Talk:Rena oil spill

Article name

Is

2011 Tauranga oil spill the best name? How about Rena oil spill (currently a redir)? It is a name used by at least two news organisations. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

See Talk:MV_Rena#Split. I would lean toward Tauranga oil spill or MV Rena oil spill, but that's just me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP Disaster Management people prefer the standard article naming convention <year> <place> <event>. See this. Johnson487682 (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move
. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. WP:Article titles takes precedence over Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management/Naming, not to mention that the WikiProject convention was agreed upon well before the policy on article titles underwent a major overhaul. Aervanath (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Tauranga oil spill → Rena oil spill – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Media usage and google searches suggests that Rena oil spill (currently a redir) is a better title. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose Per this guideline as Johnson487682 pointed out in the thread above, calling for <year> <place> <event>. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having the year in the title is redundant since is highly unlikely that we will get a second major oil spill in 2011. However, the year in the title does give some context before the actual article is viewed. The place is specifically Astrolabe Reef but I am of the opinion that the name of the ship itself is the better option for the title. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The convention in
Armies 06:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose. The fact that many articles in Category:Oil spills are in violation of the WP:DM convention is not sufficient justification to violate the convention again. However, I agree "Tauranga" is not necessarily the best place-name. "2011 Bay of Plenty oil spill" would follow the WP:DM convention, and so would "2011 Astrolabe Reef oil spill". Johnson487682 (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TITLE and it recommends factors such as recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency. The title "Rena oil spill" satisfies the first four of these requirements. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose
Stuartyeates (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I imagine they won't bother renaming the ship once it sinks. --Avenue (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the basis that this is how the spill is commonly described. I would put more stock in the DM convention if it seemed to be applied regularly to other oil spills. The current title (2011 Tauranga oil spill) is poor, as Tauranga itself has not seen much of the oil. It makes me think there was a spill within the city itself. I wouldn't object to 2011 Bay of Plenty oil spill though. --Avenue (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support a change because "Tauranga" is too narrow. However "oil spill" is too narrow too. It is also a container spill and a shipwreck. Nurg (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but also acknowledge that it's likely to need to change to
Stuartyeates (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move
. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Captain's name

The Captain's name has been published in some non-NZ media and can be found fairly easily. Could somebody outside NZ please add it to the article (with reference to the source). - SimonLyall (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done We shouldn't do this as the captain has name suppression, it would be illegal to publish his name. pcuser42 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has name surpression in New Zealand not anywhere else in the world. Hence non-NZers are free to add his name if they cite a reliable source (such as a non-NZ media outlet) - SimonLyall (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once a kiwi edits a page with the name and hits 'save' they're breaking the law, right?

Stuartyeates (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

No. The information is already there. Tehy are not making it more or less available. - SimonLyall (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the captain has name suppression somewhere in the world, I think it would be unethical to publish this on Wikipedia. pcuser42 (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

I notice that this page has various good photos sourced from greenpeace and the NZ defence force. I've not go time but if somebody else does these sources have/would probably release the photos under and wikipedia compatable license. - SimonLyall (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bug greenpeace. I've already bugged MaritimeNZ and reminded them of the NZ-GOAL IP policy, but their lawyers are understandably busy with other things ATM. --IdiotSavant (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page about the Oil Spill or Grounding

Now that the oil spill is all but over and thankfully not a disaterous as it certainly could have been - maybe it would be better if this article (as it is already sort of doing) should be about the grounding in general rather than specifically about the real and potential oil spill. Think that means renaming too! 121.73.90.127 (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Andrew[reply]

There's already an article about the Rena, which covers the grounding, and should cover the salvage too. If there's any point to this one at all, it's past time it was brought up to date. It's hopelessly outdated now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.213.164.129 (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Somebody just added a large volume of data apparently contributed by many people (in a sandbox somewhere?). This information (often with grammar/spelling errors) was simply shoveled into the end of the article as a bunch of bulleted list items in new sections without any attempt to maintain a consistent narrative. The article has now become a pile of loosely related facts, many of which are repetitive. We need to do some serious re-organizing to integrate this new information into earlier sections where it belongs. I don't have time to work on it right now, but I'll try to get to it in a few days. Feel free to help out if you have time before I do. Johnson487682 (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]