Talk:Crowd collapses and crushes

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Stampede was copied or moved into Crowd collapses and crushes on December 9th, 2021. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Stampede

Wouldn't it be wiser to improve this already existing page instead of creating a new one that covers the same/similar subject? Smitterdin (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Edit: just checked out Talk:Stampede and I have no more questions. Smitterdin (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you mean this; Or this, Or maybe this...Moonraker12 (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a draft article

This article was created from a discussion at Talk:Stampede#Split proposal, however, the issue is still under discussion without consensus. This article should be moved to Draft:Crowd collapses and crushes until there is a consensus to create it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor is entitled to create an article. If you don't like it, you are entitled to commence speedy deletion, proposed deletion or AfD. WWGB (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact this article wasn't "created from a discussion at Talk:Stampede#Split proposal"; it has been in the offing for months: And I’m pretty sure I don’t need 'consensus' to write an article. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of deleted material

The following edits (here, here, and here) removed material from the text, with a variety of edit summaries (remove awkward and unattributed material; remove bizarre and incomprehensible source; nothing in this moshing reference makes a connection to crowd collapses or crushes, and anyway the entire statement is irrelevant to the article). I have (per WP:BRD) replaced the first, with attribution, and restored the observations about crowding to the Dynamics section (is it really that controversial?), and also restored the observations on why people willingly put themselves in over-crowded situations (how is that not relevant to the subject?). The discussion is open... Moonraker12 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No result. As far as I'm aware, the RM process is the wrong place to propose draftification. There's nothing to suggest the article meets the criteria of draftifying as a matter of course through new page patrol, which means that the only other venues would be either AFD or a request for merge. Sceptre (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd collapses and crushes → Draft:Crowd collapses and crushes – This article is a draft article and should have been created in draft space. This page was abruptly created during a discussion about a split at Talk:Stampede#Split_proposal. See Talk:Stampede#Split:_Alternate_proposal Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article was created in good faith; any editor is entitled to publish in article space. If there is a problem with the article, then edit it or propose its deletion in the usual way. WWGB (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to get confrontational here. The creation of this article was a WP:BOLD edit as part of an ongoing discussion and it's a draft article. I'm not suggestion it be removed completely, just moved to where it should have been created in the first place. Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Splitting says nothing about first creating a draft article. WWGB (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because what has happened here is content forking, for which there is a separate guideline. Einsof (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline merely says that creating a draft article is "one technique sometimes used". So, it is not mandatory to first create a draft. WWGB (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading the wrong part. The relevant section is "Redundant content forks", which is a subsection of "Unacceptable types of forking". That's one reason this belongs in draft space: because it duplicates material in the Stampede article that editors were in the process of determining what to do with. Einsof (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, Wikipedia:Content forking#Redundant content forks says absolutely nothing about requiring a draft article. The pro-draft contributors have failed to provide any evidence that a draft article is required by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. The editor who created the article, User:Moonraker12, is a very experienced editor of more than 14 years standing and over 12,000 edits. To suggest that his creation should be placed in draft space is borderline offensive. WWGB (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparkie82: I think you need to read WP:DRAFT again. Making a draft is an option available to editors creating an article as an alternative to using a sandbox (like here) or posting directly to the mainspace (like this) which anyone who is logged in and autoconfirmed (like this guy) can do. It's also an option for New Page Patrollers (like him) or for admins closing a deletion proposal. It isn’t your decision at all. And, "no need to be confrontational"? As you have already suggested this and been answered twice, now, I'm finding this whole process confrontational. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This was created in the midst of a discussion on what to do with the existing material in the Stampede article. The overlapping coverage makes this a redundant content fork. Separately, a lot of what's in this article is just bad. Banal filler statements like In an increasingly urbanized world crowds are a fact of life. are bad. Rambling sources with no clear connection to the article subject are bad. The whole thing should be in draft space until it is no longer bad and until we have clarity on what to do with the existing material in Stampede. Einsof (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So which is it, Einsof? Is this just a draft (in which case you can always work to improve it, or offer constructive criticism) or is it a redundant content fork, in which case the remedy is to propose a merge to the original article (somewhat left-handed considering this) or propose it for deletion, (in which case the remedy would be to merge it back to the original article). Your choice... Moonraker12 (talk)

Oppose. This is most definitely not a draft; it's an article. Any autoconfirmed editor may create an article in mainspace. If the article needs to be deleted, WP:AfD is the appropriate forum. If there are problems with the article, they should be corrected through the normal editing process. Station1 (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per everything that Einsof said. --Khajidha (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (obviously), for the reasons given above. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned references in Crowd collapses and crushes

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Crowd collapses and crushes's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Benedictus3Oct":

From 2015 Mina stampede: Benedictus, Leo (3 October 2015). "Hajj crush: how crowd disasters happen, and how they can be avoided". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2 July 2019. Retrieved 4 October 2015.
From Stoning of the Devil: Benedictus, Leo (3 October 2015). "Hajj crush: how crowd disasters happen, and how they can be avoided". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 2 July 2019. Retrieved 4 October 2015.
From Crowd control: Benedictus, Leo (October 3, 2015). "Hajj crush: how crowd disasters happen, and how they can be avoided". The Guardian. Retrieved October 4, 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been resolved. I can't see any errors. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stampede categories: rename, replace, something else?

I see we have Category:Human stampedes in 2023 and many more like it. Every case that I have found so far has been a crowd crush, not a stampede. Can we reach consensus on how best to resolve this problem? At Talk:2023 Pakistan ration distribution stampedes#"Stampede" or "crowd crush", User:Jim Michael 2 (accurately) observes that the RSs freely use the term "stampede", despite the unanimous scientific consensus that it almost always just wrong. Is there a way to resolve this issue? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Nov 21, I tried to start a discussion about whether we should rename the cats in question or start a new cat tree for crowd crushes. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The primary question is the nomenclature that Wikipedia uses: a resolution to the category issue will become evident when that question is resolved. Accordingly, I am assuming that this (category) discussion is suspended while the overall question is considered at talk:Stampede, per PhotogenicScientist's post, below. First things first. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Stampede

I started a discussion over at Talk:Stampede that is relevant to this article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]