Talk:2018 Schoharie, New York limousine crash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Did you knowDYK comment symbol nomination

2018 Schoharie, New York limousine crash

Created by Daniel Case (talk), Leaky.Solar (talk), InedibleHulk (talk), and WWGB (talk). Nominated by Daniel Case (talk) at 03:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC).

General eligiblity:

  • New Enough: Red XN - I'll take it. Based on UTC time, this article was nominated at 03:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC). This is a little over ten hours after the seven-day deadline, as calculated from 17:26, 7 October 2018‎ (UTC) (the first edit that isn't a hidden revision). Need to check this, though.
  • Long Enough: Green tickY

Hook eligiblity:

  • Cited: Green tickY
  • Interesting: Red XN - Prefer ALT1.
    • Honestly, ALT0 isn't very interesting. My father switched his car's New York license plates between inspections this year, so what's the point of this hook?
    • ALT2 is slightly more interesting, but it's eclipsed by the fact that this was the deadliest transport accident in the U.S. in a decade.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg I'll check back after I ask about whether the nomination is new enough. I personally don't mind that it's been nominated a little over 10 hours past the first revision. I wouldn't want this nomination to be derailed because of "teh rulez" (i.e. bureaucracy). epicgenius (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: The implication is that the plates were changed in an attempt to fool the inspectors into thinking they were inspecting different vehicles rather than the same one. Since they also look at the VIN and take it down, it didn't work.

Given the ragged start, where the first version of the article was deleted and then recreated after a day (so it appears), as details of the accident became clearer, and then the article was subjected to an AfD for a few days (which to me should toll the time limit here), I am asking for some dispensation and flexibility. Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: OK then. If vehicle inspection fraud was the point, it looks like ALT0 might be interesting, but I think the detail about vehicle inspection fraud is kinda minor when this was the worst transportation accident in the U.S. in almost a decade. And I do think this article is eligible per the newness criteria, as it's still technically within the 7 day limit. So I will go ahead and approve it. epicgenius (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Fine. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The article title is highly problematic and etc.[edit]

Labeling this as 2018 New York attack without the slightest evidence that this was anything more than a tragic traffic accident is not going to fly. The article needs to be renamed post haste. It is also regrettable that it was created before the bodies have reached room temperature. The long term significance here is probably negligible and it might well end up at AfD. See WP:EVENT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move October 7, 2018[edit]

2018 New York attack2018 New York vehicle crash – There’s no evidence (at least thus far) that this was a deliberate act, which is probably a good thing. However, 20 people, let alone 20 members of a wedding party, don’t die every single day, and therefore this particular accident has some significance over the joe-average car crash. 24.34.85.169 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 04:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Upon reflection we could probably drop the "2018" as I doubt there are any other road accidents from that area that have articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree. I think the word "limousine" should be in the title, somewhere. That's the search term most people will use. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Schoharie limousine crash, but at the very least there should be a comma in the current iteration (Schoharie, New York). PrimaPrime (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Two commas, actually: one before the word "New York", and one after. Hence: 2018 Schoharie, New York, traffic accident. But, I assume that will be a moot point and that the title will change soon. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support move to either Schoharie limousine crash or Schoharie vehicle crash. The word "traffic" implies this was a collision between two or more vehicles. That is factually incorrect as this was a single vehicle accident (any collision that occurred was in an off-road parking lot with a parked vehicle). --Oakshade (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support move to Schoharie limousine crash per above. -Zanhe (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support a move to Schoharie limousine crash, or 2018 Schoharie, New York limousine crash. In addition, the current article version needs a comma between 'Schoharie' and 'New York'; there is no need for a second comma, though. -Mardus /talk 20:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Moved I've made the move to a more specific name, even if discussion about moving has not ended yet. I hope it will stick. Agree in principle with Ad Orientem about the year, so, I guess, it might be dropped in the future. OTOH, there have been many previous vehicle accidents at exactly the same place, so the year does correctly suggest a rolling history of previous crashes, if not so deadly. -Mardus /talk 20:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the title should contain both "limousine" and "New York" as those are the key bits of information that are appearing in story headlines in the UK media and so most likely to be remembered by someone looking for the article in future, but I don't have any strong preference beyond that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The new title needs a comma after "New York". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Does it or doesn't it? Mardus said just above that it doesn't ... I presume the idea there is that the toponym is adjectival in that construction (cf. Sherman, Texas bus accident) and thus need not be followed by a comma? Does MOS or any other style manual say anything about this? Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Concur. 'Schoharie, New York' is a single item, and does therefore not require a comma after 'New York'. -Mardus /talk 02:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
No. Two commas are required. The Manual of Style (WP:MOS#Commas) states:
  • In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by other punctuation. Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year, unless followed by other punctuation. In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetical.
    Correct: He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands.
    Incorrect: He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma to meet his demands.
    Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    Not directly relevant here. The MOS bit you quoted refers to comma-separated geographical references used as nouns (per the example) We're talking instead about comma-separated geographical identifiers used as modifying phrases. In that case I think the second comma may not be required, as we do not routinely put commas after modifiers, regardless of whether the modifiers are themselves comma-separated. I notice, before we dropped the year, all the articles about the September 11 attacks never put a comma after "2001", either.

