Jump to content

Talk:Zolitūde shopping centre roof collapse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of deceased: Paragraph of bulleted points in columns?

[edit]
There seems to be a clear consensus in the #Threaded discussion section against including a list of fatalities in the article, which was implemented in this edit. Therefore the question about the use of bulleted points in columns is now moot. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I had placed the list of deceased into columns for better legibility, and because of easier coding, and because the list of names is a list, I placed all the names into a bulleted list. An IP user 114.198.27.138 with less than five edits in his/her contribution history later reverted the list because "bullets dominate the article inappropriately," with which I disagree, because the bulleted list helps the layout with longer entries in the list. Because I still wanted the names formatted in columns, I restored the columns, but so far without bullets. -Mardus (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The same IP user 114.198.27.138 later on placed the names into five columns (instead of the three), which means that in a 1024x768 resolution some additional information wraps into a new line. For purposes of layout, the list should now need bullets for each item. This IP user also deleted references in the article, which had to be restored. -Mardus (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Should the names of the deceased be put into a bulleted list for purposes of better layout?

Place your votes here.

Threaded discussion

[edit]

Further comments should be here.

I'd like to see my work restored as current format excludes part of information and it would be hard to add any extra information, while keeping it visually appealing/easy to read. The user who is campaigning to have names removed altogether has not brought up anything to support his claims and seems to currently be preferring reverting over discussion. The argument that victims of disaster are not notable is highly questionable - if it was not for them we probably wouldn't have this article. I believe this originally comes from comments or guidelines on general notability elsewhere that apply to having separate article or list, the victims can be considered notable in the context of the article. ~~Xil (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also it becomes apparent that the length of the list is a (or the) concern. It is not actually that long compared to rest of the article. The references section then also should be removed as it takes up even more. This is purely a matter of taste that is currently being put above the functionality and content ~~Xil (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding minutiae such as dates of birth and vocations is just trivia and cruft. If you want to create a tribute page to victims, try raising a standalone article. We are building an encyclopedia here, not a who's who of Maxima victims. WWGB (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WWGB. See also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. --John (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the articles I mentioned in the above discussion ages and occupations of victims are mentioned. Could you explain why different standards apply here? Besides we already agreed that WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to having an article for that purpose. ~~Xil (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be more acceptable, if User:Xil created a table in his/her own userspace and linked to it here? — Because if his work is later deemed by consensus worthy of inclusion, then it would be readily available. -Mardus (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically you are suggesting that I userify it for eternity, which actually would be in violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. None of you have as of yet demonstrated that there is a general consensus on Wikipedia against including victims list with age and occupation (in fact I demonstrated above that there isn't any) or why it should not be included in this particular case. Consensus means having an opinion in common, not taking a stance without giving any argument to support it ~~Xil (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as you have not yet demonstrated that there is any benefit to the article including victims' occupations or dates of birth. WWGB (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why I need to demonstrate this when I have clearly demonstrated that there is no general consensus against such lists and you can not make a good argument why it should not be included here. In the same way you could delete any other part of the article and claim it is right thing to do. The disaster is notable because the loss of lives, not because of structural failure and resulting property damage. The list gives a general idea who where the victims, how did they get there, how their deaths might affect community. Also it seems few might have some notability and one woman apparently was pregnant, which some might consider loss of two lives. Listing names alone does not mean anything and neither does just mentioning the ages. And it is not a memorial or trivia, what I would see as unacceptable detail would be listing their relatives, pets, hobbies and such ~~Xil (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That line of reasoning is blatant Synthesis. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find anybody who died who truly met our notability standards you should definitely feel free to write articles on them. Failing that we don't gain any benefit from having a nonspecific list of their ages, occupations, and other attributes. Saying that some other articles have this won't do; the onus is on you to demonstrate an encyclopedic need for this material. --John (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to "write articles on them", I want to know content has been removed from the article as there is no solid argument for doing so and why there are double standards here. An essay like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an opinion, not a guideline and WP:ONUS is the verifiability guideline, but everything has been cited. In fact in great scheme of things you cannot come of with proof - you say that this is not how it's done and the information is irrelevant, yet we have other articles where it is done and you fail to demonstrate why the reasons I came up with on why this list helps for understanding of subject matter are not valid. I'd like to add to the later that it is perhaps not important to understanding the event itself (i.e. roof collapsing), but what happened afterwards (i.e. some reactions of Latvian society, investigation and such) ~~Xil (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on the editor adding new information to prove there is a reason for it in the article. A CLEAR CONSENSUS may sometimes over-ride that (as in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but that is not the case here, where the clear consensus indicated above, is to not include the list. The list is not encyclopedic, and there is consensus to keep it out. As such, I have removed it per Not News and Not Memorial. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 18:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia should tell the facts;this was probably state terrorism

