Talk:Petlawad explosion

	A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 13, 2015.
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 12, 2017, September 12, 2019, and September 12, 2021.

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India: Madhya Pradesh Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Madhya Pradesh (assessed as Mid-importance).

Article name

Article name should be 2015 Petlawad explosion, the place where actual blast has happened. Name 2015 Jhabua explosion gives misinformation at first because explosion has not happened in Jhabua. Petlawad is 38 KM away from Jhabua. Something happened in Jhabua district doesn't mean that we should give name of Jhabua to it. If any blast happens in Baramati (in Pune district) then we don't write name of article as "Pune Blast" because name "Pune Blast" gives first impression that blast is happened in "Pune city", same way this article gives first impression that explosion took place in Jhabua city. --Human3015^TALK 18:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved and removed the year as well, Mistakes do happen. We are, after all, Just Human. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have created a redirect at 2015 Petlawad explosion. 220 of ^Borg 06:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I totally forgot to do that. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

An editor has changed the DMY date format to MDY formats. [1]. Just advising here in case anyone objects. I really don't care, but when queried the editor says:

" .. it's in American English now, and if you want to change it, you need broad consensus."[2]

Pinging interested/directly involved parties. SuperCarnivore591 and Rsrikanth05. 220 of ^Borg 05:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding The Rambling Man per their edit here. I hope this doesn't violate wp:CANVASS, that is not my intention. 220 of ^Borg 06:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't consensus required in the first place to change it to American English? What sort of nonsensical bias is this? I am objecting to this and changing the format and the English style. If it can go from Indian to American without consensus, then it can be reversed without consensus. Also pinging: @Dharmadhyaksha, Titodutta, Vensatry, and AshLin:. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I would have thought so. In their defence, SuperCarnivore591 is a relatively new editor. (13 weeks on WP) 220 of ^Borg 06:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that I have informed them [3] of this discussion, but I think they may be off-line now. 220 of ^Borg 06:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can not understand why American English should be used here. British English and Indian English bot use DMY structure. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did Americans do the blast? In that case we can debate which format to use. Or else just stick to DMY if America has nothing to do here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively new editor is a great defence, but one look at their talk page says it all. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't spot that they previously added an American English template to this page.[4]. :-/ 220 of ^Borg 06:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which, when you first look at it, is weird and funny. One line, you have Wikiproject India, next line it says American English. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having been pinged, I am just a little surprised that an American editor can just decide to change the dates, with the excuse "it looks better that way" and then "it's in AmEng now, so you need a broad consensus to change it". Glad it's been remedied. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a little less than ideal collaboration. However, it seems that the bold, arbitrary format change has been undone, and hopefully everyone will be happy with the way the page is. I hope SuperCarnivore591 is Ok with it too, as the consensus, and normal WP practice certainly seem to be 'against' their edit. 220 of ^Borg 07:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems like there is general consensus to keep Indian English. I doubt SuperCarnivore591 will be happy, but their reasoning to MDY dates look better and that Petlawad doesn't exist was stupid and lacked a proper reasoning. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem using Indian English SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you change it arbitrarily and then state that consensus would be required for it to be undone? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged BJP connection

An IP 14.139.128.20 keeps adding that Rajendra Kasawa has connections with the political party of BJP. This source (Indian Express) used in the article clearly states that the connection is "alleged" by Congress and that BJP has denied it. I have reverted the IP twice and have asked them to come to talk page. The source which IP is using (India Samvad) also calls it a "dubious connection" and uses phrases like "locals say". In such case it seems that claims should be presented as claims rather than facts given the WP:BLP nature of dispute. Or not? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there i clear evidence, it is a violation of WP:BLP. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Kasawa not dead, but arrested (or not)?

According to some sources, he did not die, but was arrested a few days after the blasts. According to others from later, he was still at large. Can anyone do some more digging?--Drat (Talk) 13:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]