Talk:Deadly fire below US President's Trump Tower residence

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Headline[edit]

Current headline is a noun phrase, rather than a sentence. Btw, "presidents" should likely be possessive "president's". --Pi zero (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a bit better. AZOperator (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, we never did fix the problem that the headline isn't a sentence. An unfortunate lapse, even though it seems unlikely to bring about the end of the world. --Pi zero (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numerals and words--it's so exciting![edit]

WOO! Time for some advanced styling! As most of us know, English has multiple correct systems for establishing whether to use numerals or words for numbers ("use words for anything that takes two words or fewer to say" or "use words for only whole numbers under eleven" (Wikinews uses this one) or "use numerals every time so ESL readers won't mistake the meaning") but most of them include the stipulation "but don't switch back and forth for the same thing in the same sentence." This helps the reader parse the meaning better, especially in tricky little beauties like "This month, three Wikinewsies drafted 22 articles each, eight Wikinewsies drafted 10 articles each, and fifteen Wikinewsies drafted 2 article each."

I posit that the "top three stories of the 58-story building" should say either "top 3 stories of the 58-story building" or "top three stories of the fifty-eight story building." They both look good to me. Anyone want to do the honors. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular problem with "top three stories of the 58-story building", myself. The other two options you mention bother me at least as much (a bit more, really, though I do understand what's bothering you, I think). Of course that bit of the style guide is worded especially non-prescriptively, and there's always Orwell's sixth tip: "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbarous." (The trouble here is more about agreeing on what is barbarous.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually both of you and myself are wrong, technically. Trump Tower has 58-stories but is listed as 68-stories when the building was being built to be more grandiose - like that is even possible with Trump. To this day, all the official paperwork says 68. AZOperator (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

High-class vs. Upperclass[edit]

To me, upperclass implies social-economic status which fits the residence in Midtown. High-class seems more like a standard. Anyone what to explain the substitution. AZOperator (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve changed it to "high-end", which seems more appropriate i.e. "intended for people who want very good quality products and who do not mind how much they cost." Upper class and high class refer to social groups and are more ordinarily found in monarchic states, usually referring to aristocrats or nobility, neither of which officially exists in the US. Green Giant (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given your definitions I have concluded it could be used interchangeably in this situation. Trump always talks about the quality as being "great" and "incredible", thus a high class description is acceptable. Also, anyone living in Midtown probably makes 7-figures or more so the social-economic status could be used. Rent control is not an issue in that part of NYC. AZOperator (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please Review[edit]

@Pi zero:, @Green Giant:, or anyone: This is the last day for this article meeting the fresh criteria. AZOperator (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AZOperator (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@AZOperator: As I understand it, the event took place on Saturday. By a generous interpretation of our freshness guidelines, the article might reasonably be allowed on Tuesday (the third day after the event), so the really hard deadline would be about 26.5 hours from now. I really do want to get to this article this evening; I'm just saying, what I've described would seem to be the furthest things could be stretched if push came to shove. --Pi zero (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi zero:Thank you for pointing that out. I know you do seemingly the lion share of reviews and we are all volunteers so it makes it that much harder. Also why hasn't the Wikinews Vandal been booted? In 6 days, the comments sound like he might be a bit unstable. AZOperator (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done @AZOperator: there were several issues that I think need attention. Green Giant (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Green Giant: And I greatly appreciate the second set of eyes on that so I could make the appropriate changes. It was nice working with you on this one. AZOperator (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

President Trump?[edit]

Unlike Richard Nixon (‘s head in the 30th century) Donald Trump is not president of earth for everyone to know. Consider fixing it.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, where did the event take place? Current headline gives no clue.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Green Giant: It does seem advisable to specify in the headline "US President's Trump Tower residence", even if one decides not to try to weave in New York City somehow. --Pi zero (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well Futurama should not be a yardstick for measuring fame. One could argue that the Simpsons predicted the Trump presidency, so everyone can’t say they weren’t warned. Anyway I’ve add US to the headline. Green Giant (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently, you did not get my point. Even in Simpsons, Trump was not President of the world to be known by all.
•–• 23:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got your point straightaway (having been a Futurama fan since the start) but I was pointing out that Nixon's head being a fictional global president a thousand years from now isn’t a yardstick for comparing presidential fame. Green Giant (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, even if XYZ was president of Earth, one may not know who is, or where the president’s towers are. I know people by the first name basis who did not know current President of the India, so there is always a possibility.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we seriously back to the location, location, location deal. Work on coming up with a litmus test for this and be done with it. AZOperator (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AZOperator, to be frank, the current headline is not the ideal one; and the one before the current version was worse. Tell me, do you know who is the president of Mongolia, and where is the president's apartment located? It is time you understand that not everyone gives a flying fuck about who is leader of some other country, or where is their house located.
Also, you tell me, how would anyone know where is the Trump Tower located? What if there are more than one places where there are these towers? Location is a crucial information, and could you stop assuming that everyone across the globe knows everything happening in the US? What if I told you that I asked people, whom I know by the first name basis did not list Donald Trump when I asked them to list all the US presidents. Heck, they did not know president of their own country, and you think they will know where Trump Tower is located?
103.254.128.130 (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I do not like explicit language especially when the article is heavily linked to me. Secondly, if we were to take away all ambiguity and place a GPS coordinate it would be overkill. Thirdly, I understand not everyone lives in the US even though thousands want to because they enter illegally everyday, I know that sobering fact everyday. Even the people that have never had internet know the US, can tell you the president, White House, New York, and you are welcome to talk to them anytime. Just ask and I will set you up. AZOperator (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You just can not mess up with other’s comments. Besides, the article is directly related to Trump towers and not you. Coming to the point, which you missed, the headline speaks nothing of where the building is located. Why should one assume it is in the US? Is that the only property that person owns? As far as knowing who is current president of the US is concerned, as I said, I know people by the first name basis who did not say “Donald Trump” when I asked them to list all the US presidents they know. How are you going to change that fact and convince me that people know who is POTUS?
103.254.128.130 (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
<dropping in> Well, yeah, redacting others' comments isn't the thing. A bit of explicit language just isn't something to get upset about. (I recall hearing years ago that Japanese companies were advertising, as a litmus test, to hire people who could swear in English.)