[edit]

Why is there no mention that this was probably state terrorism? I live in Riga and hear many people say this. Think about the facts and draw your own conclusions:

After the attack many people noted suspicious circumstance surrounding it:

+the attck took place in the main Latvian nationalist week, after November 18th, when the Latvian government usually whips up hatred of Russians.

+the attack happened in Zolitude, the area of Riga where the most Russians live.

+the attack happened, not in the middle of the night, when the store was empty but at 1800pm, when the store was at its busiest.

+the Latvian government refused help from foreign governments, especially Russias. (What did they have to hide?)

+the Latvian government ordered the scene cleaned up as quickly as possible (what did they have to hide?)

+despite it being a small incident, the prime minister of Latvia resigned just after a meeting with the president.

What many people think happened is this: the Latvian government, which has long wanted rid of its Russian inhabitants, planned the attack. Placing a small amount of explosives at key points on the roof timed to explode at a time when the store was at its fullest. (The building work gave perfect cover.) The attack happened without the knowledge of the President. The government thought he would just go along with it, even if he found out. However the President did find out, summoned the Prime Minister to a meeting and there, told him that he knew everything. He then blackmailed Dumbrovskis, threatening to expose the plot unless Dumbrovskis resigned and allowed Berzsins to appoint a puppet Prime Minister, who he could blackmail into doing his bidding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSRVsegda (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. If "many people say this" as you claim, I'm sure at least a few newspapers would have written about it. Please provide reliable sources in English, Latvian or Russian that support it. --Երևանցի talk 16:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the attack, many people reported hearing an explosion. That is also in many, newspapers, so that has been written about. All the other facts I present above have been written about too! The Wikipedia report already says that Latvija refused the help of foreign governments. It already says that the Prime Minister resigned after a small incident after a meeting with the president. You can find out easily that Zolitude is the most Russian part of Riga. Please, tell the truth!! The only conspiracy is the Latvian government one!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSRVsegda (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that large groups of (probably Russian) children were in the store too, if crap written allover Internet is to be believed :D Also it isn't were most Russians live - Russians are in majority there, but there are several such neighborhoods in Riga; the explosion like noise was building collapsing, there are videos of subsequent collapses in which you can hear it; the Latvian government was offered help by several countries and refused every single one, because there was no way they realistically could use it, they did however allow Estonian firefighters to observe as they apparently asked for it as learning expierience; the scene was not cleaned up quickly, in fact they only started doing it yesterday due to complaints by the locals, why rescue happened quickly should be obvious. And calling independence day nationalist week is xenophobic bullshit that doesn't even make sense (how would that contribute to state planting bombs?) ~~Xil (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point! There obviously where children in the store at the time of the bombing. How would there not be at such a busy time not long after school had finished? So the fact that no children where among the dead, is also very suspicious. A friend of my friend told her that her work colleague's young niece had been killed in the bombing and that this was being covered up. I've heard that a figure of 20 children where killed; why they do that is unclear. But I suspect the Latvian government is worried that if the truth ever does come out, having murdered Russian kids would only add to the shame. Only firefighters from Estonia, the only other country that hates Russias people more than Latvija does, where there "to observe"; why am I not surprised? Probably it will be better if Russian people in Estonia don't visit supermarkets in the center of that country soon, especially during Estonian nationalist week.

