Talk:2018 Yilan train derailment

Significant photos

for example: 1, 2, 3

Title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), the year is not need only when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. There is likely to be more than one derailment in Yilan, so the year is needed. Szqecs (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Why would future derailments be likely? Past ones weren't. If we were concerned about how anything might happen, we'd preemptively attach currently useless qualifiers to everything. Best to wait until hypothethical similar events actually happen before distinguishing the only one, particularly given WP:COMMONNAME. "Yilan trail derailment" trails the less-precise "Taiwan trail derailment", but no source at all mentions a "2018 Yilan train derailment". InedibleHulk (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The guideline you linked clearly says "Bridge collapses and train wrecks should be named according to the "where and what" convention." List of rail accidents (2010–present) shows this advice is sometimes followed, sometimes not. I'd like to think this rule of thumb is only ignored for good reason, but I doubt it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Why would future derailments be likely? There has been seven derailments in the past two years in Taiwan.
• The guideline you linked clearly says "Bridge collapses and train wrecks should be named according to the "where and what" convention." Sure. But I don't suppose you would name the article Taiwan train derailment or Earth train derailment right? That clause does not take disambiguation into consideration, so it is often ignored. Yilan is a reasonably-sized county, so the level of disambiguation needed would be Su'ao train derailment, but compared with the current name it is less recognisable. However, 'Yilan' can refer to either Yilan City or Yilan County, so Su'ao train derailment is perhaps better. Szqecs (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Seven derailments in Taiwan, perhaps, but any notable ones in this reasonably-sized county over the past (however long trains have run there)? If not, that indicates sufficient uniqueness to me. "Su'ao train derailment" is better in its precision, but probably worse in familiarity and there's nary a source online that calls this that (in English, anyway). That's about all I've left toward this argument, I'll leave the decision to you. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I have started an RFC below regarding the article title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

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.

Request for comment on article title

The following discussion 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.

---

I have started a request for comment to determine the proper title for this article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this is premature (the above section was a good start). Nevertheless, I think the current name is appropriate - see, for example, the similar incidents listed at the bottom, or look at a list of railway accidents (for example, the template at the bottom). All follow the same "[Year] [Place] train derailment" format, some omitting the year (because there's no need to) and some using terms other than "train derailment", but those are minor details. WP:COMMONNAME might be the usual policy for this kind of stuff, but it is only a guideline not an absolute. The real criteria we should be looking at are outlined at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Going criteria by criteria:

• Recognizability: Now, of course sources tend to use "Taiwan" (hint: maybe because the majority of the Western world wouldn't have a clue where "Yilan" is), but they usually tend to add "in Yilan county" or some other form of precision about the location, usually in the first sentence. No reason we shouldn't. Additionally, per WP:COMMONNAME, "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."
• Naturalness: Goes with the above. There's nothing which prevents us creating a redirect from "2018 Taiwan train derailment" to here, if need be.
• Precision: Unambiguously refers to this particular incident.
• Conciseness: Yes, no explanation needed here.
• Consistency: the comment I made above about similar articles ("[Year] [Place] train derailment") seems quite convincing, no need to repeat it.

107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Afterthought: Maybe best would be 2018 Xinma station train derailment, since that is exactly where the train derailed (passing through the station)?

• Comment - Pinging @Szqecs: and @InedibleHulk:. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep Year. Not Taiwanese but can read Chinese. There is another train related accident in 2007 (zh:2007年臺鐵大里車站列車事故) in Toucheng, Yilan, train collision. Western media may use Taiwan (or English media in Asia), but it seem overseas Chinese media (such as Oriental Daily) use more precise Yilan for the 2018 event. Su'ao is too precise and not popular in the source. The rest just follow [Year] [Place] train derailment format (e.g. 2017 Washington train derailment). Matthew hk (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

2018 Taiwan train derailment may be a good redirect to be created. BBC use Taiwan and then Yilan in the article title, and may be no other major derailment in Taiwan this year. Matthew hk (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No objection here, you can go ahead and create it yourself. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yilan train derailment is still my preference, though I also still believe that's about all I've left toward this argument and will leave the decision to you, and am just repeating myself because I was pinged. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Why not something like Puyuma Train Derailment or 2018 Puyuma Train Derailment? Puyuma being the name of the train involved. A.K.R. (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@A.K.R.:Because while WP:COMMONNAME allows us to not use the name given by reliable sources if that name is not precise enough, it doesn't allow us to make up names as we fancy. In this case, we need to compromise between a recognizable name and a precise name, and, no ill will, but your suggestion isn't either of those. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

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.

Removal

@DabitDodo: Could you explain why this was removed? The material is sourced directly from the BBC article: both the driver statement, the prosecutor's opinion and the speed limit are taken almost verbatim from the source, with changes to avoid copyvio. The Taiwan News quote was rewritten (to be able to include the speed information, but also...) because it's not the newspapers opinion, rather it's a statement of fact about the investigators' opinion (as reported by Taiwan News), which doesn't require attribution (no need to tell if it's the BBC [note: which says the same thing too], the New York Times or whichever other source). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

References

It is now restored. DabitDodo talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong version. Should be this version (15:32, 23 October 2018‎). Thanks 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe, just add it back manually (copy paste from the diff), avoids removing the things which were added since. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: I'm quite sure it's a misclick too, and I'd fix it if I could, as described above. Thanks, 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, the user DabitDodo had been reported to ANI and at the same time blocked by checkuser.... Matthew hk (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Should have guessed there was a WP:CIR issue. Now I'll wait till the protection is over and I'll fix it myself, ... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

