Talk:2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Russian article

Resolved

Here is Russian article [1]. Make a normal interwiki !! 217.76.1.22 (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been done. Mjroots (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for ITN

{{ITN nom}}-Ad Orientem (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Reactions

No doubt that over the coming few hours there will be a host of reactions from various notable people/governemnts/etc coming in and being added to news reports. Before anyone starts adding them to the article, please can we agree do something similar to 2017 Westminster attack#Reactions. There the whole section is prose, only the reactions from those directly involved and the most notable concrete actions are included. In this case the reaction of Putin as head of state is obviously notable, and given that he was meeting Lukashenko at the time the latter's reaction is also justifiably included, but collections of quotes belong at Wikiquote not in this article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I've removed all the international quotes, but there are still three domestic ones. I don't think the quotes are necessary but I've run out of time to sort them. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been watching these sections deflag and shrink for a few years now, and this was by far the quickest yet. Good job! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Image copyvio issues

I've nominated file:2017 Saint Petersburg Metro attack .jpg for deletion at commons as highly likely a copyvio. Should it be proved not to be a copyvio, it can be replaced in the article. Until then, it should not be re-added, and any re-adding will be reverted. Copyright is a serious issue. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted. Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010: - please do not remove the NFCC image (File:2017 spb metro.jpg) whilst the discussion is ongoing, not having the image means that NFCC is not met because it is not being used. Should the image be deleted, then it can be replaced. Mjroots (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Image is a copyvio, If the discussion states it's not a copyvio then I'll happily resotre the image. –Davey2010^Talk 20:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to call for an expert's opinion - Moonriddengirl. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect I'd rather discussions were kept in one place (ie the FFD page) instead of you randomly pinging people here that may or may not be your friends, Not accusing you or her but it's simply best you don't ping people that's all, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

For others concerned the FFD is at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_April_3#File:2017_spb_metro.jpg, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, discussion should take place at FFD. Moonriddengirl is a copyright expert, and likely to tell me that I'm in the wrong if that is the case. I'll respect her ruling and won't whinge if this goes against me. I think the pair of us have enough to say now, both here and at FFD, so let's let others have a chance to comment. Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Article title: 2017 St. Petersburg Metro bombing

Would be more informative, specific.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. ansh666 22:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant information about fatalities

Yuri Nalimov, 71, and Xenia Milyukova, 18, were identified to be among the fatalities.

I sincerely doubt these facts are relevant to the Wikipedia article. --80.201.102.6 (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• All the victims of the 2017 Westminster attack are named. I don't see any problem with this information if the sources are reliable, and this is unaffected by the fact it occurred in Russia. 207.107.159.62 (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Just because every victim of another tragedy has been mentioned it doesn't mean it's suddenly relevant.--80.201.102.6 (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Image placement

I've removed the map image File:Blasts Apr2017 on SPb metro map.png because it's placement on the left was causing sandwiching issues (see MOS:SANDWICHING), and it doesn't really relate to the "reaction" section it was placed in (it should be much higher up, but there is no space there). It's a shame to lose the image though as it is useful, but currently there is no space anywhere for it. The only image that is arguably removable is the one of Putin laying flowers, but that is relevant to its location in the article whereas the map wouldn't be there. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It was fine where it was originally in the infobox. However, with the continued expansion of the article there should be room for its return. Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Article title

Is it necessary to have two pages for a single incident?! I don't understand how does it differ from each other except for the title 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing Bilingual2000 (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please be reasonably patient, this is an ongoing event, articles will be merged, moved, and so on, it will take some hours. By tomorrow it will all be OK, learn more about Wikipedia first before posting stuff like this please. Skycycle (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with bringing attention to the fact 2 articles exist. Yes this will be fixed over time and isn't uncommon with breaking incidents but people still need to be made aware of it to fix it. As for being patient and learning about wikipedia, well this could apply to you. E.g. you said here [2] you'd apply for protection but there had been almost no IP or non auto confirmed edits at the time, and it's hopefully unlikely this article will ever need full protection. Also a mistake was made in the reference name but this only happened because you twice removed the referenced content about the metro system being shut down [3] [4]. Perhaps this was due to hidden edit conflicts but you then re-added the reference but with a different reference name [5]. In itself there's nothing wrong with choosing a different name. But it's also something easy to miss so making such a mistake is also not so majorly wrong, especially since previewing delays the time to save meanining there's a risk of a edit conflict. It's good that you fixed the accidential use of the old ref name, on the other hand since it's easy to see it's also something plenty of people are likely to fix so not worth getting so worked up about. Losing content is something much easier to miss although as I said, I'm assuming you did this due to a hidden edit conflict so I probably should have used a different edit summary. You also added the expand template [6] (and an empty section heading) but as someone said [7] these seem unnecessary for a breaking major event. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bilingual2000, Skycycle, Nil Einne, and Coffee: Can anyone explain why my edits on 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing have disappeared? I have created this article which was later moved to "2017 Saint Petersburg Metro attack", but my edits were still visible in my edit log. After the article was moved back to "2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing", my edits have been completely gone and the article has retained the history of its former name. I spent some time to put the article in a decent shape (the whole content was copied to the other one) and would like to, at least, have my edits in my edit log. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

You're right that there's a serious problem here. I think Coffee may have been the one who deleted the article but I'm not sure, in any case I've notified them directly of the problem. P.S. I don't think it's entirely correct all the content was copied, as some of it was already in the first article and so wasn't needed. But definitely some content was copied and attribution is a requirement of the licence you and anyone else involved in the other article released your content under so you have a right to be aggrieved. Nil Einne (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kiril Simeonovski: I just pointed out that there are two separate pages about the same subject. I did not move the page or delete any text in either pages. I think the two pages were to be merged, rather than moving, that may override the existing content. Not sure about it and sorry to hear your edit log was truncated. Bilingual2000 (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Number of casualties in attack

In the lead it claims 9 died in the attack, 5 later from their injuries. In the causalities section it claims 11 died in the attack, 3 later from injuries. The total number is the same, but the number who died immediately appears to be in some contention. I don't have time to look through the sources right now, but hopefully someone can sort out this disparity. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done, 9 - in the attack, 5 - from injuries. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 14:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, seven - during the attack and seven from injuries. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 14:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Map & image

Incase anyone has a problem - I've reinstated both the train image as well as the map, I know the layout is an issue however all images are related and for the most part my layout works (when the template is expanded the images move down but it's not too bad),
If anyone wants to change the layout of the images I obviously no issues however the images (or atleast those I've reinstated) should remain as they're the most relevent to the article,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Finally my Image is considered relevant by someone! Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 18:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Victims by nationality

Resolved

Can the "Victims by nationality" table be displayed in a way that doesn't create a large chunk of white space? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I moved it to the right, it doesn't align with the section because of the other images on top, but at least it doesn't have all the white space. MeropeRiddle (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If it was a simple sentence, there'd be no space. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not make the table, I just moved it. Somebody put within the article, and there was no text wrapping around it, it left a big chunk of open space, so I moved it to the side, and it looks fine now. I set it up to align with the Casualities section/header. However it is getting pushed down from the pictures above it. If the sections above it end up with more text, it will eventually end up aligning appropriately with Casualties. MeropeRiddle (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Suspects

Videos showed one suspect, a person with a beard (well ...). It was however said that this suspect turned himself in at a police station claiming to not have had anything to do with the attack. Can the main article mention this eventually? I understand that change is currently undergoing to the article, so perhaps in the next few days this could be added. 2A02:8388:1602:DF80:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I have added this to the article. It is under Perpetrator/Initial reports MeropeRiddle (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)