Zolitude is the most Russian district, that's a fact. No one has answered my question of why the collapse just happened at 1800, when the store was at it's most full? Why did Dombrovskis resign after such a minor incident? Did Tony Blair resign after the train crash in Britain or Obama after the hurricanes? No!! Clearly he resigned because he was guilty of something and was being blackmailed by those that found out, like the president. (Expect a close friend or ally of the President to be appointed as the new Prime Minister soon.)

It happened in Latvian nationalist week, when celebrations where taking place around Riga and anti-Russian prejudice is at it's worst and the comings of goings of those carrying out the attack would be less likely to be noticed. Most of the forensic evidence was destroyed quickly after, during the second collapse, which was likely organised as well. People didn't say they heard the sound of a building collapsing, they said they heard an explosion, like a bomb. Massive difference!! That was soon airbrushed out of later press reports. No, too many strange coincedences. As Latvija's press is mostly government controlled, I don't think we will hear the truth from them. That is why Wikipedia, like Wikileaks, should take the lead in exposing this conspiracy, not in simply parrotting Latvijan government propoganda. This should not be removed or censored from the article. How do I make sure that the information is fixed in the article and not removed by Latvian nationalists? Who is the main moderator for this page?

Also, I find the fact that Xil chooses to make jokes about this, by adding sly smily faced emoticons, very distasteful. The murder of around a hundred innocent people in an ethnic cleansing incident, is not a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSRVsegda (talk • contribs) 17:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, god, if you intend to continue this insanity, you'll need to find WP:Reliable sources. A social network posting of "somebody told me they saw gazilion dead children in morgue" or "normally I see million of kids in stores at the time" does not constitute such source. What is distasteful here is trolls like you attempting to use tragedy (in which BTW people of multiple nationalities perished) to incite ethnic hatred ~~Xil (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not blame. Learn what happened, when happened, why it happened. Start with the model of disaster. Currently created model catastrophe: http://nyos.lv/f/uploads/Zolitude-2.pdf. According this model collapse of supermarket «Maxima»-result of resonant oscillations parts of the building, caused by an external source.Other models describe the individual properties of the building, which could contribute to crash or could not contribute to the crash. Reliably establish the numerical characteristics of these properties at the time of the disaster is not possible.TVERD (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I predicted, a puppet prime minister was indeed appointed by the Latvian president, who exceeded his autority (he is only supposed to be a constitutional figure head) to veto candidates of other parties so that his prefered candidate could get the job. I have added that, with a reference— Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSRVsegda2014 (talk • contribs)

The said reference only contains information about there being new prime minister, nothing about puppets and what not ~~Xil (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said back in December: "Expect a close friend or ally of the President to be appointed as the new Prime Minister soon.)" That prediction what many others said was proved correct: Strajuma became Prime Minister "after President Berzins had already turned down several other candidates." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17528621 So a figure head president meddled in the political process to insure his own prefered candidate got the job. You have not rebutted any of the other points I made, just made insults. Tell me, Xil, how much do the Latvijan government pay you for keeping this page in there prefered sanitised version?

Sketchy casualty numbers

[edit]

Just an observation - website of charity collecting donations for the injured and families of the victims reports that they've given money to 41 people who were hospitalized on 21 November and 17 people hospitalized later.[1] In the news, as far as I remember, 35 people were initially reported by paramedics (it rose to 39 few days later), however there was conflicting information on the night after the incident about around 40 injured that apparently was reported by police. Not sure, if charity is to be trusted as there have been reports about fraudsters trying to cash in on this and they might be reporting about family members of the victims or other people who were not in the store, but were somehow still involved ~~Xil (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a report on police being questioned by members of the parliament. It says that for purposes of the criminal investigation the 54 dead and 41 persons who "suffered any kind of bodily harm" have been recognized as victims. As such I updated the number ~~Xil (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move under more specific title?

