Talk:Tangiwai disaster

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 24, 2008, December 24, 2013, December 24, 2016, December 24, 2018, December 24, 2021, and December 24, 2023.

Trains: in New Zealand Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	April 23 2006

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject New Zealand Railways (assessed as High-importance).

New Zealand High‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Volcanoes Mid‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

vandalism noted[edit]

The vandalism on the 25th originated from a Telstra Clear dialup based in Penrose, Auckland.

User talk:218.101.65.8 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

netname: TELSTRACLEAR-NZ descr: TelstraClear NZ Ltd descr: Dial Offload ClearNet WAN Pools PENROSE descr: 24/7 TelstraClear NOC phone +64-9-912-4990 country: NZ admin-c: TAC3-AP tech-c: TTC7-AP mnt-by: MAINT-NZ-TELSTRACLEAR status: ALLOCATED NON-PORTABLE changed: apnic.changes@team.telstraclear.co.nz 20041209 source: APNIC

not nice when its from your own country, and defacing a sober article about mass death.moza 01:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article[edit]

I was wondering if anyone out there would be interested in working with me to seriously enhance this article's depth and scope. I'd like to see just how far we could take this article, perhaps even to Good Article status - ideally get it so far as Featured Article status on the anniversary of the disaster one year, but that would obviously require a huge deal of work. I have often thought about significantly expanding this article as it is a topic very close to me, but found it too hard so far as I lost two relatives in the disaster and a third relative was one of the very few second class survivors (I lost another four relatives in the Hyde railway disaster, an article I'd also like to see enhanced - makes you wonder why on earth I'm a railfan!). If we were to make a serious effort to boost the quality of the article, though, that would help motivate me to add all that I can. I can provide more textual detail of the actual disaster, but we could also probably use things like photos of the accident itself, a location map, a map of where the carriages ended up, etc. So is there any interest out there? - Axver 00:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to get a photo of the railway bridge at Tangiwai to use insted of the state highway road bridge? - Palmeriain 04:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distances from Waiouru[edit]

I noticed that in the first part of the article you say that Waiouru is 10km from Tangiwai but then in the details of the event you say the rescue workers set out from Waiouru which you then say is 5km from Tangiwai. Sorry if this is not the right way to correct something. I've not done this before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezboticus (talk • contribs) 06:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I'm not sure of the answer myself, but Google Maps gives 9.1 kilometres (5.7 mi) via the State Highway from Waiouru to the river, but about 8 km (5.0 mi) for Waiouru to Tangiwai. I think that New Zealand were still using miles in 1953, so I suspect that someone confused 5 miles with 5 kilometres, and the railway is less direct than the road (if I read the satellite image correctly). Tim PF (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Television drama[edit]

Does anyone wish to add a section on the work of fiction shortly to appear on Television New Zealand? To judge from early reports it will be completely inaccurate, and an insulting travesty of the events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wl vs note[edit]

Quote from latest edit summary.

(restore note; wikilinks take readers away from the article and are of no use when printed, link lahar in note; combine refs) (undo | thank)

Editor 'Edgepedia' reverted what seems to me to be a valid edit removing the definition of Lahar as a note. Lahar is included as a WL which I think covers the definition of the word. I must admit I am rather mystified by Edgepedia's reasons - surely [wiki]links are the central defining feature of Hypertext and thus the central defining feature of Wikipedia. Serindipidous discovery is what hypertext is all about - taking people away from the article (to another article or information source)is exactly what we are trying to do. We are also not producing a paper Encyclopedia - if there are problems transferring 'bits' to 'paper' then this needs another solution not the one suggested above. If we start defining everything as a note we have just lost 30 years of progress in electronic publishing.

I'm going to revert this because I think it is just plain wrong.Andrewgprout (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change under WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss. I am mystified as to why you are trying to make this article more difficult by hiding things under wikilinks. Under Print/export on the left had side there is 'Create book', 'Download a PDF' and 'Printable version' that all take the wikilinks away. I agree we need the wikilink, so someone can read more if they wish to, that's why there's now one in the note. Notes are very common on FA; agreed this article is not approaching that standard, but there's no reason to go backwards.

I'm also confused as to why you undid my combination of refences. Edgepedia (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For an example, which uses parenthesis rather than a note, see Omayra Sánchez, a featured article. Edgepedia (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you want to replace every article link in the encyclopaedia with a little footnote explaining what the term means, then your stance doesn't make sense. Footnotes which take readers away from the text of the article are not very helpful and there is no support in the MOS for the use of footnotes in this way.

If you think that people generally won't understand what a lahar is and cannot simply click on the link to an article, then a short explanation of the geological activity that led to the disaster would be an infinitely better means of dealing with that. At the moment it's only briefly mentioned in the lead. 201.215.187.159 (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis' torch[edit]

User:Piledhigheranddeeper added an html comment to the article, following the words "Cyril Ellis, a passerby, standing by the track and waving a torch":

an "electric torch" or the classic piece of wood with one end ablaze?

Ellis was a Taihape postman, who stopped his car on seeing the bridge. It would almost certainly have been an "electric torch", but I can't find a source which actually says that.-gadfium 18:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In New Zealand English, torch simply means a flashlight operated from dry cell batteries, and is almost certainly what is meant. Akld guy (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]