    It would be as if we referred to the car in this wreck as a "2001 Ford Excursion, limousine". Daniel Case (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

    Strongly support While the town name is fairly obscure and hard to spell, getting the proposed title down to three words is ideal(location, topic at hand; NO commas in the title!); it should come up easily in a WP search. --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    @SteveCof00: Why is the the aim to have the minimum number of words in the title? The name of the town isn't prominent at all in UK media reports so will unlikely to be remembered. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: The state name would be technically unnecessary since there is (I'm pretty sure) only one Schoharie anywhere in the U.S. (compare Sherman, Texas bus accident; there are quite a few Shermans in the U.S.) However, I do take your point that it's not a community well-known outside the state of New York (and within it, most people would think of the county Schoharie's the seat of, the long watercourse it gets its name from, and the 1987 bridge collapse near that creek's mouth), much less outside the U.S., and I think we could include the state here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Daniel Case: See WP:USPLACE. Other than about 30 very major cities, articles about places in the US are named in the format "Placename, State". This is usually carried forward into articles about events named after US places (e.g. 1999 Bourbonnais, Illinois, train crash, Prestonsburg, Kentucky, bus disaster, etc.) unless there is a clear common name otherwise. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: Yeah, I see it that way too, but we're just not consistent enough about it, and USPLACE is silent on the used-as-modifier issue—I could just as easily point to 2008 Chatsworth train collision (would you know it's a neighborhood of Los Angeles? Or even that it's in California?), Garrison train crash (in New York near me, but you'd never know that, and there are at least a few other Garrisons in the U.S., much less the English-speaking world) and Naperville train disaster (it's in Illinois).

    I'm not disagreeing with you ... I'd be quite OK with Schoharie, New York limousine crash. It's just that the reason for including the state has to be consensus that we should, not policy/MOS, because policy doesn't say anything useful about this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

    ─────────────── I've started a discussion about establishing a consensus one way or the other. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Naming of articles about transportation accidents and incidents in the United States. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

    Just when it seemed the consensus for Schoharie limousine crash was a fait accompli ... I am not entirely convinced by that discussion at the MOS talk page, largely because it took them a while to understand that we were talking about placenames used as descriptors, much like it did here. As I wrote there, in favor of the shorter title:
    • Obviously, we all seem to agree, the year is not necessary as there is only one under discussion (The idea that we should use it as there may be other ones at this problematic intersection in the future is, I think, pretty clearly crushed under WP:CRYSTAL).
    • I do not think ", New York" is necessary as there are no other Schoharies in the U.S. or indeed elsewhere in the world.
    • Using "New York" alone is unsatisfactory as it conflates the city and state, something we've been trying to move away from for a few years now.
    • If people elsewhere don't remember the name of the town, as noted at the MOS talk page, that's what redirects are for.
    • I would further point out that we have dispensed with the state name for many incidents that have occurred in small communities, some of which certainly have names that recur elsewhere in the U.S. (2008 Chatsworth train collision, for instance). Even for events within New York City (July 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment, December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment, both of which I include as examples because we had to make the rare use of the month in the title since they were at nearly the same spot in the same year; see also Kew Gardens train crash and Crown Heights riot), we have been able to use just the neighborhood they occurred in, not even the borough, without anyone saying they're confused.
    • As I type, I see that "Schoharie limousine crash" seems to be becoming the common name for this accident: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (from outside the region).

    Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

    List of victim names[edit]

    There is no policy or guideline for or against the inclusion of victim names. Their inclusion or exclusion is determined by editors on a case-by-case basis.[6] IMO, the reader's understanding is not enhanced by reading a list of names. Significant features such as sibling or spousal relationships, or age ranges, can be written in general prose. I was intending to remove the list pending the outcome of this discussion, but I have left it there IGF until there is consensus one way or the other. WWGB (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

    I put in a lot of effort writing that, because we have similar lists of victims who aren't notable in some of the other transportation-accident articles I've worked on: Valhalla train crash and December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment. In the first case one of the victims (Walter Liedtke) was decided to have been notable during his life after the crash; later we also found that Robert Dirks had done some significant research in computational chemistry and wrote an article about him. But, the latter list does not have anyone notable on it.

    I would agree that perhaps in a case like this where we have a lot more victims than either of those accidents, perhaps a full list is too much.