[edit]

After the incident several more collapses in the past were brought up (including one other store of the same chain), while none of those involved dozens of victims and are not likely to get an article, this means that the current title could apply to several events. I suggest Maxima XX roof collapse in Zolitūde, which includes both the name of the store and the neiborghood, which would set it appart from other chains and other stores in the city ~~Xil (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be moved to Maxima massacre, to reflect the fact that this was likely state terrorism. Any other article title is a simple betrayal of the truth and commonsense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSRVsegda2014 (talk • contribs)
That wouldn't be in line with Wikipedia:Article titles since massacre is not a neutral title, nor it is a common name for the event ~~Xil (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is dishonest for Xil to say that Wikipedia articles cannot be called massacre. There are many. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maguindanao_massacre for example. This massacre killed even more people, inclouding innocent children, but the truth is being censored. The sources, including even the devious Latvian president, call it a massacre (one even calls it a pogrom, which would also be true) http://french.ruvr.ru/news/2013_11_23/Le-President-letton-qualifie-l-effondrement-de-Maxima-de-massacre-3871/ http://rupaper.com/post/11245 http://news2night.com/en/news/rozenvalds-pogromy-vyzvali-obratnyj-effekt-ljudi-ponjali----nichego-ne-izmenitsja#.U1FHmFLfOxc — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSRVsegda2014 (talk • contribs)
Had you read the policy I linked, you would note it says such naming should only be used when that is a common name. Also he didn't say massacre, but mass murder and he likely meant it figuratively, certainly he made no claims to support your xenophobic conspiracy ideas ~~Xil (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation, "usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that."
Has another supermarket roof collapse occurred in Riga? That would be a valid reason to consider renaming the article. Options include substituting the neighborhood for the city (the latter of which has been mentioned far more frequently by reliable sources, so it otherwise is preferable), specifying the chain's name, or appending "2013". It's unlikely that more than one of those changes is necessary. —David Levy 02:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I said - roofs have collapsed in Riga in the past, although without so many victims. For example in 2012 [2] a shopping mall lost a wall in storm and, as was later revealed, also part of roof, due to water pooling on roof, nobody was hurt and the whole matter was only briefly discussed in the news when it occurred and then again after Maxima collapsed - it is not notable enough for an article, still the current name might as well apply to it, so the title seems somewhat confusing. The common name for the event in Latvia is Zolitūde tragedy, which, I believe, is not neutral ~~Xil (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned "more collapses in the past", "including one other store of the same chain". You didn't indicate whether any of these other incidents occurred in Riga.
In the shopping mall case, the roof evidently collapsed over a clothing store (not a supermarket), so I'm confused as to how "the current name might as well apply to it". (If the title were simply "Riga roof collapse", that would be true.) —David Levy 10:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both that store and this store contain large grocery store and other shops. Judging by definition in the article supermarket neither really is purely a supermarket in English usage, since both sold stuff other than groceries, but in Latvian usage the word is just slang for any self-service store. The same chain was involved in an incident where roof collapsed due to snow in 2010 killing two people (ref) ~~Xil (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both that store and this store contain large grocery store and other shops.
Are you referring to the Alfa shopping mall as a whole? (I assume that you don't mean Bik Bok in particular, as that chain appears to specialize in girls'/young women's fashion). If so, did the Alfa mall's large grocery store suffer a roof collapse?
Judging by definition in the article supermarket neither really is purely a supermarket in English usage, since both sold stuff other than groceries, but in Latvian usage the word is just slang for any self-service store.
In English usage, supermarkets often go well beyond selling groceries, but a store that doesn't sell groceries is never called a "supermarket".
The Maxima XX store in Zolitūde has been widely described as a "supermarket" by English-language sources around the world (and the information that I've encountered is consistent with this terminology). So the question is whether another Riga supermarket — as the term applies in the English language — has experienced a roof collapse.
The same chain was involved in an incident where roof collapsed due to snow in 2010 killing two people (ref)
I'm unable to read the Latvian language, but I've viewed two machine translations of the page.
