Talk:Castelldefels train accident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

move[edit]

the page to 2010 Castelldefels train/rail accident. It gives more description that the accident is not a stampede or road crash.Lihaas (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, why is it necessary to specify "2010" in the title? Are there other notable Castelldefels accidents for which we should have articles? —David Levy 19:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having "2010" in name is over-precision and against guideline WP:PRECISION. A hat note can be used if there is risk of users are mistaken between two train accidents. --Kslotte (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few redirects made. --Kslotte (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main page[edit]

So... why does this get on the Main Page? Thirteen people getting hit by a train isn't exactly earth-shattering news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.168.209 (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not earth-shattering, but it is the worst rail accident in Spain for some years. Whilst people being killed crossing the railway isn't uncommon, for so many to be killed at the same time is a rare occurrence. Mjroots (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very not worthy of a wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.163.117 (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt either a WP:PROD or a WP:AFD would result in the deletion of the article. V x many RS = an article worthy to be on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yaa right @Mjroots, in my country (India) dozens of people die together in railway accidents every month or so .. Putting this article on front page makes no sense at all. katochnr, 08:00, 26 June 2010 (GMT)
Discussions about the entry is found here. Search for "Thirteen people killed crossing railway in Spain". --Kslotte (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is this the "worst rail accident" in Spain? Surely the Madrid bombings were?! 90.216.173.123 (talk)
The Madrid bombings were hardly an "accident". Physchim62 (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before writeing things that make no sence you could at least take the bother of reading some information, I strongly recomend you Wikipedia. Its not even in Spains top ten worst train accidents. And with out no doubt a main page accident, as it was on a safe first world mass transpot sistem. --Elloza (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger issue is that this is put on the front page presented as 'news' three days after the incident. -85.220.36.231 (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update Please[edit]

Causes of the accident are totaly clear, and number of victims was defenetly & officialy lowerd to 12. Please read your own sources, they are quite clear, thy--83.35.68.183 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry wasnt loged in when signed--Elloza (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia[edit]

Twice now I've had to change the sentence "a major celebration in Catalonia as in other European countries" to "a major celebration in Spain as in other European countries".

The first sentence does not make sense as Catalonia is not a country, but an autonomous region of Spain. As the predominant religion in Spain is Roman Catholic, it is reasonable to assume that St John's Day is celebrated countrywide. Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's Day is celebrated in many places in the Canary Islands, too, as in many other places in Spain, so I do agree that it should read "a major celebration in Spain" and not "in Catalonia". Besides, Catalonia isn't indeed a country, but an Autonomous Community in Spain, so...


Well, actually the celebrations in catalonia and valencia are bigger than in other regions, don't know why it's not as hyped in other regions so I think catalonia is really more accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.201.123.40 (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In which case the sentence needs to be rewritten to show it is regional, and also a reference provided that backs that up. Mjroots (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, you're confusing "country" with sovereign state! If you like, I'll change it to "other Mediterranean nations", and back it up with the preamble to Catalan Statute of Autonomy. Why should we need a reference to say that it is particularly celebrated in Catalonia, but not that it is particularly celebrated in Spain? I get the impression you're just playing petty politics on this point. Physchim62 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation, but as I understand it, Catalonia and the other regions in Spain are at a similar administrative level as the Départements in France. Mjroots (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're misunderstanding the situation. The "autonomous communities" in Spain have far more powers than the French régions. Not all autonomous communities have the same powers attributed to them, but Catalonia is (with the Basque Country) one of the ones with the most devolved power. The département level structure in Spain is the province, but again, they have different powers depending on which autonomous community they form part of. The best analogy for the administrative situation of Catalonia within Spain is the situation of Scotland within the United Kingdom: hence, I've called members of the Catalan government "Ministers", just as we do for members of the Scottish government.
As for the word "country", it's perfectly OK in English to say "Scotland is a different country from England", that doesn't imply that either Scotland or England are sovereign states. Where we use "coutry" in the sense of "sovereign state", in the infobox, we correctly say Spain.

Joan Saura is the Minister of Home Affairs, Institutional Relations and Participation, not the Minister of Interior.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.24.198.213 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Catalan name of his position is Conseller d'Interior i de Relacions Institucionals i Participació: this is not a biography of the excel·lentíssim senyor Saura i Laporta, it's fair enough to translate that as Interior Minister. Note that "Interior Minister" is closer to the original than "Minister of Home Affairs", although both mean the same thing. Physchim62 (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

death count[edit]

On the ain page it states 12 people were killed, but on this article, it states 13, is this a mistake? Ip user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.110.28.132 (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was still a bit of confusion last time I checked, with the Catalan court system saying the figure was back down to 12, but the Catalan Ministry of Justice saying that they thought it was still 13. I'll check again, maybe they've sorted it out. Physchim62 (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's twelve, all tentatively identified. Apparently they thought they had a case of twins, but it turns out it was a single person. Physchim62 (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.110.28.132 (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