    Might Brian Hough, the SUNY Oswego geology professor, accomplished anything notable to merit a posthumous article? Can someone look? Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

    I've always liked lists of names, ages and hometowns, and today's no different. Alphabetical order, if you please. Any old order, if you don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, October 11, 2018 (UTC)
    Why? They're not notable, and almost all readers will never have heard of them. WWGB (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    The writers and lead producer of Fred Penner's Place, half of Kiribati's Speakers of the House and all of Ted Bundy's victims are "nobodies", too. Call me old-fashioned, but I still think people come to an encyclopedia to learn new things about topics they were introduced to elsewhere. And call me naive, but I think we editors (like reporters and storytellers) still have a duty to present our audience with what, where, when, why, how and who, especially when the main hook of a tale is an extraordinary body count. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, October 11, 2018 (UTC)
    Another idea I have—maybe we could put it in a collapsible box or something? Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Maybe if your first idea turns out to be unpopular, but I can't get behind collapsing just yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, October 11, 2018 (UTC)
    Why not? I think a collapsible box is a great solution. It allows readers to click to open it if they'd like, but it doesn't have to take up lots of space in the article if they don't. –Daybeers (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    Readers who don't use Javascript here just see everything highlighted in a green (sometimes red) non-collapsible box. Sort of forces them to look at it. It's good info, but not so good it deserves to be conspicuous. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, October 11, 2018 (UTC)
    • I am strongly opposed to including lists of non-notable victims in situations like this as it is directly contrary to both the letter and spirit of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. That said I am typically fine with adding a link to an appropriate memorial website or a news site that lists the victims in the External Links section. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    That's about subjects of articles, in letter and spirit. There's not, nor has there been, a requirement for anyone (dead or alive) to qualify for a standalone article before being mentioned in an article about something that involved them. If there was, recalling actual past activities of Scott Lisinicchia, Erin McGowan, Robert Patnaude, Shahed Hussain, Nauman Hussain, Susan Mallery and/or Lee Kindlon should be frowned upon harder than the relatively mild reminiscence of how some other guy from Halfmoon unwittingly happened to be 31 when he died. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:23, October 11, 2018 (UTC)
    I have no objection to mentioning people who died in a WP:EVENT that may not warrant their own article... provided there is an encyclopedic reason to mention them. That is to say they were involved in a material way in the EVENT beyond simply dying. If their only relationship to the EVENT is that they died in it, then there is no encyclopedic justification for their being named. And yes, we are at that point running afoul of NOTMEMORIAL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    But NOTMEMORIAL is really about whether people who died in an event with no claim to notability otherwise should have their own articles, not whether they should be named as victims in the article about the event. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    Dying at an event like a concert, wedding or hockey game is relatively simple and immaterial. But dying in this event fundamentally distinguishes it from the Schoharie limousine ride or Schoharie fender bender. That is to say, without these particular people dying, there's no significant coverage and no justification for an article at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, October 15, 2018 (UTC)

    Comment / Question – I think that we definitely should list the victims' names, ages, etc. This has been done in many other similar articles. They are part of the story – a huge part – whether or not they are independently notable. In fact, they are the story. Furthermore, I think that we should have a Wikipedia policy, for once and for all, about this topic (i.e., "Are victims' names appropriate to add to articles, where many deaths occur?" or some such). I don't see the point in us re-inventing the wheel, every single time a tragedy strikes and a Wikipedia article is written and we have this same exact debate. Where does one go to suggest a new policy about this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

    Well, you could first look at WP:VL, an essay arguing strongly against the inclusion of victim lists. But ... I think someone above referred to a previous VP discussion to the effect that this should be determined by consensus on a case-by-case basis rather than us making a one-size-fits-all policy. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks. But that is "just" an essay. I myself (or anyone else) can write a second essay, advocating the exact opposite point. Here are the problems that I have with the "case-by-case" basis approach. First, it leads to inconsistency across articles. Second, it "forces" us to keep re-inventing the wheel, every time the issue arises. Third – and most importantly – the results will be very random and arbitrary, depending on which specific editors participate in any given individual article discussion. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    That could be said about so many other things we do/don't do, as well. I think if you really want there to be a policy, you ought to reopen the discussion at the Village Pump. Daniel Case (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    For reference, here's the last discussion of this, from this past summer. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    Or "this past winter" for the 12% of us who live in the Southern Hemisphere! WWGB (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    Hey, I was in Cape Town for a week in late July, and while the days were short, it was generally warm enough to walk around in short sleeves during the day (at least) (one day it even got above 80 °F (27 °C)!). And quite a few trees kept their leaves.

    Now, if I had gone to Argentina or Chile instead, I might not have argued with you. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

    Please fix this sentence[edit]

    Can someone please rewrite this sentence? It is awful. It is very wordy and has far too many "twists and turns". Thanks. The sentence is this: A couple who had had the same limo, driven by Lisinicchia, a year earlier, when Prestige had done business as Saratoga Luxury Limousine, for their wedding, told Albany station WNYT that the limo was in poor condition, with rust and duct tape, and they, too, found its engine loud. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

    One of my usual first-draft run-on jobs. I'll do something about it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)