Talk:Victoria Hall disaster

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Victoria Hall disaster article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 16, 2008, June 16, 2011, June 16, 2013, June 16, 2015, June 16, 2016, June 16, 2018, and June 16, 2021.

North East England Mid‑importance

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England 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.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Don't make collateral changes !

Naming should follow the sources or, at least, should be discussed.

The very idea to make some collateral changes in some page very slightly related to the 2015 Mina disaster is probably a bad idea: it suggests that you are trying to influence a discussion in progress and this only by using unjustified procedural means.

Nevertheless, I agree that sometimes, somewhere, over-referrencing was to be addressed. I have keept theses changes. Pldx1 (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, your assumptions about my motive are wrong, and you have clearly acted with a lack of AGF. The decision there had no influence on changing the word 'disaster' to 'stampede'. 'Stampede' is more precise, not a euphemism like 'disaster', and accords with common usage. Therefore I think the words should probably be changed back again. However, I have better things to do. zzz (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Naming

An article which links to this, the article on Human crushes, gives this as an example of such, and contains an entire section which would discourage using the term "stampede" in this scenario. Should the article be renamed "Victoria Hall disaster", as it was originally called? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.69.197 (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

This page was moved without discussion in September 2015 with the edit summary euphemism. Whether that is true or not, it is no reason to move the page from a stable title which accords to WP:TITLE, ie. the name that is most commonly used... in a significant majority of reliable sources. Here the term 'disaster' outnumbers 'stampede' by 5 to 2, with other |non-judgemental terms (tragedy, calamity) also in use. So I've moved it back. If anyone is unhappy with this I suggest it be taken to WP:RM for a wider discussion. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd crush instead of human stampede

I changed every use of stampede to crowd crush as this is the correct modern term. It better describes what happens to a reader who doesn't know about crowd dynamics. Many of the references including contemporary accounts refers to the incident as a stampede, it may be good to call out this distinction. Lotu (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]