Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
::::I repeat, ''linked above by Bus stop.'' Bus stop is a username which you will find in the signature following that link. Nov 2018{{endash}}Jan 2019. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] 12:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC) |
::::I repeat, ''linked above by Bus stop.'' Bus stop is a username which you will find in the signature following that link. Nov 2018{{endash}}Jan 2019. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] 12:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::Which [[Bus stop]] are you referring to, {{u|Mandruss}}? [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 12:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC) |
:::::Which [[Bus stop]] are you referring to, {{u|Mandruss}}? [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 12:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::::Please don't ping me with inane questions. I haven't the time. ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">☎</span>]] 12:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:59, 19 February 2019
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move 16 February 2019
Aurora, Illinois shooting → 2019 Aurora, Illinois shooting – disambiguate from 2012 Aurora Shooting. Jax 0677 (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support move - per nom. John from Idegon (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support move - per nom. Important to distinguish from 2012 Aurora shooting.
Addendum: Responding to a suggestion below that it is the 2012 Aurora shooting title should be changed, I disagree. The "Opposes" are being too logical. All the logic in the world doesn't outweigh the oddity of two "shootings" in two "Auroras". The confusion resulting from that is addressed by the inclusion of the year in both titles. Bus stop (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose move: the word Illinois disambiguates it sufficiently. – Athaenara ✉ 04:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[struck]- Support move. This kept bothering me until I arrived at a different view. I think this one should be "2019 Aurora, Illinois shooting" and the other should be "2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting". – Athaenara ✉ 08:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- (See also: Talk:2012 Aurora shooting#Requested move 16 February 2019.) – Athaenara ✉ 04:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as this is the only mass shooting in Aurora, Illinois. The only mass shooting in Thousand Oaks, California is referred to as Thousand Oaks shooting, not 2018 Thousand Oaks shooting. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - its the other article that should move. This one is sufficiently precise. -- Netoholic @ 08:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. We do not need to disambiguate two articles by the year AND state. Either one or the other is sufficient. WWGB (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)- Support. We need to be consistent across the three articles Aurora, Illinois shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting and 1993 Aurora shooting. WWGB (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support move - per nom. This convention is followed with most articles related to mass shootings. Aphexcoil (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support move, as proposed. The situation with the two articles with rather similar names is too confusing, and providing extra disambiguation would be useful. Nsk92 (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - this is the only notable shooting to have occurred in Aurora, Illinois, so there's no need to disambiguate by year. The other 2 shootings in Aurora were in Aurora, Colorado & in different years, so how would they be confused with each other or this one? Jim Michael (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- A detective wouldn't confuse them, but a casual reader might initially confuse them. Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Only if someone looking for the 2012 shooting thinks that it happened in Illinois (despite it having been prominently reported to have happened in Colorado), or someone looking for this shooting thinks it happened 7 y earlier. Jim Michael (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Can you tell me what downside there is to titling this article 2019 Aurora, Illinois shooting? I'm not asking what is the minimum number of terms that can be in the title, because we probably are both in agreement that the "2019" would be considered superfluous by that standard. My question is what problems arise from the inclusion of "2019"? Bus stop (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- a) It's superfluous; b) It wrongly implies that there have been notable shootings in Aurora, Illinois in other years. Jim Michael (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Can you tell me what downside there is to titling this article 2019 Aurora, Illinois shooting? I'm not asking what is the minimum number of terms that can be in the title, because we probably are both in agreement that the "2019" would be considered superfluous by that standard. My question is what problems arise from the inclusion of "2019"? Bus stop (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Only if someone looking for the 2012 shooting thinks that it happened in Illinois (despite it having been prominently reported to have happened in Colorado), or someone looking for this shooting thinks it happened 7 y earlier. Jim Michael (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- A detective wouldn't confuse them, but a casual reader might initially confuse them. Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – as previously explained that we do not need to disambiguate the year, since this is the only mass shooting to have occurred in Aurora, Illinois. – Braxton C. Womacktalk to me! 21:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support move per nom. Note that the proposed move at 2012 Aurora shooting has been withdrawn. Hydromania (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support move per nom. I would consider providing extra disambiguation to be useful to avoid confusion. Sheldybett (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support move - Alas, such events appear to be accelerating. Let’s make it easier for readers to determine they’ve landed on the correct page. O3000 (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support move - This is an event that occurred in a single time and place, and having that information in the title helps limit the scope of the article while helping readers find what they are looking for. Comfr (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support move as per WP:PRECISE, WP:ATDAB, and WP:COMMONNAME. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose it is not normal to disambiguate along 2 dimensions without confusion on the first. It seems that Aurora, Illinois shooting and 2019 Aurora shooting are both unambiguous.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)
- Support - per WP:NCEVENTS which says to use "When, where, what". As we have 3 shootings with the name "Auroa", from different dates and from different states, following the naming guideline best serves the reader. --Gonnym (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose and would prefer Aurora factory shooting (to not be confused with the theater and restaurant shootings). Reliable sources (and others) actually call it that, unlike this. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:47, February 19, 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. Although I agree with the "Let’s make it easier for readers to determine they’ve landed on the correct page" point per O3000, I shall explain with the following possibilities:
- Another mass shooting event happens this year in the Aurora city, then Wikipedia has the problem of which exact event is the article about? Both articles can be named "2019 Aurora, Illinois shooting" (not that I hope another mass shooting takes place soon, but anything is possible);
- The Aurora city is good for the rest of 2019. When we enter 2020, an editor remembers that this article's name has room for improvement, then changes it. In that case, I support moving.
- Just for the sake of illustration. If a mass shooting takes place in December, then this article becomes February 2019 Aurora shooting and the new article should be December 2019 Aurora shooting.
- As to why Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is named after the school not 2012 Newtown, Connecticut shooting, that's probably because Elementary school is a distinctive feature of that event (the victims are a high concentration of young children incapable of quickly running away from the gunman). I don't think that the "factory feature" is distinctive enough. Tony85poon (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Tony85poon, we already have a naming convention for events of this type. We also have policy on article titles. Your assumption regarding Sandy Hook is incorrect. The article title in that case was chosen per the subsection of the titling policy WP:COMMONNAME; that is to say, that's what the vast majority of sources referred to it as. The naming convention for events like this tell us to include "when, where and what" in the title unless one or more is not needed for clear identification. Your argument doesn't seem to address that at all. John from Idegon (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Comma
Regardless of your thoughts on the recent move, there should be a comma after “Illinois” in the title. WikiWinters (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- Disagree. See the titles of Aberdeen, Maryland shooting and Florence, South Carolina shooting and Sandy, Utah attack. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- See also the debate at Talk:2019 Sebring shooting. 2600:1003:B11B:35C7:0:26:D0C8:1101 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- It is not necessary, and there are other precedents (above). WWGB (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, then I take back what I said. Does the rule that a comma should be placed after two location names in the middle of a sentence (e.g., “The man was shot in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at 2 a.m.”) only apply to sentences and not titles? Genuinely curious. WikiWinters (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I would say so, because when saying it in a sentence (such as the example of a sentence which you give), you pause after saying the city & again after saying the state. When in a title (such as the title of this article), you don't. Jim Michael (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, then I take back what I said. Does the rule that a comma should be placed after two location names in the middle of a sentence (e.g., “The man was shot in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at 2 a.m.”) only apply to sentences and not titles? Genuinely curious. WikiWinters (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- It is not necessary, and there are other precedents (above). WWGB (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
African American man killed by police
Should there be some mention that this is another instance of police shooting and killing an African American man? Bachcell (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- No. Black Lives Matter, which you referred to in your edit summary, relates to police shootings of usually unarmed blacks for minor or no offenses. O3000 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- The main consideration here would be whether this point has been a significant aspect of the news coverage of the event. If yes, it might be appropriate to mention something about it in the article. But if no (and so far I have not seen anything in the media on this point), then no. Nsk92 (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Victim names
