stated that it is only a theory I don't see why not add it, especially given he is not the only person saying this. The video is coyrighted so it can't e added here, you can make it an external link ~~Xil (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not. Cited are 2 articles in Estonian (contents of which I can not reliably check). But not the study itself (in English) allegedly written by this expert. However, a link to it is included in a number of news articles (e.g. at the bottom of the http://arileht.delfi.ee article). CaptSolo (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then add it as it is the original source ~~Xil (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Citizenship/ethnicity

In the article:

The deceased are Latvian unless stated otherwise.

Many of the deceased were not ethnic Latvians, so perhaps there should be a change in wording that they held Latvian citizenship. The list based on the current source makes assumptions that the persons were holding Latvian citizenship unless confirmed otherwise, so there is a sore need for better sources and more clarity. -Mardus (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

A "Latvian" normally means a Latvian citizen for the English speakers regardless of the ethnicity. --5.70.86.166 (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Photos, Freedom of Panorama, and licensing

Note that Latvia does not have freedom of panorama (see the relevant Latvia subsection in Wikimedia Commons), which means that any photo showing a substantial part of the supermarket or other buildings not in the public domain may not be eligible to Wikimedia Commons and thus cannot be used by Wikimedia sister projects. Photos that have already been uploaded and which don't meet the criteria will be nominated for deletion. It's possible to make photos related to the event, in which architectural works are not the primary object of the photo, as these works of architecture can be classed as de minimis.

For example, File:Riga Maxima disaster memorial.JPG is much less likely to be nominated for deletion than most others in commons:Category:Riga supermarket roof collapse. -Mardus (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Deaths by nationality

As of now, all I can find is that one Armenian citizen has died. Please add about the citizenship of the killed as more information comes in. Why do you even care of they nationality people died and you want to know there citizenship that kinda not the issue here would'nt you say i hate people like you who give's a f*ck where there were from people died never mind the nationality your sad. 25 November 2013 18:44PM. --Երևանցի ^talk 15:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Nationality	Fatalities
Latvia	N/A
Armenia	1
Total	45

Okay, adding it right now. Hold on. EdwardRech (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Just out of sheer curiosity and not wishing to sound insensitive to affected people, do we need to specify lists of victims on an encyclopedia? [4]. What happens in cases of natural disasters that claim hundreds, even thousands? The Hawk Spy (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Struck out sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Good question. There are discussions about this further down the page. WWGB (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a natural disaster with hundreds of victims names of which would be hard to ascertain and list, it is a man made disaster and a crime and there is a fairly short, complete and verifiable list of victims. And also whose sock puppet is this? I'd appreciate, if consensus was achieved y having an actual opinion everyone can agree upon, not by fake majority not liking something ~~Xil (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Why so keen to remove all information about people in the building?

So what's up? First publishing the victim list is objectionable for an unclear reason, now the fact that there were more people in the building needs to be removed. ~~Xil (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the number of people that were killed is certainly relevant, also it could be said that the nationality is a relevant statistic. It could also be debated that Age and Gender should be included if sources support the mention of those attributes, WP:FRINGE. The current inclusion seems to conform to WP:NOTSTATSBOOK apart from the list of names. I can't see how the actual names of the people who died affects the view or the actual circumstance of the incident itself. If a person who meets WP:IMPORTANCE died, then it could be said that including their name would better reflect the impact of the incident.WP:NOTWHOSWHO states about proportion to the event itself and given that the names themselves (as an attribute) don't hold weight (WP:UNDUE), i don't see why they should be mentioned. WP:NOTMEMORIAL also supports non-inclusion of the names. (Cesdeva (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

