Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 3

Names of victims
This RfC was resolved in favor of the omission of a victim list from this article. But I don't think the conclusion of that RfC was that no mention of the names of the victims was permissible, for instance in prose. This edit removes mention of those names as found within normal prose. I don't think that removal is supported by the resolution of that RfC, and I have reverted it. We cannot construe "list" as "mention". The conclusion of the RfC is that a victim list should not be created. But I don't think the conclusion of the RfC is that mention in prose of victim names is prohibited. Can others weigh in here? Bus stop (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You had your say 62 times in that RfC and did not gain consensus for the inclusion of names. It's time you dropped the bludgeon. O3000 (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The RfC is over. We are discussing its conclusion. Since you are reverting, why not weigh into the topic of the discussion I have initiated here? Bus stop (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Will you post another 62 times arguing about this? There is no consensus for inclusion of names in any manner. I have no idea why you have been pushing this so hard; but this is becoming disruptive. O3000 (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Does the RfC linked-to in this edit summary support the edit you're making? I don't think it does therefore I am asking you—why are you linking to that RfC in that edit summary? The closing comments of that RfC say "There is no consensus for the inclusion of a list of names". But the edit you are reverting is not a "list of names". There is nothing inherently problematic about the inclusion of these names and the RfC does not conclude that any form of inclusion of these names is not allowed. The conclusion of the RfC is that a "list" of victim names should not be included in this article. The edit that the IP editor made was not in violation of the RfC that you cite in your edit summary. Bus stop (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of victim names, in any form, requires consensus. Such consensus does not exist. That bus has left the stop. WWGB (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We should not be misconstruing the conclusions of an RfC. The IP editor made an entirely permissible edit, not in violation of the cited RfC. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether you use dot points, a grid, commas, overprinting; a list is a list. Drop the stick. O3000 (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are blurring distinctions. This iteration of the article, for instance, contains a victim list. Bus stop (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 July 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a consensus in favour of this requested move.  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 18:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Aurora, Illinois, shooting → Aurora, Illinois shooting – Many articles about events are titled "City, State shooting" Jax 0677 (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move. The second comma is unnecessary.  O.N.R.  (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The extra comma makes no sense. Inexpiable (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. There's a vast collection of articles already in this format – e.g. "Sandy, Utah attack", "2012 College Station, Texas shooting", "St. Cloud, Minnesota mall stabbing", "Crandon, Wisconsin shooting", "2003 Abbeville, South Carolina right-of-way standoff", etc. ...The extra comma does technically make grammatical sense, but looks odd to most Americans. It seems to be a regional thing. For most U.S.-based editors, the version of the title with one comma is perfectly fine. Most Americans tend to think of the "XCity, YState" format as a full name, and not as a grammatical qualifier or explanation (as opposed to MOS:GEOCOMMA). It's an odd debate, as both sides have a point (well, a comma in this case). Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The second comma is totally redundant The silly title Aurora, Illinois, shooting reminds me of Rock, paper, scissors or Veni, vidi, vici. Please see Talk:2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting where a related request was withdrawn ahead of a snow vote to reject the second comma. I don't understand the fixation with MOS:GEOCOMMA, this is a clear case of WP:IAR. WWGB (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. That second comma is pointless and just looks odd. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – has nobody read MOS:GEOCOMMA? How can you make sense of the comma before the state without one after? Dicklyon (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC
 * Everyone else seems to be making perfect sense of the single comma title, in this and many other articles with city, state in the title. Obligation to the second comma is just pedantry. WWGB (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215 in 2019, but unfortunately it didn't really end in a consensus either way. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – This is not good enough reason to IAR. We cannot make exceptions just because it seems weird. GEOCOMMA is a good rule and should be followed. The title looks just fine to me. In fact, not having the comma is stranger to me. It reads like this is a shooting in Illinois, a shooting commonly known as Aurora. Article titles should use the format the phrase would appear in running text. We should not perpetuate bad consistencies established without discussion. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Insisting that we include the second comma here is an example of hypercorrection. No one would be confused if the second comma was removed.  Calidum   18:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as per Calidum. This is another example where a few editors treat the MOS as a straitjacket that can never be escaped, rather than a set of commonsense practices which will have (numerous) exceptions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.