Talk:Three children die in Edinburgh house fire

Rename
I have written the headline for this story incorrectly. It should be :Three children..." instead of "3 children...". I don't know how to correct this as I think it involves moving the article to another headline and deleting this one. Could someone more experienced do this please? FireLyte--spyre (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Done InfantGorilla (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1072593 [Passed]

 * Good luck with this one FireLyte; it was just along the road from my work yesterday. I did contemplate heading to it, but was too late to have seen anything worth photographing. "Terrace" is wrong though; the Sitehill buildings are not such. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk 21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Terrace

 * If you want an idea what the buildings were/are like; go to maps.google.co.uk and search for Calder Road, Sighthill, Edinburgh. The incident was somewhere to the east of the Heriot Watt campus. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk 21:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks I've corrected the "terrace" part. Good that someone knows the area and can correct these things. FireLyte--spyre (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I belatedly renamed the article from Three children die in Edinburgh terrace fire to Three children die in Edinburgh house fire. Hope that helps. --InfantGorilla (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Update added
New update added to developing story. Probably won't develop much more now. Sources added in second edit. FireLyte--spyre (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This update was added 27 hours after the first publication, as far as I can tell. Articles are supposed to be stable at that point, and updates go in new articles.  However, a reviewer approved the update, (it is not long over 24 hours) so it would be inappropriate to retract it now.


 * A major disadvantage of the current situation is that your work probably didn't get the audience it deserved, as people who had already read it wouldn't know to come back, and those who hadn't would think it is two day old news. A new article would have had a current deadline dateline, and a headline and lead that highlight the homicide charge.


 * It would be interesting to review the way wikinews and other outlets covered complex quickly developing stories like Raoul Moat, US Airways Flight 1549, and the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and see if there are ideas we can glean for even better coverage in future.


 * --InfantGorilla (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I know I'm being a really fucking nitpicking pedant bastard here, but I can't resist suggesting that the phrase "homicide charge" should be kept out of articles on this case because it might be a touch confusing to the more clued-up of Scotland's citizens. Scotland has a charge of culpable homicide, which is unusual in Europe as most other nations - including our companions on the other side of the line - use manslaughter. Culp. hom. is a mandatory alternative charge to murder in Scotland, and anyone charged with murder may therefore be found guilty instead of the lesser charge. *Grins* Sorry, temptation knocked. I'll be good from now on or maybe not... Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right that it would have been more effective as a new article. The reason I made it an update was mainly because I was worried it would take too long to pass review and be published, and by then the story, which would have been quite short anyway, would be stale. Perhaps I was wrong and it would have been better as a new story. The 24 hour rule is a good one and there appears to be some kind of line or balance here between updates and new development stories. I'll try and stick to the 24 hour rule and that should give a kind of guidance for this. FireLyte--spyre (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Off topic: Scotland's legal system

 * Thanks for the recommendation and the education. I know about fifteen person juries, but I didn't know anything about criminal charges for causing death. Feel entitled to replace the word 'homicide' in any article about the UK.  --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha, you should try learning the cross-jurisdictional issues that arise from the UK's weird mis-mash of three-jurisdictions-in-one. If you get your head round that I will be impressed ;). Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it 'three and a bit' now that Wales has its own assembly (if not its own legal system)? --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You could argue that; it's really a thought question. I don't tend to think of it as such since, from the point of view of a court, they are one and hence serious Welsh crimes could wind up in the Old Bailey and nationally important Welsh cases can theoretically appear in London High Court. (Since we've been looking at the Scottish system, the High Court there does criminal trials, whilst the English/Welsh version is civil.) I suspect the vast majority of lawyers would agree with me; politicians, on the other hand, especially those in Wales, might go more with your view. TL;DR: If you want it to be ;).


 * From a strict legal viewpoint, however, the answer is no. You might argue four, though, since a small handful of circumstances are considered by courts with jurisdiction accross the UK... Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)