Should the article include a list of the deceased victims' names? 11:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
There appears to be some confusion regarding naming the victims. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is clear that articles for non-notable subjects is against policy, but it doesn't seem to take a position on whether or not they can be included in the article body itself. There was an attempt to codify restricting their addition altogether a couple of years ago, but that attempt failed to gain community consensus. I've added the victim names as well as a reliable source/ref for that specific aspect. If someone finds a better source for other details (specifically, age of the victims), feel free to replace/add to the refs. All that said: if there is a compelling reason to not include the victims, I'm open to being convinced. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. None of the victims were notable prior to their death. Readers' understanding of the attack is not enhanced by knowing the victim names. It is sufficient to report their age, gender and role in the company. There is no need to memorialise the dead by publishing their names. WWGB (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- I see we're voting already... literally every single mass shooting article I checked prior to expanding the list in this one contained a list, with full names, of the victims. If anything, we should be denying recognition to the assailants in these situations, rather than giving them their name in lights for posterity. Having names, and other minor details of the victims, personalizes the event for readers in a way that simply listing off occupations, genders and age do not. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Obviously you did not check Aberdeen, Maryland shooting, 2018 Cincinnati shooting, Nashville Waffle House shooting and Thousand Oaks shooting, none of which include victim names ... and that is only from 2018. It's always a case-by-case !vote whether to include victim names. WWGB (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, I could post a list of articles with listings, but... can you point to a policy or guideline that says the listing of victims must be debated on each article? So far we have two links to proposals to ban them explicitly that both failed. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Locke Cole: First, you're mistaken as to the word "ban" (at least in my finite experience in this area). If anybody has proposed an outright ban, it has gotten no significant traction. Reasonable editors have proposed the establishment of a default, include or omit, to avoid time-consuming debate at upwards of 90% of these articles. Even that has been repeatedly rejected (failed to gain consensus) at community level. Unless one side gives up, which doesn't seem very likely, that means that yes, this must debated on each article. Since the factors don't vary in ways relevant to the issue of listing victims' names, and the arguments are always essentially the same, I skip most or all of the debating and just !vote, which I will do below. I don't expect to change anybody's mind, and I don't expect anybody to change mine. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, I could post a list of articles with listings, but... can you point to a policy or guideline that says the listing of victims must be debated on each article? So far we have two links to proposals to ban them explicitly that both failed. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Obviously you did not check Aberdeen, Maryland shooting, 2018 Cincinnati shooting, Nashville Waffle House shooting and Thousand Oaks shooting, none of which include victim names ... and that is only from 2018. It's always a case-by-case !vote whether to include victim names. WWGB (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I think this would be a more recent discussion. Bus stop (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, verifiable RS reporting alone is not enough. I ask myself how much real reader value there is in these names, and myself answers, "Not much". The names are completely meaningless to all but a very few readers. The criterion for inclusion of any information in the article is whether it adds to a reader's understanding of the event; these names do not and cannot. Genders and ages could be summarized in prose and that would add to reader understanding.
I ask myself whether I would want my name in such a list, or whether I would want my sister's name in such a list, and myself answers with a resounding "F no" to both questions. These victims are not "public figures" who chose to waive their privacy, they had absolutely no say in their selection. And "well it's available in the news anyway" has never been an accepted reason to include something in Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)- Nice. Why include the name of the perpetrator then? It's just a name, after all, and our readers knowing it doesn't enhance their understanding of the topic being discussed (I mean, unless his name was "Johnny ImGonnaGoKillSomePeople"). Sure, maybe in situations where there's a trial and the perpetrator goes to prison or is executed, maybe then. But this guy is dead, and he's not going to go on trial or spend years on death row. And how do you reconcile the exclusion of the victims with WP:NPOV and specifically giving WP:UNDUE weight to including some details from our sources, but choosing to dismiss an entire class of information because (in your opinion, original research that it is) it doesn't add value to the article? —Locke Cole • t • c 10:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Why include the name of the perpetrator then?
