Buncefield fuel depot fire

[jdaw1]

To where does one submit sites about the Buncefield fuel depot fire? I can't find an existing category. Sites such as http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4518180.stm

http://www.bpa.co.uk/news/

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/12/13/britain.oil.blasts/

and others. (If you create such as category, please green these.)

[jdaw1]

Buncefield

 

And http://www.total.com/en/press/press_releases/pr_2005/051211_explosion_great_britain_8249.htm

http://www.total.gb.com/media/mediatool.cfm?page=1

http://www.ukpia.com/Portals/0/Repository/Documents/UKPIA%20Press%20Release%20Buncefield.doc

http://www.ukpia.com/Portals/0/Repository/Documents/UKPIA%20Press%20Release%20Buncefield%202.doc

[Eric-the-Bun]

Well my :money: worth

 

Until a new cat is created or someone has a better suggestion, then the topic would appear to be covered initially by Society/History/By_Topic/Disasters/Fires/ (if the media is to believed, it is a great fire)

 

If you look in that category you will see that some specific fires have their own category based on a combination of number of websites and the directory structure (i.e. handling overlap of topics means it is sometimes easier to create a smaller cat than usual which can then be linked to from a number of places). These categories are elsewhere, usually under regional.

 

If you wait a while, just in case someone suggests a better place before submitting any sites.

 

Thanks

[jdaw1]

Society/History or Regional/.../Society_and_Culture/History/ ?

 

Society/History would be logical. But the split with Regional isn't entirely consistent: see http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/England/London/Society_and_Culture/History/Great_Fire_of_1666/ for example. When an editor implements whichever decision is taken, it will take a while for the new category to reach the public side. So please submit the above as greens.

 

Thanks.

[DesertJules]

I believe that the reference to Regional meant that that would be where an editor would place a link, pointing to the category in Society/, so that users looking for the information could easily access it from either area.

 

Just a note: we don't offer a submission service. Listing sites here will not get them added, in green, red, blue or orange, to the directory.

 

Please feel free to suggest the appropriate sites to the most appropriate category for review by the editor(s) who have permissions there.

 

And thank you for finding all of that information.

[ishtar]

Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/England/Hertfordshire/Hemel_Hempstead/Society_and_Culture/Buncefield_Fuel_Depot_Fire - Suggest Site

[jdaw1]

Empty directory

 

I can't see the category, merely the empty directory. And the first two sites I've submitted it says are already listed, so it looks like somebody has coped.

 

If that's wrong, you can see what's happening more clearly from the editor side than I can from the non-functioning public side.

 

(And I note the inconsistency with other categories: why no "History" layer?)

[riz]

I can't see the category, merely the empty directory.

The page for this category has not been generated yet. Please be patient. It should be available in a few more days. Due to certain issues, the normal DMOZ maintenance is a bit slow these days.

[jeanmanco]

The category is there Julian. It's just not showing yet on the public side.

 

I don't think there is any point in creating a 'History' subcategory just to fit the fire category into. It creates an extra click for the user. If history sites turn up for the locality, then one could be created and the fire category moved into it.

[jdaw1]

Consistency of organisation

 

Consistency of organisation suggests it should be located in topical, but I don't care enough to argue. Indeed, there is a generalised lack of consistency for such disasters (see earlier in the thread) but there are more important things on which editors could be working.

 

Enough. This non-editor has tried jolly hard to be helpful. I think, but cannot tell, that it has been taken. If not, not.

[hutcheson]

_I'd_ call it helpful. (Thanks!)

 

And taxonomic consistency is good, but getting the sites SOMEWHERE appropriate is a higher priority. The other will come ... eventually. (Yes, this particular inconsistency has been around for awhile.)

[ishtar]

Consistency of organisation?

 

Everyone but one of the @linked cats in http://dmoz.org/Society/History/By_Topic/Disasters/Fires are in Regional, NOT topical. I placed it where most of the other fire categories were, in Regional.

 

And as long as it's @linked from topical, I don't see any problem. In fact, aren't most fires regional in nature, so doesn't it make more sense for them to be placed in Regional?

[hutcheson]

I didn't mean to criticize the placement, ishtar -- I meant to suggest that whatever criticism MIGHT be made, should be made (1) at a lower priority than actually getting the category in ONE of the possible right places, and (2) with a view towards the larger context, in which the Blackout category is in Regional, the Shipwreck categories (elsewhere) in Topical, there is no Floods category at all under disasters, and other inconsistencies abound.

 

The category is created, and it's reachable by subcategory links through two different routes. That's better than what we had before, it's an unmitigated absolute goodness, and it's a step in the direction of perfection even if it's not perfect. For that, thanks are due to everyone that helped.

[lisahinely]

Floods are a subcategory of Natural Disasters.

 

 

Here's wishing we get to spend 2006 building happy categories.

[jdaw1]

Consistency

 

Disasters are not easy to consistentify. Some are historical (Fire of London), some are local (2002 fire at the New York cathedral of Saint John the Divine), some are ambiguous (Buncefield), and some are of much wider significance (Twin Towers). Some, being maritine, are harder to Regionalise.

 

But many, or even all, of those in Regional could at least be in a consistent part of Regional.

 

(And yes, I recogonise that I have been particularly fierce about putting things in a consistent place.)