In this particular case, I think the headline can omit further explanation of the location of the tower, as the most essential info is there — it's the US, it's a residence of the president of that country that's called "Trump Tower". If someone does feel more info ought to be worked into the headline, though, and someone wants to argue against working in more info, I think the argument should probably be something like "meh, there's enough info in the headline that further details can wait for the lede". Avoid arguing that "everybody knows" something. The principle to apply on that is "never assume". One of the ways Wikipedia has gotten itself into trouble is by choosing one of a set of things with a given name to occupy the unqualified article name. Which creates long debates about which thing ought to occupy the unqualified name. Our solution is to simply don't do that. It's not difficult to just not assume people already know basic stuff like what country, what sport, etc.; so, as a simple general rule, just don't. Not making those sorts of assumptions leads to a forthright, crisp style. And obviates debates about whether in some particular case it's "okay" to not mention it (which, at the end of the debate, would ensconce a biasing choice). --Pi zero (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have found people take you more serious when not using profanity. The passion about for the topic prompting the language is received as delusional when considering social dynamics. As for the title at this point, it is mute. There are writers out there that never conclude any pieces because they keep finding things to change. Perpetual changes, a hazard of having so many words. AZOperator (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4398863 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 4398863 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

  • Copyright: Not ready: There is a sentence which paraphrases ABC too closely.
  • Newsworthiness: Passed
  • Verifiability: Not ready: One quite couldn’t be found (Daniel Nigro). The NY Fire Code is linked in the article - if it is used as a source, please put it in the sources section and add where it mentions no sprinklers. Alternatively, stick what the other sources say.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.

Comments by reviewer: Overall it is well written but there are small issues that need addressing - see the comments above and hidden in the article. I’m unsure about the paragraph on TFR being included because it seems to go off—topic.

Questions about the above? Ask.

If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4398863 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Copyright: Not ready: There is a sentence which paraphrases ABC too closely.
  • Newsworthiness: Passed
  • Verifiability: Not ready: One quite couldn’t be found (Daniel Nigro). The NY Fire Code is linked in the article - if it is used as a source, please put it in the sources section and add where it mentions no sprinklers. Alternatively, stick what the other sources say.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.

Comments by reviewer: Overall it is well written but there are small issues that need addressing - see the comments above and hidden in the article. I’m unsure about the paragraph on TFR being included because it seems to go off—topic.

Questions about the above? Ask.

If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Thank you for the review. The ABC paraphrase is drastically different, so that should not be an issue anymore. The Fire Code is a bit harder to explain, it appears the original Fire Code was written in 1968 but has been revised all the way up to 2008. Page 96a-96r is all of the exemptions which is why it is so dangerous to be a FDNY firefighter. On Page 95, the '***' refers to the subsequent revisions.

I'm okay with the TFR being pitched. Initially it was an attempt at how much the Secret Service protection is complicated by his choice of residence, because we all know he has an affinity for Mar a Lago. AZOperator (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot, the quote is best found in the WNBC article in the fifth paragraph. AZOperator (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4398898 [Passed][edit]

Revision 4398898 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: The issues outlined earlier have been fixed.

The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4398898 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: The issues outlined earlier have been fixed.

The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Thank you. AZOperator (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AZOperator and Green Giant! :-)

It would be interesting why the present fire happened (the previous fire being caused by electricity malfunction), but in some cases this is not known until several days later. Gryllida (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gryllida: It would be nice to know but the investigation is not complete. You have multiple city, state, and federal officials working, hopefully, together. My guess is it was an electric problem again since the deceased had an extensive guitar collection, which means lots and lots of cables. Hope the walls were soundproof and he did not have one of Marty McFly's giant speakers. I wonder how many historic guitars went up in that fire. If I remember correctly, the Jimi Hendrick's guitar he famously lit on fire is in Cleveland's Rock and Roll HoF. AZOperator (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unit vs. Apartment vs. Condo vs. Residence[edit]

It is extremely hard to believe Trump Tower, in Midtown, could be called an 'apartment' building. The people living there likely signed a condominium contract through a real estate agent. What I am getting at is, the people there do not care about Rent Control because they are not renting anything - they own (in pseudo Gordon Gekko terminology). All of this can be negate if you declare it as a residence. AZOperator (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category[edit]

{{editprotected}} please add disasters and accidents category 2.28.13.227 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Pi zero (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deadly_fire_below_US_President%27s_Trump_Tower_residence&oldid=4399634"