I see a mention of a snow-related incident in March 2010, in which no one was killed. From what I gather, it occurred at this building, with the first-floor Maxima X store sustaining "partial damage" (including broken windows). Unless I've misunderstood (which is quite possible, as these translations are rough), this wasn't something that I would describe as a "supermarket roof collapse".
I also see a mention of an accident in December 2000 (apparently in the same location, with the first floor occupied by an Essa store at the time), in which two women were killed when debris fell to the first floor from higher floors. I'm unclear on whether this involved an outright roof collapse.
A human translation would be sincerely appreciated. —David Levy 16:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the way I see it the issue is not if another building that fits the definition to the letter has collapsed, but if a human being can tell what the article is about just by seeing the title. The current title can suggest any supermarket in the city or even a supermarket named Riga, meaning that the reader actually has to guess, if any other supermarket has collapsed, if any other collapse was in supermarket or what, instead of getting that information from the title. Is there any harm in moving the article, like somehow making it more confusing? ~~Xil (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the way I see it the issue is not if another building that fits the definition to the letter has collapsed, but if a human being can tell what the article is about just by seeing the title.
I've pointed you to documentation of the English Wikipedia's convention. The current title establishes that the article's subject is a supermarket roof collapse in Riga. Only if another supermarket roof collapse has occurred in Riga does this fail to unambiguously define the article's topical scope. You appear to have switched from that argument to one based on disagreement with our article titling policy.
The current title can suggest any supermarket in the city
It can suggest any supermarket in the city at which the roof has collapsed.
Someone might not know which Riga supermarket's roof collapsed, along with many other details of the incident. That's why our article has been written.
"21 November 2013 roof collapse at the Maxima XX supermarket in Zolitūde, Riga, Latvia" would convey significantly more information, but that isn't the title's purpose.
or even a supermarket named Riga,
Does such a business exist?
meaning that the reader actually has to guess, if any other supermarket has collapsed, if any other collapse was in supermarket or what, instead of getting that information from the title.
How would the title "Maxima XX roof collapse in Zolitūde" inform readers of whether additional supermarket roofs have collapsed in Riga? If anything, it would have the opposite effect. The current title implies that no such events have occurred (because if they had, greater precision would be required to distinguish this instance from the others). Conversely, your proposed title would leave open the possibility that multiple supermarket roofs in the city have collapsed (which apparently isn't so). —David Levy 19:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is confusing naming now a policy? I gave you plenty of evidence, you started to analyze the ways in which the other stores are not supermarkets. The policy suggests that name should be recognizable and precise enough for reader vaguely familiar with the subject matter to identify what the article is about. The average person might not know exact definition of supermarket or in what buildings the other collapses occurred. That other articles fitting the title don't exist may as well prove either 1. that other collapses are not notable enough like I said) or 2. nobody has bothered to write an article, none of which makes it easer to understand what exactly the article is about for a reader who has heard both about this and other collapses that don't have article about them. Besides using that logic one might as well give it even wider geographic scope - why not Latvia supermarket roof collapse or Baltic States supermarket roof collapse? The former was even used by several English language news sites. And, yes, shops named Riga do exist ~~Xil (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is confusing naming now a policy?
Of course not. And if I regarded the article's current title as confusing and your suggestion as less confusing, I would support a move.
I gave you plenty of evidence, you started to analyze the ways in which the other stores are not supermarkets.
You make it sound as though I've sought out obscure technicalities. (One of your edit summaries was "let's not split hairs".)
You've explained that "in Latvian usage ["supermarket"] is just slang for any self-service store", and I have no reason to doubt that statement's accuracy. But I've explained that the word has a much more specific meaning in English, wherein a clothing store (such as Bik Bok) would never be considered a "supermarket".
The other store mentioned does meet the English-language definition of a "supermarket", but it's unclear that any actual roof collapses occurred there.
The policy suggests that name should be recognizable and precise enough for reader vaguely familiar with the subject matter to identify what the article is about.