I'm starting to think we need to move this article to a new name. The current title "Castelldefels train accident" implies that something extraordinary malfunctioned to cause an accident involving a train. As of today's date, it appears that this is more accurately described as an incident, than an accident, because the people who were killed or injured were knowingly crossing active tracks which could only be accessed by climbing or jumping down into the recessed area of tracks below the passenger platform of a station. All indications are that this group of people took this action because they were impatient and did not want to wait for the crowd in front of them to exit the station. Deliberately placing yourself on an active set of tracks located below a platform inside a station and getting killed by a train is not an accident. It is a tragedy, yes, but an easily avoidable tragedy that had nothing to do with the operations of the station or train. To that end, I propose we move the article to 2010 Castelldefels Station tragedy. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go as far as to say that this was a case of deliberate trespass on the railway. There is evidence to suggest that at least on of the egress points was closed off, which is why the people decided to cross the tracks on the level. I'm not sure that "tragedy" meets with NPOV, but accident does. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you don't need the year "2010" according to WP:PRECISION. What about "Castelldefels Station accident"? --Kslotte (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Castelldefels Station" the station's official name (in English)? Our article is titled Platja de Castelldefels railway station, and Google searches turn up several slight variations (with none appearing definitive). —David Levy 21:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. There are two stations in the municipality of Castelldefels: one is simply called "Castelldefels", while the other is called "Platja de Castelldefels" (literally "Castelldefels Beach"). The accident happened at Platja de Castelldefels station. Physchim62 (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. In that case, neither "Castelldefels Station" (incorrectly styled as a proper noun) nor "Castelldefels station" (which could—and likely would—refer to the other station) is suitable. —David Levy 22:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Castelldefells is the name of the town, and it was an accident involving rail transport. Unless there is an accident at the main Castelldefels station, the title is accurate and neutral. I agree that "station accident" is not appropriate, as that suggest some problem with the station itself, such as the collapse of the roof of Charing Cross railway station in 1905. Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm baffled as to how you can claim that this was "not an accident." Yes, the people intentionally placed themselves in the situation that caused them to be struck by a train, but the collision itself clearly was unintended by all parties (and therefore accidental).
    The term "train accident" simply conveys that there was an accident involving a train (which is entirely accurate). As noted by Mjroots, "tragedy" is a non-neutral, emotionally-loaded term. And as noted by Kslotte, there is no need to append the year. —David Levy 21:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see the point of changing the name either. While the primary cause of the accident was that there were people where there shouldn't have been people, there is still a whole raft of questions as to why there were people there (and, particularly, why there were so many people there). Had it been one or two people, it would never had made the news: such things happen, nobody wants them to but accidents do happen. Twelve killed and fourteen injured is on another scale, which is why the foreign media covered it and why we have the article. Physchim62 (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The focus here should be on the station not the train. The victims was at the station not on the train. So my proposal after the clarification about station name is "Platja de Castelldefels railway station accident". --Kslotte (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Taking this in account, then we should also replace the train picture with the station picture. --Kslotte (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I agree with the statement that "the focus here should be on the station not the train." The victims were not on the train, but they were struck by the train (and that's the basic nature of the accident).
It's true that the term "train accident" could refer to derailments and the like, but by the same token, "railway station accident" could refer to a structural collapse or person(s) falling from a ledge (as random examples).
Also, compare the Google search results for Castelldefels + "train accident" and Castelldefels + "station accident".
If it would address your concern, Castelldefels rail accident (currently a redirect) is a title worth considering, as a Google search for Castelldefels + "rail accident" yields a fairly high number of results (though not nearly as many as the aforementioned Castelldefels + "train accident" search does). —David Levy 00:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with David. The accident could have happened outside of a station; it couldn't have happened without the train. Which is why it is ridiculous to swap the images.
I should add that it is a matter of debate at the moment whether the design and management of the station was a contributing factor to the accident, so we might be seen to be taking sides on that one if we called it a "station accident". Physchim62 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right "rail" is more correct then "station". I would support a title "Castelldefels rail accident" --Kslotte (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Castelldefels rail accident is a better option. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Physchim62 (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag[edit]

Should this article have the current event tag? Nowyouseeme | wanna chat? 17:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not "current" anymore and there's insufficient editing activity to justify the tag either. Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Americans[edit]

Is there a good explanation why only people from South America (and one Romanian) were killed? --Stone (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it's in the lead. There was a well known Ecuadorian singer performing a concert on the beach. Physchim62 (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The force of the impact was such that rescue workers faced difficulties in reassembling the body parts"[edit]

The reference (www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/24/spain-train-teenagers-killed, currently #9) does not actually confirm this claim. By the article history (on Guardian's site) it has been modified at least once, so it is possible the part about the rescue workers' difficulties was there before.

But it does not now. CapnZapp (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth paragraph from the end: "The force of the impact of the train on those crossing the tracks was such that rescue workers said they were having trouble putting together the body parts left at the scene." Physchim62 (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castelldefels location of tragedy.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Castelldefels location of tragedy.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

23 five times[edit]

  • Date: 23. June 2010
  • Time: 23:23
  • Location: 23 km from Barcelona
  • 23 train accidents are in the box below at the page below. This is strange.Porbóllett (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Castelldefels_train_accident&oldid=1206570662"