This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disaster management Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Firefighting Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Hotels Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hotels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the hospitality industry, including hotels, motels, resorts, and destination spas 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.HotelsWikipedia:WikiProject HotelsTemplate:WikiProject HotelsHotels Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Turkey Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkiye NOT Turkey. 178.233.157.48 (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Change country name to Turkiye": if you're going to accept that Mr Erdogan lays down the law on correct English the name should be Türkiye Backep1 (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point has been made.

2001:16B8:C700:3600:21A8:D829:E9BC:1D2C (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Shouldn't it be Türkiye?

 Not done Just to respond to this comment and those above, I see no basis for changing the name of the country in this article to Türkiye. Note that our main article on the subject is still located at Turkey, and consensus remains that our article titling policy, particularly WP:COMMONNAME, still favours the Turkey name. The most recent requested move discussion on this was back in October, which quickly concluded there is no basis yet for renaming. The main point is that we go by what reliable sources say, not particularly by the "official" name, or indeed what the Turkish president says we should call it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hotel_fires_in_the_United_States

On wikipedia, as on this page, hotel fires are opened with the name of the hotel. Opening the topic with the name of the region gives incorrect results. 188.132.143.140 (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The guideline for this is WP:NCE, which clearly tells us to name it with the <when> <where> <what> format. The name is commonly referred to by the name of the town where it happened, as per other events.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should start working immediately and change the dozens of pages on Wikipedia. Every hotel fire page on Wikipedia appears to be recorded as "hotel name and fire".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hotel_fires Please fix this error as soon as possible and move the page.--188.132.143.140 (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many. But not "Every hotel fire page". Consider for example 2014 Medina hotel fire, 1978 Holiday Inn fire, 1980 Saskatoon Queen's Hotel fire, 2023 Makkah hotel fire, 2019 Delhi hotel fire, 2017 Batumi hotel fire. I think it is fine as is. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:E528:66E0:655C:564C (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This regulation complies with WP:NCE.

When the incident happened. (2025) Where the incident happened. (Grand Kartal hotel) or (Kartalkaya Grand Kartal hotel) What happened. (fire)--188.132.143.140 (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Arsabent do you really feel this section is necessary?

"provided by Turkish poultry company Beypiliç. The truck carried images of fried chicken on its sides, which were only covered only later with a tarpaulin. The company was criticized for not immediately covering the trailer with a tarpaulin. In response, Beypiliç apologized and said its priority was to provide quick support."

ClifV (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many news sources in Turkey have published headlines about it.

https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/turkiye/uzerindeki-kizarmis-tavuk-gorseli-tepki-cekmisti-beypilicten-2291933

https://www.sozcu.com.tr/beypilic-ten-pilic-tiri-aciklamasi-p129838

https://www.haberturk.com/beypilic-ten-tepki-ceken-goruntulere-aciklama-3758576 Arsabent (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much a question of whether the sources are there, just whether it's encyclopedic to include that there was fried chicken on the side of the truck that transported the bodies. The three sources you posted are all some form of "social media reacts".

(I think the details about the necessity of the truck are worthwhile, as they highlight the logistical difficulties of the situation.)

ClifV (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe including information about the truck is germain to the article but whether it had fried chicken on the side is not relevant and does nothing to provide key information in the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is encyclopedic. Should be included. We follow the RSs. Not the personal leanings of individual editors as to whether it is not what they want to read. That's how we stay away from a surfeit of subjectivity. Plus - as to whether it is "necessary" .. nothing at wp is necessary. Not even this wp article. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:E528:66E0:655C:564C (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unnamed and unsourced individuals being offended on social media is encyclopedic?

  ClifV (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. If it's as big and notable of a reaction as this, why wouldn't it be one? Arsabent (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not seeing the bigness or the notability. The three articles are basically identical and clearly exist to scoop up web traffic in a moment of high activity surrounding the subject. They don't even include any samples of the allegedly offended social media users.

  ClifV (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That aside, purely from an article quality standpoint--on which we're aligned--the details in question take up a big proportion of the existing wordcount. I'm not getting hot under the collar about what I do or do not "want to read" (I've probably read over each source about three times now), but it's a serious subject, and I think we should wait and see that this aspect isn't just clickbait before throwing it a third of the section. I'm open to including it in the future if it actually turns into something.

  ClifV (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I get what you mean. But think of it this way, why would the company make a public response if the criticism isn't notable enough to reach their human resources department?

  I agree with you on the wordcount though, it needs to be shortened as it is not one of the primary subjects that should attract the reader's attention. Arsabent (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we'd need to establish the notability of Beypiliç first, which passes for tr.wp but not en. ClifV (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also removed a bloated commentary by the hotel owner on similar grounds plus WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:NOTNEWS. Borgenland (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Borgenland: What's "incoherent" with the lead section I wrote? MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests 100 words but now there's barely 29. 173.206.40.108 (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is poorly-written, sounds like someone rambling about what happened and had unnecessary dramatic details that do not belong in the encyclopedia but in Dickens. Borgenland (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried again with longer wording. Now it's not as terse, but it should sound less dramatic. 173.206.40.108 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the lead section! 173.206.40.108 (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Though I might revise again to attribute some details. Borgenland (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it is poorly written. The length is not a problem. The writing remains a problem. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:E528:66E0:655C:564C (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incoherent seems a little harsh, but the section as written felt very distinctively translated from Turkish with little or no editing. ClifV (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose that it be sifted into the discussion below on the investigation, that discusses responsibilities for regulation. And actually - it's curious, because it's not quite on all fours with how the Minister describes the regulation responsibilities. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:7971:D175:DC81:B43A (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I moved the section down. I withdraw my objection to [1]. I'm thinking of an "Aftermath (Jurisdiction · Investigation) · Responses" (the naming turned out slightly different) sectioning. 173.206.40.108 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Probably more in line w what a reader would want to see. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:7971:D175:DC81:B43A (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the newspaper mistranslated what the minister said? What is “special” about the provincial administration? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translation is along the lines of "special envoy/counsel/forces", the term has its own page on wp.tr if you're curious. ClifV (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]