There are victim lists in other articles on similar disasters and crimes with many victims, so the argument that it violates any guidelines is questionable (what about all other articles, that get much more traffic and attention from editors then?). It is not about inclusion of names - I too do not see the point of including only names. The suggestion was to include name, age, occupation, as it would provide general insight into who these people were and what the impact is on local community. User:WWGB, however, removed all information besides the names claiming it is trivia and apparently doesn't want to discuss it any further ~~Xil (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That is untrue. Here is my edit on that matter [5]. I clearly maintained name, age, nationality and firefighter status. The only material I removed was date of birth and occupations like "kindergarten teacher" and "artist". I still maintain that such level of detail is unnecessary in an encyclopedia. If User:Xil wants to make an argument, s/he should at least present the truth. WWGB (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Then were the hell did all other information go, if nobody removed it? And it is not clear why occupation of firefighters would be more important. Maxima workers too would have been killed while working. It seems one person was a politician and there were several businessmen - you know the things that could be notable as you asked ~~Xil (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not say "nobody" removed it, I said "I" did not remove it. The ages and occupations were removed here [6] by User:John, a Wikipedia administrator. WWGB (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, my apologies, I thought it was you since you also removed part of information. Also I'd like to note that last time I checked being administrator does not give anyone power to dictate what the content should be. ~~Xil (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see how the age and gender would provide a general insight; it would be better however if sources can be found that support this view of the impact on the community. This would add weight to the inclusion. Even then, i'd suggest the statistics be interwoven with the prose to provide an explanation, rather than a standalone list. I believe each article should be viewed on its own merits and that the consensus of a few editors on another article doesn't necessarily represent the consensus of the editors here or indeed all other editors. I'll comment on the above Rfc later and hopefully a true consensus can be reached and held. You could perhaps raise a more specific Rfc yourself in respect to the inclusion. Regards (Cesdeva (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

I don't think prose is best solution, if we aim to keep the information on the victims short. There is, of course, often a point in evaluating each article separately, but I don't see the point when the situation is exactly the same - persons who were not notable in their life time have attained some media attention in their death. We should then be discussing removal of almost every such victim list on Wikipedia. Also regarding consensus, I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion as it seems that some assume they don't need to discuss anything since they are in majority ~~Xil (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The prose could be kept to a small and concise paragraph. Either way I suppose the main discussion here lies as to whether there has been enough media coverage of the individuals themselves and their statistical attributes to add due weight to their inclusion in the article, rather than a broad-discussion of victim-lists across Wikipedia. (Cesdeva (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

Every major media in Latvia has covered the victims list released by police and several of the victims have been covered as individuals too. It is not really important for understanding the structural failure of the building, but it has a lot to do with reaction of general public to what happened. ~~Xil (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should then include the reaction in the prose of the "Reactions" section, concisely explaining how the occupations e.t.c caused such a reaction. This would summarise and portray the information in a less intrusive way and a full list could be hosted elsewhere as a reference. It would fit in that section nicely. (Cesdeva (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

Could you explain how this list is intrusive? This is a long article, it isn't taking up that much space. There is a reason why prose is often preferable, but sometimes there is a place for lists too. Reactions section deals with condolences specifically. If we expanded on condolences and sentiments of other people related to occupations this would indeed result in collection of somewhat trivial information, rather than allowing reader to make conclusion themselves. The topic is not notable just because roof collapsed, but mostly due to loss of lives, it is therefore relevant what those people were, but it is not relevant to detail what impact every single death causes to people in the local community. It is relevant to the reader that, if article says that no children died, Maxima employees died, firefighters died, members of same family died etc. the reader can look in the list and verify this ~~Xil (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

So summarising the information into prose would make it irrelevant and trivial? Throwing statistics into a list in the article because it doesn't have any actual weight is irrelevant and trivial and and results in Wikipedia becoming a statsbook which it is not WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. If the purpose of the article was for the reader to interpret the data themselves, we wouldn't need any prose whatsoever and would have a page full of sporadic and trivial data, again, a stats book. Saying that it is relevant who those people were because they lost there lives, is a logical fallacy in this context. If an attribute of who those people were was directly and notably consequential to themselves being in the incident, for example being one of those firefighters, then it is relevant. The number of people who died is relevant because it is both a fundamental result of the incident and a commonly judged scale of the impact of an incident.

The topic is also equally notable because the roof collapsed as it was the roof collapse that killed those people.

In regards to your last point; if the article makes a statement regarding something then the reader can follow the inline-citation to the source of the data to verify this, as is common reader practice across the whole of wikipedia. In other words there is no need to publish the data in the article as it is easily accessible through the reflist should the reader want to verify the statements in the prose.

The list is intrusive because it interrupts the flow of reading the article. There is no need for it to be in there. (Cesdeva (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

That is not what I said. I said that it should not be expanded further than names, ages and occupations. Prose will certainly invite longer descriptions of each of the victims, which is not needed and indeed can extend into trivia zone, as will descriptions on what exact was the impact of each individual death. The police list is in Latvian and does not include occupations. If lists are intrusive then we should remove condolences by other countries too. Formating of the article should not take precedence over content - it is an issue that can be solved later on e.g. in other articles such lists are also included so that they are alongside text. ~~Xil (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The formatting argument is a mere additional point to the fact that the information (names, occupations and ages) is irrelevant to the article in the first place. See above. The list of names is pretty obvious and easy to read on the Latvian Police website, even to a non-Latvian speaker. The occupations and ages should be able to be found on other sources. It wouldn't be the first time that there have been multiple sources to an article. (Cesdeva (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