As I said above, the factors and arguments are always the same. Your question has been asked and answered numerous times in discussions at previous articles. Somebody else may feel like rehashing that yet again here; I don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)- WP:NOTVOTE, and the closing admin will have discretion to not count opinions that can't be justified. Between this and John from Idegon (talk · contribs) displaying a curious unwillingness to discuss why he chooses to revert something he doesn't care about, I can tell already we're going to be getting along great. :D —Locke Cole • t • c 10:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- You are misinterpreting and misapplying NOTVOTE. A vote is a Support or Oppose without an argument. I have not-voted, or !voted. You are also apparently under the false impression that my argument "can't be justified" because you disagree with it. I'm rapidly losing patience with your aggressively uninformed style, so don't be surprised if I just disappear at some point. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- When someone challenges your argument (with what I believe to be a good challenge) and you choose to disengage, it does leave the impression of not actually being a good argument. And it's not that I disagree with it, it's that you refuse to defend it, and that's when it will just be a vote. As for disappearing, that is entirely your choice. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- My argument speaks for itself. Per WP:SATISFY, I am not required to defend it to your satisfaction, even if I could. I've seen countless closes and I've yet to see a closer discard a well-articulated !vote because it wasn't defended to the satisfaction of some other editor; but enjoy your fanciful delusion. Bye bye, I'm out. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- When someone challenges your argument (with what I believe to be a good challenge) and you choose to disengage, it does leave the impression of not actually being a good argument. And it's not that I disagree with it, it's that you refuse to defend it, and that's when it will just be a vote. As for disappearing, that is entirely your choice. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- You are misinterpreting and misapplying NOTVOTE. A vote is a Support or Oppose without an argument. I have not-voted, or !voted. You are also apparently under the false impression that my argument "can't be justified" because you disagree with it. I'm rapidly losing patience with your aggressively uninformed style, so don't be surprised if I just disappear at some point. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NOTVOTE, and the closing admin will have discretion to not count opinions that can't be justified. Between this and John from Idegon (talk · contribs) displaying a curious unwillingness to discuss why he chooses to revert something he doesn't care about, I can tell already we're going to be getting along great. :D —Locke Cole • t • c 10:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nice. Why include the name of the perpetrator then? It's just a name, after all, and our readers knowing it doesn't enhance their understanding of the topic being discussed (I mean, unless his name was "Johnny ImGonnaGoKillSomePeople"). Sure, maybe in situations where there's a trial and the perpetrator goes to prison or is executed, maybe then. But this guy is dead, and he's not going to go on trial or spend years on death row. And how do you reconcile the exclusion of the victims with WP:NPOV and specifically giving WP:UNDUE weight to including some details from our sources, but choosing to dismiss an entire class of information because (in your opinion, original research that it is) it doesn't add value to the article? —Locke Cole • t • c 10:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- This issue has been a cause of disagreement on many articles. Differing consensuses have been reached depending on which editors were involved in each case. I was not aware of the 2017 discussion linked above until late last year. I propose starting a new discussion on the matter, to make a guideline so as to prevent this dispute being raised on hundreds more articles. My view remains that names of victims (with the exception of notable people) should not be stated on articles about mass killings. The names add nothing of usefulness or relevance for the reader, and it could bring unwanted attention by the media & general public to the survivors & the families of those killed. Jim Michael (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Jim Michael: It was last raised at community level in November at Village Pump, linked above by Bus stop. The discussion was open for 53 days, far longer than most, and the result was the same as in all previous community-level discussions about this: No consensus for a guideline of any kind, which means we handle this case-by-case at article level. It is far too soon to raise it again, and doing so too often may result in a new entry at WP:PERENNIAL. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- That was Oct-Nov 2017; since then, this topic has been disputed on many talk pages & in edit summaries. How long should we wait before opening a new discussion on the matter? Jim Michael (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Jim Michael: It was last raised at community level in November at Village Pump, linked above by Bus stop. The discussion was open for 53 days, far longer than most, and the result was the same as in all previous community-level discussions about this: No consensus for a guideline of any kind, which means we handle this case-by-case at article level. It is far too soon to raise it again, and doing so too often may result in a new entry at WP:PERENNIAL. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)