Talk:Glendale train crash
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Passenger trains task force. |
|
Pending tasks for Glendale train crash: |
(purge cache – edit this list) | |
|---|---|---|
|
||
| See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Todo | ||
Contents |
[edit] Article Name
The article name, "Glendale train crash", is extremely general and is not specific. First off, there are many "Glendale"s throughout the USA. Second, "train crash" does not specify this very crash. Therefore, I am suggesting the title be changed to, "Glendale, California Metrolink crash", or "Glendale, California Metrolink train crash". Are there any objections? --Lan56 04:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Unless and until there is another train crash that happens somewhere else called Glendale I don't see any need to change it. If, for example, there is a train crash in Glendale, Rhode Island then we may have a need to disambiguate, but the press will very quickly attribute a name to it that may not need to be disambiguated. For example if the crash happens to a named service it might become known as the Great Eastern rail crash, or the time it happens may lead to be given the name the Easter Day rail crash, for example. Thryduulf 10:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I would agree to keep the article name as it is because it is consistent with the other articles listed in Category:Railway accidents. When we need to add another article for another Glendale crash, we can disambiguate then. slambo 14:58, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Alright, then let it stay. --Lan56 00:59, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Occurred in Glendale
The reports that I've read on this incident so far place the accident scene in Glendale, California, not Burbank. One of the two Metrolink trains was outbound from Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal bound for Burbank, while the other Metrolink train was inbound from Moorpark, California. The UP train was parked on the siding and was not manned at the time of the collision. (ref: [1]). Perhaps a page move would be in order to more properly reflect the location of the event. slambo 18:55, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Not only did this not happen in Burbank, but this is not the "Burbank train crash." The following occurred in Burbank:
-
- "Jan. 6, 2003: A Metrolink train carrying morning commuters smashes into a truck and derails in Burbank, killing the motorist and injuring 32 people on board as it litters 1,000 feet of track with flying metal." -AP Wire [2]
- Agreed. The early press report, on which I based the first cut of the article, said Burbank, but presumably was confused between location and destination (or I was). I think renames like this are to be expected when dealing with breaking events. -- Chris j wood 10:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Should we report coincidental events
The current section 'Casualties' includes:
- Coincidentally, it occurred on the deadliest day for U.S. forces in the Iraq war. It was one of two major disasters in California during that month. The other was the mudslide in La Conchita that killed 10 people on January 10 (a total of 28 Californians died during major rainstorms in January).
My feeling that this is, in anything other than a very short term perspective, pretty irrelevant to an encyclopedia. IMHO, we ought to be writing for a target audience who is going to be reading this article in months or years to come. And I cannot see that the fact this happened the same day as a helicopter crash (however bad) in Iraq, or the same month as a mudslide, is going to mean anything to them. In a Wikinews news story, writing for the 'now' audience, things might be slightly different.
What do you think?. Should we drop these sentences or do they serve a purpose I'm missing?. -- Chris j wood 10:50, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I would agree, especially considering that coincidences like this are not reported in any of the other Category:Railway accidents articles that I've looked at. If someone is interested in other events that happened on the 26th, he/she can look at the January 26 page. slambo 11:18, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
- However, it might be worth noting the similarities to Ufton Nervet rail crash, also caused by a suicide attempt when a driver parked his car on a grade crossing in front of a high speed passenger train. slambo 11:24, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
- I've taken both of those comments on board in the article now. -- Chris j wood 12:27, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Re: References
I'm not so sure that removing the link to the LA Times collection of articles was a good idea. The articles were used as reference material for this article, and the link was listed in the References section, not See Also or External Links. Is there a reference for the latest edit that states that parking on the tracks may have been intentional and not a suicide attempt? A quick look over at the BLE's website shows a reprinted AP article that confirms it, so I'm adding that as a reference now too. slambo 15:05, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] How many passengers killed?
A total of 11 passengers were killed in the collision.
Given that one of the victims was a conductor, and thus not a "passenger" (in the sense of one who has bought passage), perhaps the victims should be classified differently, e.g., "people," or "people on the train," etc. 71.142.78.181 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