Which brings us again to why in this article, where the victim list and lives of individual victims have received huge attention from the society, it is less relevant than in other articles? There is no point in providing ton of articles in Latvian to English readers as possible extra sources, the other solutions you suggest actually would be more damaging to the quality of the content and understanding than the list ~~Xil (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you link me to these articles? I assume they are incidences of mass death of another kind as all other Wikipedia articles that pertain to deadly roof collapses don't have victim lists, for example this: Katowice Trade Hall roof collapse (Cesdeva (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

I already addressed this above - first of all you are narrowing it to fairly low number of incidents, although any case where there is number of random non-notable people killed would apply, and secondly even then among building collapses there's Collapse of the Hotel New World which has victim list. ~~Xil (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• What about collapsing the list as an interim solution?

If the list were inline in a paragraph, as it was initially, it would still not be prose. Maybe it's not that the list is an issue, but that no proper prose has been written, and creating a table would help to find out useful information to then write about the deceased; the table would necessarily not belong into the article, but could be created on a userpage.

Further comment: In articles about mass deaths of people, like the 2004 tsunami, Wikipedia has not published the lists of all of the 250,000+ dead, as this has been the domain of other websites. The Wikipedia article on that tsunami does feature short lists of people who were notable only in separate articles about how each country was affected by the tsunami, and separately a little bit about the notable people who have articles written about them. -Mardus (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This cannot be compared to tsunami victims - this is a complete and comparatively short list. Collapsing list could be a solution since I stiil am not convinced that there is any other reason than layout not to add it. I don't see how prose and userification would help. Some details coud be in prose, but I don't see point writing, when everything on people present gets deleted ~~Xil (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to offer the following - the list is put into collapsible box (i.e. the same function most navigation boxes have), so as not to disrupt the flow, and names, ages and occupations are included just like in other similar cases, which will also keep any more detail on these people from being added. ~~Xil (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As much as i like the idea of a collapsible box, hiding it doesn't entirely remove the problem. The article you linked (Collapse of the Hotel New World) does indeed include a victim list, but a partial one. The only victims being included on the list were the ones whose occupation caused them to be involved in the incident. This echoes my previous concern about the relevancy of these people, except the firefighters and staff, being included in the article. See Sampoong Department Store collapse for lack of a list and Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks for an example that uses lists for relevant information, notably none of the information that you propose including here. (Cesdeva (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC))

This puts undue weight on these people and would create impression nobody else was there. Yes, the customers should not have been there, but they were and that is large part of why this case has gained notability ~~Xil (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The impression wouldn't be that no-one else was there as the total death toll is clearly stated in the article and it would be mentioned that the list is partial. The customers were there indeed, their names, age and occupations didn't directly cause them to be there though; the only relevant fact is the amount that died.(Cesdeva (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC))

You suggest that readers will count the names? We could perhaps agree that it is not important to include occupations of customers, but I see no reason not to include names and ages of everyone. Also, I'd like to make additional note about your argument above - there is no clear reason why in some other cases victim lists are partial, it might very well be because full list is not available, but contrary to what you suggested above Collapse of the Hotel New World includes names of the customers as well. ~~Xil (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Why so keen to remove all information about people in the building?

So what's up? First publishing the victim list is objectionable for an unclear reason, now the fact that there were more people in the building needs to be removed. ~~Xil (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the number of people that were killed is certainly relevant, also it could be said that the nationality is a relevant statistic. It could also be debated that Age and Gender should be included if sources support the mention of those attributes, WP:FRINGE. The current inclusion seems to conform to WP:NOTSTATSBOOK apart from the list of names. I can't see how the actual names of the people who died affects the view or the actual circumstance of the incident itself. If a person who meets WP:IMPORTANCE died, then it could be said that including their name would better reflect the impact of the incident.WP:NOTWHOSWHO states about proportion to the event itself and given that the names themselves (as an attribute) don't hold weight (WP:UNDUE), i don't see why they should be mentioned. WP:NOTMEMORIAL also supports non-inclusion of the names. (Cesdeva (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