See also

@107.190.33.254: the page was protected because goatse vandal by other ip user, not edit war or else. For DabitDodo block, wiki admin seldom not blocking sock that evade block. Matthew hk (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Pings dont work on IPs. I figured the page was blocked because of the vandal (seemingly, according to geolocate, the same person, IP hopping somewhere from the Isle of Man). @MarchOrDie: On a different subject, would you care to explain why the similar incidents listed were removed? This seems to be a standard feature on articles about major railway accidents (ex. Lac-Mégantic_rail_disaster#See_also, Ladbroke_Grove_rail_crash#See_also, Santiago_de_Compostela_derailment#See_also). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion it is premature to list accidents that an editor here contends are "similar" in advance of a determination of the cause. See WP:NOR. MarchOrDie (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources already have stated that the automatic train protection system was disabled because of a an earlier fault, and many of them quote official sources saying it is because of this that the train derailed. Lack of active train protection (whether because there was none installed at the crash site [c.f. Morpeth, Compostella] or because the on-board system had been disabled earlier [Southall]) was similarly a factor in the accidents that were listed in the article. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@107.190.33.254: It depends on how much level of WP:no original research. The most strict level would be, only list other event that reliable source had compare this event to. Starting to grey area of no original research, would be "simple judgement" , claiming the reliable source list this event was caused by A, then list other event NOT in that news article, but also caused by A. The latter is a typical synthesis but not uncommon in wikipedia. But we should avoid that. Matthew hk (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

See alsos, at least to my understanding, are not subject to WP:NOR, because their true purpose is "to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". See MOS:SEEALSO, which clearly says "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Having links about similar accidents seems common sense to me, and which ones go in is editorial judgement (which we can discuss if necessary, but MOS already gives some guidelines, which I think are met in this case). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we can do that in the absence of reliable sources saying they are similar, at this stage. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we have a disagreement here, I'm quite sure that sources are not necessary for the See also section (since, ultimately, they're only there as a navigation help). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I could only say if there is similar event from the same place/ country and there is en-wiki article, then we can list them by simple judgement. Matthew hk (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: I don't have a strong opinion on this one. See alsos have been a perennial topic with no consensus in refining their use (aside from WikiProject Medicine which discourages their use altogether). Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout § "See also" section (MOS:SEEALSO) states The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. and as mentioned inclusion is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. List articles need a reliable source to show that the association made by listing the items is notable, and not just a collection of things the editor feels is important. But I don't believe this applies to See alsos, and the MOS quote above suggests to me that it is entirely up to the editors to decide what is important enough to be included. I can understand the desire that the reader not infer a connection between the causes of the accidents in linked articles – and while placement in the See also does not in itself make such connections, the text after the item ("relevant because") might be suggesting a commonality. Perhaps that text should be removed, leaving it up to the reader to determine how (or if) the other articles are relevant? Or otherwise perhaps it should just link to a "list of" article from which the reader can then decide which particular articles are of interest? (It wouldn't hurt to link Rail transport in Taiwan as well.) – Reidgreg (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the category, will wait for input from the others on the matter before adding anything else. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the section again. SEEALSO says "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant" (my emphasis). Pending an official determination of the cause of the crash, it is premature to add other accidents which a Wikipedia editor thinks are "similar". There could even be a WP:BLP angle to this. Please do not restore them until either an official determination of the cause is made or at least some reliable sources make the comparison. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it is controversial as the investigation haven't concluded yet. Listing train accident from the same place as relevant is not that controversial and hardly requires serious judgement. But listing accident with speeding in curves, start to need judgement on centripetal force. So just trim the list and only cite stuff that appear in external reliable source. Matthew hk (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I was the one who added the See Also section. Given that preliminary investigations have cited the cause of derailment as excessive speed around a curve, I feel it would be correct to add similar rail derailments to the article. If need to be, we can trim down the section to just such similar incidents (Malbone Street Wreck, Amagasaki train crash, Santiago de Compostela derailment et al) until a more definitive investigation report is released. A.K.R. (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree with both of you (i.e. Matthew and March). "Same place" - does not make them relevant (for example, listing a hypothetical level crossing accident would be far from relevant). "Pending an official determination of the cause of the crash" - we don't need that. There's already plenty of sources reporting that the train came off the tracks in a curve (exhibit A: ) because of excessive speed (exhibit B: ) in said curve. According to the last source and to the BBC source I added in the article previously, officials believe this is because of the disabled ATP system in the train. Whether this is a matter of driver error or of larger maintenance-related problems with the train (or even a combination of all factors) is still under investigation. The latest report I have found on the matter says that driver inexperience might have been a cause too.

Yet, it is undeniable at this point that the immediate cause of the train crash was the train travelling too fast to negotiate the curve. A causal factor was the the ATP was disabled. Further details will come as the investigation proceeds, and said details might change with time, but we must use the best information we got, changing it if eventually necessary. Thus, we have sufficient evidence, in my humble opinion, to include the crashes which were previously listed - they all involve either speeding in a curve (because of absence of ATP) or the disabling of the train protection itself. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

For the same place, the 1991 event is already on the main text. For the 2007 Toucheng train collision, it is not. It just "editorial judgement" on listing how many event from Taiwan, or just from Yilan County. But yeah, they need en-wiki article first. Matthew hk (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

References