Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 1

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)

Possible edit warring over a Markbassett post
This is debatable. Therefore let us alert "Markbassett" and allow them to chose to present their post as they see fit. Can one of us please alert Markbassett on their Talk page of this indecision. They can't be pinged thus this is not an option. Would either or  like to post a request on the Talk page of Markbassett? Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I pinged Markbassett in my edit summary, and I believe he has notifications enabled as I'm pretty sure I'm seen him respond to more than one. Locke Cole is clearly wrong, making the preposterous claim that changing OPPOSE to Oppose is not a format change covered by WP:TPO. But it's a minor issue and I'm prepared to allow Locke Cole to have their way, or at least let other editors handle it. I don't edit war, even when I'm in the right; that's for the likes of Locke Cole. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to side with you, Mandruss, over this question. But the best way forward is to alert Markbassett that a dispute has arisen over a post that they have made, therefore they might consider weighing in definitively on the questions raised concerning their edit. Bus stop (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine. I don't know why you couldn't do it if you think it's needed, but I've posted the requested request. Always happy to oblige. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "I don't know why you couldn't do it" I was too lazy. I was going to do it, eventually. But the first step was to throw the idea out there and see what kind of a response the suggestion garnered. Then I thought I would weigh my options. I was thinking of contacting a Think tank to gather information. I prefer to give careful consideration before acting. I'm still not sure if I should get out of bed and sunset is quickly approaching. Bus stop (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't like to rush into anything; I like that. My cat is the same way. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Does your cat think that the names of the other 5 deaths in this incident should be included in the article, or is your cat also of the opinion that only the perpetrator's name warrants inclusion? Take all the time needed to get a realistic response from your cat. I know how cats can be. I used to be a cat. Then I gave up my feline ways. It's a long story. Bus stop (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * She doesn't care about Wikipedia. I've tried and tried, but she's unwavering on that point. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You have to explain to her that Wikipedia has articles about cats. Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NOTFORUM. WikiWinters (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

??? I don’t see edit warring over my post or what the OPPOSE mention is about.... but do generally respond to pings. So if there is actually a question, go ahead. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi —the discussion was about your "Oppose" vote, specifically the absence of bolding. You wrote "OPPOSE - no offered reason for mentioning names..." Should the word "Oppose" be bolded or should it be left un-bolded? Bus stop (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Bus stop mox nix, generally should not alter another’s input per WP:TPO except for exceptions listed there.  Using caps and bolding and beginning with a bullet are to make each input easier to find, a version of WP:SHOUT which should be used sparingly.  Anyway, when on the mobi the hash marks don’t bold so for bullet-bold lists I go with bullet-caps as what’s more feasible than multiple keyboard swaps to do bold-via-html. (I also got remarks against  using html.)  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've previously said, I'm fairly certain changing OPPOSE to Oppose is allowed under WP:TPO "Fixing format errors". I've also given reason for why the latter is better than the former (aside from consistency); i.e. the reason for having that convention in the first place: the community feels that it improves readability in !voting lists, and it's done that way universally, without exception. I accept that you have difficulty complying on your mobi device, and nobody is asking you to change what you're doing. The question is whether you object to having your OPPOSE changed to Oppose, and you have never objected when I've done it before. Neither has any other editor, for that matter. I honestly can't believe such a mountain has been made out of this molehill of a simple format fix. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended time information
Call this an extended edit summary for my WP:BOLD edit. If anybody wishes to challenge the edit per WP:BRD, this can serve as the discussion.

It really serves no reader need to put extended time information in running prose. It's important to put events like this into a local time-of-day context, but time zone adds nothing to reader understanding and just gets in the way.

UTC time means even less in this context. UTC exists to make it a little easier to put events around the world into chronological sequence; but a reader in another part of the world isn't likely to wonder what their time-of-day was when "the first reports of the shooting began to arrive" or when "officers reported [...] that the suspect had been shot and killed." Even if they did, they would still have to do the arithmetic to get from UTC to their local time.

But this doesn't mean we should omit this information entirely. Following the example at Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and many other articles, I'm modifying the infobox to provide time zone and UTC offset, and removing the extended information from the body prose. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  14:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would think MOS:DATE already covers this somewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:06, 26 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)
 * Even in a sentence I think there would be no comma in a reference to the 2019 Aurora, Illinois shooting. —В²C ☎ 15:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You all need to read MOS:COMMA. Or any reputable external manual of style on commas.  So Wikipedia has lots of comma fails in titles, that does not make it OK.  This discussion reminds me of the Indiana Pi Bill.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists is not a valid rationale for an exception to MOS:GEOCOMMA. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, what WikiWinters and SmokeyJoe and Reidgreg say. The matching comma is not optional – it's required by standard English grammar, in sentence or phrase.  Yes, Wikipedia still has errors that need work. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2019