There are victim lists in other articles on similar disasters and crimes with many victims, so the argument that it violates any guidelines is questionable (what about all other articles, that get much more traffic and attention from editors then?). It is not about inclusion of names - I too do not see the point of including only names. The suggestion was to include name, age, occupation, as it would provide general insight into who these people were and what the impact is on local community. User:WWGB, however, removed all information besides the names claiming it is trivia and apparently doesn't want to discuss it any further ~~Xil (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That is untrue. Here is my edit on that matter [7]. I clearly maintained name, age, nationality and firefighter status. The only material I removed was date of birth and occupations like "kindergarten teacher" and "artist". I still maintain that such level of detail is unnecessary in an encyclopedia. If User:Xil wants to make an argument, s/he should at least present the truth. WWGB (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Then were the hell did all other information go, if nobody removed it? And it is not clear why occupation of firefighters would be more important. Maxima workers too would have been killed while working. It seems one person was a politician and there were several businessmen - you know the things that could be notable as you asked ~~Xil (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not say "nobody" removed it, I said "I" did not remove it. The ages and occupations were removed here [8] by User:John, a Wikipedia administrator. WWGB (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, my apologies, I thought it was you since you also removed part of information. Also I'd like to note that last time I checked being administrator does not give anyone power to dictate what the content should be. ~~Xil (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see how the age and gender would provide a general insight; it would be better however if sources can be found that support this view of the impact on the community. This would add weight to the inclusion. Even then, i'd suggest the statistics be interwoven with the prose to provide an explanation, rather than a standalone list. I believe each article should be viewed on its own merits and that the consensus of a few editors on another article doesn't necessarily represent the consensus of the editors here or indeed all other editors. I'll comment on the above Rfc later and hopefully a true consensus can be reached and held. You could perhaps raise a more specific Rfc yourself in respect to the inclusion. Regards (Cesdeva (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

I don't think prose is best solution, if we aim to keep the information on the victims short. There is, of course, often a point in evaluating each article separately, but I don't see the point when the situation is exactly the same - persons who were not notable in their life time have attained some media attention in their death. We should then be discussing removal of almost every such victim list on Wikipedia. Also regarding consensus, I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion as it seems that some assume they don't need to discuss anything since they are in majority ~~Xil (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The prose could be kept to a small and concise paragraph. Either way I suppose the main discussion here lies as to whether there has been enough media coverage of the individuals themselves and their statistical attributes to add due weight to their inclusion in the article, rather than a broad-discussion of victim-lists across Wikipedia. (Cesdeva (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

Every major media in Latvia has covered the victims list released by police and several of the victims have been covered as individuals too. It is not really important for understanding the structural failure of the building, but it has a lot to do with reaction of general public to what happened. ~~Xil (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should then include the reaction in the prose of the "Reactions" section, concisely explaining how the occupations e.t.c caused such a reaction. This would summarise and portray the information in a less intrusive way and a full list could be hosted elsewhere as a reference. It would fit in that section nicely. (Cesdeva (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

Could you explain how this list is intrusive? This is a long article, it isn't taking up that much space. There is a reason why prose is often preferable, but sometimes there is a place for lists too. Reactions section deals with condolences specifically. If we expanded on condolences and sentiments of other people related to occupations this would indeed result in collection of somewhat trivial information, rather than allowing reader to make conclusion themselves. The topic is not notable just because roof collapsed, but mostly due to loss of lives, it is therefore relevant what those people were, but it is not relevant to detail what impact every single death causes to people in the local community. It is relevant to the reader that, if article says that no children died, Maxima employees died, firefighters died, members of same family died etc. the reader can look in the list and verify this ~~Xil (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

So summarising the information into prose would make it irrelevant and trivial? Throwing statistics into a list in the article because it doesn't have any actual weight is irrelevant and trivial and and results in Wikipedia becoming a statsbook which it is not WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. If the purpose of the article was for the reader to interpret the data themselves, we wouldn't need any prose whatsoever and would have a page full of sporadic and trivial data, again, a stats book. Saying that it is relevant who those people were because they lost there lives, is a logical fallacy in this context. If an attribute of who those people were was directly and notably consequential to themselves being in the incident, for example being one of those firefighters, then it is relevant. The number of people who died is relevant because it is both a fundamental result of the incident and a commonly judged scale of the impact of an incident.

The topic is also equally notable because the roof collapsed as it was the roof collapse that killed those people.

In regards to your last point; if the article makes a statement regarding something then the reader can follow the inline-citation to the source of the data to verify this, as is common reader practice across the whole of wikipedia. In other words there is no need to publish the data in the article as it is easily accessible through the reflist should the reader want to verify the statements in the prose.