Indeed. And English-language media reports identifying the roof collapse's location as "Riga" far outnumber those mentioning "Zolitūde". Additionally, people (particularly those only vaguely familiar with the subject matter) are more likely to remember that it occurred at a supermarket than they are to recall that it was part of the Maxima chain. So your suggestion, "Maxima XX roof collapse in Zolitūde", is significantly less recognizable to this website's readers.
The average person might not know exact definition of supermarket
A clothing store doesn't come close to the English-language meaning of "supermarket". Imagine someone at the Latvian Wikipedia arguing that Bik Bok might be thought of as a "grāmatnīca". In English, calling it a "supermarket" is comparably inaccurate and unusual.
or in what buildings the other collapses occurred.
How would the proposed move alleviate this knowledge gap? If a reader doesn't know that a different roof collapse occurred at a clothing store, seeing the title "Maxima XX roof collapse in Zolitūde" won't change that.
As I noted earlier, if someone is under the impression that additional roof collapses occurred (or may have occurred) at other supermarkets in Riga, inserting the degree of precision that you advocate would only affirm this belief.
That other articles fitting the title don't exist may as well prove either 1. that other collapses are not notable enough like I said)
I agree that the incidents mentioned above are not notable enough to have articles here. But we should consider renaming this article if any other roof collapse (even one that's "non-notable" by our standards) has occurred at a Riga supermarket (as defined in English). I await evidence of such an incident.
or 2. nobody has bothered to write an article,
That would be even stronger justification for a move. I await evidence.
Besides using that logic one might as well give it even wider geographic scope - why not Latvia supermarket roof collapse or Baltic States supermarket roof collapse? The former was even used by several English language news sites.
Indeed, identifying the country instead of the city probably would enhance the title's recognizably for this website's readers. That's a viable option, provided that no other supermarket roofs in Latvia have collapsed.
And, yes, shops named Riga do exist
You referred to a hypothetical "supermarket named Riga" (emphasis added). Does such a business (by the English-language definition of "supermarket") exist? If so, has it experienced a roof collapse? —David Levy 22:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shop roofs have collapsed elsewhere in Latvia too, though, by now I'm sure that whatever I say none of those cases were comparable. To me it seems that in Google search results narrowed to English Maxima is more popular term than Riga for this so I don't what source you are using to check your claim that it's other way around. And I would not claim that a building containing large bookstore and several other shops is grāmatnīca either. ~~Xil (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shop roofs have collapsed elsewhere in Latvia too,
Yes, we discussed the instance at the Bik Bok clothing store in the Alfa shopping mall. I referred to a hypothetical scenario in which no other supermarket roofs in Latvia have collapsed (emphasis added). To be clear, I don't know whether any have.
though, by now I'm sure that whatever I say none of those cases were comparable.
Comparable in what respect? If at least one occurred at a supermarket (as defined in the English language) outside Riga, that's a good reason to specify the city in the title (instead of switching to the country).
To me it seems that in Google search results narrowed to English Maxima is more popular term than Riga for this so I don't what source you are using to check your claim that it's other way around.
I made no such claim. My comparisons were between "supermarket" and "Maxima" (terms identifying the building's nature) and between "Riga" and "Zolitūde" (terms identifying its location).
And I would not claim that a building containing large bookstore and several other shops is grāmatnīca either.
I don't understand that statement's relevance. I'm not referring to anything discussed above as a "grāmatnīca" (which, to my knowledge, means "bookstore"). I cited that as an example of an obviously incorrect description of Bik Bok. My point is that calling Bik Bok a "supermarket" in English is equally inaccurate. (Bik Bok is as far removed from "supermarket" in English as it is from "grāmatnīca" in Latvian.) —David Levy 00:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If supermarket is a large, self service grocery store (both the article on the topic and what you said before suggest this) then the building was not a supermarket. It seems it can only be considered supermarket in Latvian slang sense of the word, wich covers any shopping center with self service shops just like the other examples I mentioned. And the collapse did not involve only the part of building with the grocery store, so it is not the same as with clothing store, which apparantely was the only store affected (and even in that case it seems extremly weird to call it clothing store roof collapse, instead of shoping mall roof collapse) ~~Xil (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If supermarket is a large, self service grocery store (both the article on the topic and what you said before suggest this) then the building was not a supermarket.
We covered this above.