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After extended time for discussion, although there is a clear majority in favor of the proposed move, there has not been the formation of a consensus for the proposed move. The current title is permissible, it has been correctly noted that it is unambiguous given the absence of other articles on shootings in Aurora, Illinois. Although it is conceivably helpful to the reader to be able to search for the title by year, this can be accomplished with a redirect. The alternative proposal set forth below has similarly gained a majority of support, but not a consensus. bd2412 T 03:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Aurora, Illinois shooting → 2019 Aurora, Illinois shooting – disambiguate from 2012 Aurora Shooting. Jax 0677 (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. B dash (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 23:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support move - per nom. John from Idegon (talk) 03:53, 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.) – 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)
 * Would a hypothetical title "Aurora, Illinois warehouse shooting" imply that there were other shootings in Aurora, Illinois but not at warehouses? It would not. No reader is scrutinizing titles for "implications". Bus stop (talk) 04:58, 20 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, 19 February 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)
 * , 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)
 * Support move I think it would be confused with the 2012 Aurora shooting otherwise. EDG 543 (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * At the top of the article, it already says "Not to be confused with the 2012 Aurora shooting ... which occurred in Aurora, Colorado". Tony85poon (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * While that is true, you should be able to tell which one the article is about without going into the article itself. EDG 543 (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose 2019 Aurora, Illinois shooting. All these Aurora shootings should use the following KISS format: YEAR Aurora shooting.  1993 Aurora shooting and 2012 Aurora shooting are already set. So I support 2019 Aurora shooting for this one, per WP:PRECISE, WP:NATURAL, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:CONCISE. --В²C ☎ 01:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know why we are being so minimalistic.2012 Aurora shooting should be retitled to "2012 Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting".Aurora, Illinois shooting should be retitled to "2019 Aurora, Illinois workplace shooting".1993 Aurora shooting should be retitled to "1993 Aurora, Colorado restaurant shooting".Give the reader a break. We know that the potential for confusion is here. And quite frankly we want to make the reader aware that oddly enough, we have articles on three "Aurora" shootings in two different states in three different years. I think that is a curiosity that we should want to highlight. We have a policy of WP:CONCISE but we should not be concise in this instance. Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with this. These pages and the conventions for naming them are not for serial killer buffs only, they're primarily for the general reader, who will be coming here with a couple of fuzzy details in mind and will be better served by sufficiently descriptive page names.  – Athaenara  ✉  02:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Though I should specify that I don't agree that movie theater, workplace, and restaurant page name elements are necessary. – Athaenara  ✉  02:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The titles hardly matter to readers. They’ll either Google, where the search will show them enough of the leads to provide far more information than even these verbose titles do, or they’ll land on the dab page which also gives them all the necessary distinguishing information. If the titles mattered to readers more we’d be far more concerned with having descriptive titles. That’s why WP titles tend to be minimalistic, which has advantages for editors, not the least of which is making titles predictable, objective and less contentious.   —В²C ☎ 07:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We are concerned with readers, not with editors. You are saying that the minimalistic approach "has advantages for editors". In this particular instance we should shift our concern from editors to readers. Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are concerned with issues that matter to readers. Which of these titles we select for this article is not an issue that matters to readers per the reasoning I provided in my previous comment. So all that’s left that’s of concern about this title decision is what matters to editors. —В²C ☎ 03:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Bus stop (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose 2019 Aurora, Illinois shooting. I agree with the reasoning of above. I support 2019 Aurora shooting for this article. Bus stop (talk) 04:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the proposed title be 2019 Aurora, Illinois, shooting per MOS:COMMA? —  AjaxSmack  07:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No. See the discussion below. Edit: The discussion is archived here. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC); edited 07:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should, AjaxSmack is correct. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The issue here seems to be one of technical ambiguity versus practical ambiguity.  It's easy for titles to be technically distinct while in practice still being confusing for readers — and it looks like this is one of those cases.  Per policy, our choice of title should favor the interests of readers, and it's reasonable to think that many readers (even if aware of the shootings) wouldn't necessarily know which was which based just on the year.  In practice, the title would not be sufficiently precise or recognizable without clarifying the ambiguous geographic reference.  Adding the state eliminates this confusion.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  20:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as I would prefer the 2019 Aurora shooting option below, which is unambiguous (so far), doesn't have the awkwardness of multiple commas, and meets WP:NCE. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Use Aurora, Illinois, shooting, as second choice – see option below. If this first option prevails over the below counter-proposal, then the second comma is required per MOS:CAPS and WP:CONSISTENCY (and every other English-language style guide on this; bracketing commas always come in pairs except when other punctuation replaces the second one).  "Aurora, Illinois shooting" doesn't even make sense to someone not familiar with US placenames. For one thing, "X, Y" style is mostly a North Americanism, with "X in Y" style being more common in British and broader Commonwealth English, and if you have not memorized all the US states (why would someone in Zaire do that?) and certain that they are regions not cities or whatever, "Aurora, Illinois shooting" looks like a construction of the "Alita, Battle Angel", and "James Bond, Licensed to Kill" sort (especially given the frequency with which Aurora is a human forename).  PS: Sorry for the manual move earlier; I did't realize this RM was even open.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment—agree with Born2cycle and SMcCandlish. Google search issues, and really, the title can easily become indigestible and clunky. "2019 Aurora shooting" seems straight, neat, and identifiable to me, with consistency as below in the table. Tony (talk)  04:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The Auroras should be distinguished by state since the events did not occur in the same Aurora. Davidsousa1 (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As a user of this great encyclopedia I get annoyed with long convoluted titles. Adding years where there is no need is just adding guff. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Consistency, conciseness, preciseness
I think some people are missing that there is no disambiguity if we name each of the Aurora shootings as YEAR Aurora shooting, and the Aurora shooting dab page would look like this:

As noted above, whether users are at the dab page or looking at Google search results (where they see part of the lead - try it), all of the information they need will be there.