The list is intrusive because it interrupts the flow of reading the article. There is no need for it to be in there. (Cesdeva (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

That is not what I said. I said that it should not be expanded further than names, ages and occupations. Prose will certainly invite longer descriptions of each of the victims, which is not needed and indeed can extend into trivia zone, as will descriptions on what exact was the impact of each individual death. The police list is in Latvian and does not include occupations. If lists are intrusive then we should remove condolences by other countries too. Formating of the article should not take precedence over content - it is an issue that can be solved later on e.g. in other articles such lists are also included so that they are alongside text. ~~Xil (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The formatting argument is a mere additional point to the fact that the information (names, occupations and ages) is irrelevant to the article in the first place. See above. The list of names is pretty obvious and easy to read on the Latvian Police website, even to a non-Latvian speaker. The occupations and ages should be able to be found on other sources. It wouldn't be the first time that there have been multiple sources to an article. (Cesdeva (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

Which brings us again to why in this article, where the victim list and lives of individual victims have received huge attention from the society, it is less relevant than in other articles? There is no point in providing ton of articles in Latvian to English readers as possible extra sources, the other solutions you suggest actually would be more damaging to the quality of the content and understanding than the list ~~Xil (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you link me to these articles? I assume they are incidences of mass death of another kind as all other Wikipedia articles that pertain to deadly roof collapses don't have victim lists, for example this: Katowice Trade Hall roof collapse (Cesdeva (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

I already addressed this above - first of all you are narrowing it to fairly low number of incidents, although any case where there is number of random non-notable people killed would apply, and secondly even then among building collapses there's Collapse of the Hotel New World which has victim list. ~~Xil (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• What about collapsing the list as an interim solution?

If the list were inline in a paragraph, as it was initially, it would still not be prose. Maybe it's not that the list is an issue, but that no proper prose has been written, and creating a table would help to find out useful information to then write about the deceased; the table would necessarily not belong into the article, but could be created on a userpage.

Further comment: In articles about mass deaths of people, like the 2004 tsunami, Wikipedia has not published the lists of all of the 250,000+ dead, as this has been the domain of other websites. The Wikipedia article on that tsunami does feature short lists of people who were notable only in separate articles about how each country was affected by the tsunami, and separately a little bit about the notable people who have articles written about them. -Mardus (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This cannot be compared to tsunami victims - this is a complete and comparatively short list. Collapsing list could be a solution since I stiil am not convinced that there is any other reason than layout not to add it. I don't see how prose and userification would help. Some details coud be in prose, but I don't see point writing, when everything on people present gets deleted ~~Xil (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to offer the following - the list is put into collapsible box (i.e. the same function most navigation boxes have), so as not to disrupt the flow, and names, ages and occupations are included just like in other similar cases, which will also keep any more detail on these people from being added. ~~Xil (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As much as i like the idea of a collapsible box, hiding it doesn't entirely remove the problem. The article you linked (Collapse of the Hotel New World) does indeed include a victim list, but a partial one. The only victims being included on the list were the ones whose occupation caused them to be involved in the incident. This echoes my previous concern about the relevancy of these people, except the firefighters and staff, being included in the article. See Sampoong Department Store collapse for lack of a list and Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks for an example that uses lists for relevant information, notably none of the information that you propose including here. (Cesdeva (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC))

This puts undue weight on these people and would create impression nobody else was there. Yes, the customers should not have been there, but they were and that is large part of why this case has gained notability ~~Xil (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The impression wouldn't be that no-one else was there as the total death toll is clearly stated in the article and it would be mentioned that the list is partial. The customers were there indeed, their names, age and occupations didn't directly cause them to be there though; the only relevant fact is the amount that died.(Cesdeva (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC))

You suggest that readers will count the names? We could perhaps agree that it is not important to include occupations of customers, but I see no reason not to include names and ages of everyone. Also, I'd like to make additional note about your argument above - there is no clear reason why in some other cases victim lists are partial, it might very well be because full list is not available, but contrary to what you suggested above Collapse of the Hotel New World includes names of the customers as well. ~~Xil (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Glitched references

There's 5 different references to Estoniam news articles in the "Cause" section. For some reason this site counts them as 3. I've already tested by adding numbers to the "refname", but that didn't fix it. GMRE (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been solved. GMRE (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Images

Someone will have to find a new image to go on the article, as the current one is up for deletion on Freedom of panorama grounds. This apparently doesn't exist in Latvia. Valenciano (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It might be covered by WP:Fair use policy, if it is, you as the author should upload it to English Wikipedia and describe how it is covered by it ~~Xil (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)