You: Both that store and this store contain large grocery store and other shops. Judging by definition in the article supermarket neither really is purely a supermarket in English usage, since both sold stuff other than groceries, but in Latvian usage the word is just slang for any self-service store.

Me: In English usage, supermarkets often go well beyond selling groceries, but a store that doesn't sell groceries is never called a "supermarket".

It seems it can only be considered supermarket in Latvian slang sense of the word, wich covers any shopping center with self service shops just like the other examples I mentioned.
To quote our Supermarket article, "Other services offered at some supermarkets may include those of banks, cafés, childcare centres/creches, photo processing, video rentals, pharmacies and/or petrol stations." And that isn't an exhaustive list. But a retail establishment isn't called a "supermarket" unless it also sells groceries.
And the collapse did not involve only the part of building with the grocery store,
Again, in English-language usage, supermarkets often contain many non-grocery sections. We just don't call a store a "supermarket" if it doesn't sell groceries. It can offer many additional products/services and still be considered a supermarket.
As noted above, English-language sources around the world have described the Maxima XX store in Zolitūde as a "supermarket".
so it is not the same as with clothing store, which apparantely was the only store affected
In the case of the roof collapse at the Bik Bok store in the Alfa shopping mall, the relevant fact is that no supermarket (in the English-language sense) was involved.
(and even in that case it seems extremly weird to call it clothing store roof collapse, instead of shoping mall roof collapse)
Yes, I'd be more inclined to say "shopping mall" in that instance. But had the specific retailer affected been a supermarket (instead of a clothing store), that arguably would have justified greater precision in this article's title. —David Levy 05:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So a building which contains several stores including large self service grocery store is a supermarket, except when there is a roof collapse in the building which does not affect the said grocery store? Seems to me you are shifting goalposts, instead of trying to consider that this might fit under different title. The intentional press might well have used the name Latvian news in English used. I read the international news at the time, most of them got the basic facts wrong, so I doubt they were acutely aware what stores where in the building. You, though, assume avarage reader will do better than media (whose job is to get facts right) and go "Oh, must be that Maxima case I read about some time ago since there it collapsed right over grocery store", instead of wondering, which of several cases they know it must be or if another "Riga supermarket" has collapsed~~Xil (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So a building which contains several stores including large self service grocery store is a supermarket, except when there is a roof collapse in the building which does not affect the said grocery store?
In English, a shopping mall is never called a "supermarket" (though a shopping mall might contain a supermarket). If you believe that the Maxima XX store in Zolitūde was a shopping mall (or something similar), I'm eager to consider evidence of this (ideally from reliable sources in English or Latvian).
Does a Maxima establishment (or the Maxima XX format in particular) contain individual stores under independent management?
Seems to me you are shifting goalposts, instead of trying to consider that this might fit under different title.
Please assume good faith. I've invested a significant amount of time in the pursuit of getting this right. I read machine translations of the Latvian news report that you cited, specifically to determine whether it contained information justifying a different title for the article. As I noted, this wasn't particularly easy (because the translations were rough), but I did my best. I also requested that you translate the report manually, which surely would result in a clearer English version.
The intentional press might well have used the name Latvian news in English used.
That's possible. When the initial news reports were published, I noticed some inconsistent terminology, so I investigated whether "supermarket" (the term used most widely) seemed accurate. (Our articles mustn't contain original research, but it's important to consider the context in which reliable sources' information is presented.) I was able to locate relatively little information about the Maxima chain and few photographs taken inside its stores, but everything that I did find was consistent with the "supermarket" label.
If you can provide evidence that "supermarket" is not an appropriate English description of Maxima's stores (or the one whose roof collapsed), I'll gladly take it into account.
I read the international news at the time, most of them got the basic facts wrong, so I doubt they were acutely aware what stores where in the building.
Please point me to reports that you regard as accurate (and if they're written in Latvian, English translations would be very helpful).
You, though, assume avarage reader will do better than media (whose job is to get facts right) and go "Oh, must be that Maxima case I read about some time ago since there it collapsed right over grocery store",
