Talk:Torre Ejecutiva Pemex explosion
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Torre Ejecutiva Pemex explosion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving Torre Ejecutiva Pemex explosion was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 February 2013. |
This page incorporates content from Explosión de la Torre Ejecutiva Pemex de 2013, a page hosted on another Wikimedia Foundation project. Please consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 31, 2018 and January 31, 2021. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From the Spanish article
[edit]I have added incident aftermath and timeline sections which are translated from the Spanish article. Can someone who knows how add the requisite template reflecting this? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Timeline of poor references
[edit]Please, oh please can we stop adding the mainly unreferenced "timeline" to this article, at least until it's no longer on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Except for the one single line marked reference needed every item is either refd in the timeline or in the body already. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, good call, 13 lines without in-line references, and a bunch of entirely messed up references added to an article on the main page of Wikipedia. Pure genius. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the article uses the word "tweet" and related terms to refer to Twitter posts. I feel that this is non-neutral in a subtle way -- to fully understand this article, you must accept Twitter's marketing terminology. I would prefer more descriptive terms like "Twitter post" or "Twitter message". Does anyone know if there are any style guidelines pertaining to this? 138.16.21.199 (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- I understand what you mean, however most major media outlets use the word "tweet" as the accepted terminology for a post on Twitter. -- LuK3 (Talk) 05:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Concur. If you don't know what a "tweet" is, then you likely don't know what Twitter is. Hiberniantears (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Three disappeared
[edit]There are three people missing. Let's stay tuned. [1] ComputerJA (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Drug cartel
[edit]So I'm hearing stories that authorities are withholding information that it was drug cartel related because it sheds light on the incompetence of the administrations "War on drugs". Any truth?
-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.169.187 (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've heard about those rumors too, but nothing has been confirmed. ComputerJA (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Cause
[edit]Preliminary reports indicate that gas accumulation was the cause of the explosion. [2] ComputerJA (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Terrible writing, awful article
[edit]this: "The building was completely evacuated in the minutes following the explosion.[6] In the hours after the blast, about 30 people were reported to be trapped in debris,[6] and searches continued into the next day, as Pemex CEO Emilio Lozoya said there were indications that some people remained under the rubble.[7]"
is contradictory the building was EITHER "completely evacuated in the minutes following the explosion" OR "In the hours after the blast, about 30 people were reported to be trapped in debris"]
could do with a total rewrite too! 188.220.151.59 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you see any mistakes, you can correct the grammar/spelling errors yourself. ComputerJA (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Misleading article title: The main tower was not involved at all
[edit]This article must be revised to change its present title, as the main building (Tower) was not involved at all in the explosion. It needs to refer to "Edificio B-2" as this was the building affected by the explosion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.20 (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- There is truth in what you say. Abductive (reasoning) 16:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Selected anniversaries (January 2018)
- Selected anniversaries (January 2021)
- C-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
- C-Class Death articles
- Low-importance Death articles
- Start-Class Disaster management articles
- Low-importance Disaster management articles
- Start-Class Explosives articles
- Unknown-importance Explosives articles
- Start-Class Mexico articles
- Low-importance Mexico articles
- WikiProject Mexico articles