Talk:Explosions in Hyderabad, India

Disasters and accidents

{{editprotected}} That infobox would be more suitable, I think.
acagastya 09:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done Perhaps, but that infobox was created in 2009 and this article is from 2007. --SVTCobra 20:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Unlike sources, templates created after the date of publication can be used for the article. Besides the story is too small to give an impression about India. The category is more than sufficient. D&a is a category which would not have anyone questioning the degree of seriousness. Consider it like this; if it was a car accident killing five in Queens, New York; would one prefer {{United States}} it {{Disasters and accidents}}?
•–• 12:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I said I see your point. But you are tampering with the archives putting in content (and you say templates are content, remember?) that didn't exist when the article was written. --SVTCobra 17:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

infobox is a non-news template, which has not much to do, and often reflect potential bias/CoI? What was that article? Israeli chess players banned from participating in a tournament in Saudi Arabia, I guess. For the part where you say I am tampering with something that did not exist that time, infobox uses DLP. The articles you see in that infobox were written years after this article was archived, how do you explain that? I guess, by that same reasoning, you would deny to make use of {{w}} templates for old articles. I really think other admin should look into this (CC@Pi zero:) as archive policy states the substantial changes to the article can not be made 24 hours after publishing, and infobox is a non-news article template. Similar logic would apply if {{footballbox}} is changed to display referee on the left hand side instead of right.
223.237.237.238 (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

<pi zero dropping in> I have no strong feelings about which infobox would be preferable. Historically we haven't treated infobox choice as part of archived content; which said, it would probably be just as well that we stay fairly conservative about cosmetic adjustments to the archives. --Pi zero (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think, the words you used: Besides the story is too small to give an impression about India go to show that you want the infobox to add to the article; that it is in fact part of the article. Sure, the code for the newer infobox existed, but not the template itself. In conclusion, I am in favor of leaving the archives alone as much as possible. Part of it is to go back and look and say, "wow, look how primitive WN was back then ... we have come a long way since then." Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

As for your example about Queens, NY, we recently published Scaffolding collapses in Copenhagen with a "Denmark" infobox and not a "Disasters and accidents" infobox. --SVTCobra 21:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a side note -- that article is clearly below minimal length -- one liners do not account for paragraph. But, Airborne sedan smashes into dental office in Santa Ana, California, US -- not very near to Queens, but not that far.
223.237.208.21 (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree {{disasters and accidents}} would be a better choice than {{india}} for this article — because the question seems to me to be what navigational peripheral would be most helpful to a reader who wants more of what they're looking at — and I do maintain an infobox can be changed on an old archived article like this (I believe I've seen it done, maybe once in the years I've been on Wikinews); but I'm sympathetic to SVT's remark about saying "wow, look how primitive WN was back then". This article says almost nothing, and trying to improve it seems rather futile. --Pi zero (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)