Talk:England: Multi-storey carpark in Liverpool gutted by fire, 1,300 vehicles destroyed

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

Photos[edit]

FYI I've contacted Liverpool, UK for photos. They might respond. --Gryllida (talk, chat) 23:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service? They seem to be the ones who gave photos to the BBC. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SVTCobra, I've sent them an email now as well. --Gryllida (talk, chat) 00:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flickr user Andy Daley (scousefire) has a bunch of photos from both the day of the fire and the day after. If he can be persuaded to change the copyright status to one that is compatible with Commons, that is another alternative. Lastly, there's Commons:Category:Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service which has various photos of emergency vehicles from the service that responded. Perhaps better to have a fire engine than a Land Rover. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Contacted Andy at Flickr. --Gryllida (talk, chat) 00:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gryllida: Any word back from any of them? Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am going to go ahead with a review before this gets truly stale. It is not super-timely as it is. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Liverpool replied but did not provide photos. Thanks for the review. Gryllida (talk, chat) 05:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4373800 [Passed][edit]

Revision 4373800 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: None added.

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 4373800 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: None added.

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! And thanks also to you and others for the effort on images. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Sadly, we didn't get any photos of the actual fire or aftermath in time. And the maps are the work of Gryllida. I don't even know how to do that. On the bright side, you can add another to your list of published articles. Cheers and happy editing, --SVTCobra 21:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the mapframe tag has to be either empty or a valid GeoJSON with styling, as produced by a GeoJSON editor.
See mw:Help:Extension:Kartographer. --Gryllida (talk, chat) 05:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's already getting a bit too technical for me ... Are the maps not displaying correctly in the article? They look fine to me and are interactive. Cheers, --SVTCobra 06:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The maps show correctly.
I am just showing how to use this for writing other articles.
  1. Click here,
  2. zoom in at the right location,
  3. put a marker on the map,
  4. copy the JSON output provided,
  5. wrap the output into a mapframe tag (whose width and align are indicated in its attributes like in other articles)
--Gryllida (talk, chat) 06:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I played with it a little. Pretty neat. Adding it to my toolbox Thanks. --SVTCobra 07:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A story about Sunday’s event published on Thursday…pretty darned wicked. Nice dealing with the freshness on this one. Hey Pi zero maybe you could follow SVTCobra’s approach to newsworthiness.
223.227.105.53 (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raising the question is reasonable. Heckling is unnecessary. --Pi zero (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
tried it. Did not work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 223.227.100.203 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Truthfully, it can work, with patience and practice. It works better than the other. --Pi zero (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
one earned me the title of a “Heckler” another one, well someone who “bitches about the review”, makes article “worse”, creates a “mess”, someone who is “trauma triggered” and what not. If I had to choose, I would choose to be called a heckler by someone who knows me well, rather than a stranger. I feel bad that I wanted that stranger to be back on the project for the greater good.
106.206.54.184 (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way you worded your criticisms inadvertently hurt the person you were saying them to. And after a while they got upset and said some things that upset you. --Pi zero (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this article meets the requirements as per WN:CG. It was the last possible day to publish, but it was not too late. I have given Pi zero a fuller answer elsewhere. --SVTCobra 16:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:England:_Multi-storey_carpark_in_Liverpool_gutted_by_fire,_1,300_vehicles_destroyed&oldid=4374119"