We just need to rename this title from Aurora, Illinois shooting to 2009 Aurora shooting and leave the title alone at 1993 Aurora shooting. There is an ongoing discussion about that at Talk:1993 Aurora shooting. —В²C ☎ 15:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC) moved this sub-section above counter-proposal --В²C ☎ 21:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC) 2012 Aurora shooting 2019 Aurora shooting A glance at the initial post could wrongly suggest that the clarifiers "in Colorado" or "in Illinois" are part of the proposed titles. They are not. Nothing in the title clarifies that the three instances of "Aurora" refer to two entirely different places. ╠╣uw [ talk ] 10:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, these are the article titles being proposed above: 1993 Aurora shooting

Alternative proposal Aurora, Illinois shooting → [[2019 Aurora shooting]]
See argument just above at for this Aurora, Illinois shooting → 2019 Aurora shooting counter-proposal.
 * Tagging previous participants for your consideration:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.
 * Hopefully this time the pings will actually work. --В²C ☎ 01:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 22:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this proposal—just the year plus the two-word formulation "Aurora shooting". We have the Aurora shooting disambiguation page—perhaps a link to that disambiguation page could be made to appear at the top of each of these 3 articles. Bus stop (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Makes sense to me.  – Athaenara  ✉  01:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support. They are all bad, but this is the least worst so far.  Once you start putting commas in titles, the reading of clauses becomes a problem.  Just because you don't misread it at face value doesn't mean it is OK.  "Aurora, Illinois shooting" reads as an Aurora type of Illinois shooting.  "2019 Aurora, Illinois shooting" reads as a Illinois shooting at the 2019 aurora.  This clause mis-readability makes the current and proposed not NATURAL.  It is not good writing to write "I witnessed the 2019 Aurora, Illinois shooting".  It is OK to write "I witnessed the 2019 Aurora shooting, in Illinois".  So this option meets NATURAL better than the current or proposed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Details in an article's lede do not make up for ambiguity in its title, and Google and DAB pages aren't the only ways people reach articles.  For instance, anyone examining the category Mass shootings in the United States will see these three article titles with only the year to distinguish them... and with absolutely nothing to clarify that Aurora and Aurora mean Colorado, but Aurora means Illinois.  Even those familiar with the fact that there have been shootings in Aurora would likely be confused by such titles.  (This problem would apply in other contexts too: watchlists, user contribution lists, etc.)  It's useful to clarify in the title which Aurora is which, and I think doing so is important to meet the criteria of recognizability and distinguishability.  ╠╣uw [ talk ]  11:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This makes the most sense to me, and has a nice consistency to it. I would strongly recommend that each of the three articles be clearly and appropriately hatnoted to the other two, so that if a reader does go to the wrong one they are a quick click away from the desired article. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - makes sense, and I would strongly suggest someone start an RfC to establish a naming convention for crime articles. John from Idegon (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the state is more important & relevant than the year. In a few years time, anyone who remembers it is much more likely to remember it as having happened in Illinois than having happened in 2019. Jim Michael (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose this fork proposal as the ongoing one seems to be showing signs of a clear consensus. --Gonnym (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NCE. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * Oppose, both procedurally and substantively - This forked discussion has become a distraction from the main proposal in an unnecessary way. It does not follow the format for WP:RM. -- Netoholic @ 23:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - satisfies WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISE and WP:ATDAB. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as first choice, per B2c's CONSISTENCY observation (right before this second option was opened), and per NCE, PRECISE, COMMONNAME, ATDAB, etc., detailed more immediately above. [It will also obviate having to deal any further with WP:IDONTLIKEIT handwaving about commas, in the first option.  Despite our own and other style guides, there's always a cluster of editors who insist that such commas are "wrong" (because some news publishers drop them in an effort to maximally compress headlines – this is a rationale that WP does not have, and WP is not written in news style as a matter of policy.]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support – conveniently avoids the matching comma error while being simple, concise, consistent with other such titles. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support because anything is better than heading towards the weird and silly Aurora, Illinois, shooting which reminds me of Rock, paper, scissors. WWGB (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jim Michael and Huwmanbeing. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In my opinion, it's necessary to distinguish the Auroras by state. Davidsousa1 (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Years and states are both easily confusable and neither is commonly used by sources to title these things. Restaurants, factories (or warehouses) and theaters are distinctive forever anywhere, and more widely used. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment 1993 Aurora shooting and 2012 Aurora shooting were moved to 1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting and 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting respectively. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support unambiguous. Others should also just be YYYY Aurora shooting.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)