No. I expect readers to use the term "supermarket" because English-language media reported that the roof collapse occurred at a supermarket.
But I don't want our article to be incorrect, so if it wasn't a supermarket, I'm open to the idea of adjusting the description (in a manner consistent with reliable sources, of course). Do you have evidence of this?
instead of wondering, which of several cases they know it must be
This pertains to the separate issue of whether other supermarket roofs have collapsed in Riga. Again, I welcome evidence of that.
or if another "Riga supermarket" has collapsed
And that's yet another issue. As I've explained, if no other roof collapse has occurred at a Riga supermarket, greater precision isn't called for under the relevant policy (and would only increase confusion by seemingly affirming any mistaken belief to the contrary). Our goal is to provide a recognizable description that distinguishes the subject from others in existence. —David Levy 18:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maxima itself is a chain of grocery stores (XX stands for store size). In this case the owner of Maxima chain indirectly owned the building and rented the space to their own chain and some other self-service store chains, which they do not own, selling other sorts of goods. There are plenty of sources in Latvian that call the building a shoping centre (tirdzniecības centrs), for example, according to building authority [3] and the general constructors website [4] it is the official name of the project, and it's also called that in the media e.g. - major daily business newspaper before the collapse [5], a weekly news magazine after the collapse [6]. And, sorry, but I won't make a translation for every article (it would require several hours of work) - sources in foreign languages are considered reliable and policy does not require translation and I told you how the thing you want a source for is called. Alternatively English sources using term shopping centre or mall can easily be found with Google. ~~Xil (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maxima itself is a chain of grocery stores (XX stands for store size). In this case the owner of Maxima chain indirectly owned the building and rented the space to their own chain and some other self-service store chains, which they do not own, selling other sorts of goods.
Until now, I thought that you were referring to the Maxima XX store (which you specified in your suggested title) and arguing that it didn't meet the English-language definition of "supermarket" because it sold more than groceries. I didn't realize that you were referring to the entire shopping center (a term with the same meaning in English).
When you wrote that "the collapse did not involve only the part of building with the grocery store", I thought that you meant the grocery sections of the Maxima XX store. If the roof also collapsed into separately operated businesses, the question becomes whether that element of the incident is sufficiently significant to warrant a title change. Was anyone inside a store other than Maxima XX killed or seriously injured?
I raise the question because substituting "shopping center" or "shopping centre" for "supermarket" would result in a title applicable to the Bik Bok incident.
And, sorry, but I won't make a translation for every article (it would require several hours of work) - sources in foreign languages are considered reliable and policy does not require translation
I haven't challenged the reliability of Latvian sources. I'm simply unable to read the Latvian language.
and I told you how the thing you want a source for is called.
As noted above, I misunderstood your statements to mean that the Maxima XX store was not a "supermarket" (in the English-language sense).
Now I'm simply confused as to how your suggested title ("Maxima XX roof collapse in Zolitūde") would better convey that businesses other than the Maxima XX supermarket were involved. —David Levy 21:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The roof of the entire building collapsed, resulting in damages to all stores in the building (it currently looks like so). My main concern was to make the incident distinguishable from other similar events involving other stores in the city, so I offered Maxima as in not, say, Alfa and Zolitūde as in, not the Maxima X incident in 2010, but come to think of it perhaps Zolitūde shopping mall roof collapse or something along those lines is better ~~Xil (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Riga Shopping centre collapse would seem to be the best title in this case. Valenciano (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to imply that the entire building collapsed. —David Levy 23:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest Zolitūde shopping centre roof collapse. —David Levy 23:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's also fine with me ~~Xil (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Does anyone object? —David Levy 00:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine. Valenciano (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the building

[edit]

I can't add this to article currently, but at least part of the building will be demolished in the comming weeks [7] ~~Xil (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zolitūde_shopping_centre_roof_collapse&oldid=1235103379"