Talk:Utrecht tram shooting/Archive 1

Authorities have not verified a death
Authorities have so far not confirmed any deaths. A blank sheet was seen on the street convering something - assumed a dead person -, from which media deduced that someone must have gotten killed. Siebrand (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Two articles!
NOTE: This article is doubling up on Utrecht tram attack. The articles obviously need merging. Silas Stoat (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone redirected it to this article. job done. Thanks. Silas Stoat (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Attack or attacks?
I changed the heading to singular Attack, but the Telegraph is now reporting multiple locations. At what point do we change the heading to the plural. Is the Telegraph ref. good enough? The situation seems unclear at the moment. Silas Stoat (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Tram involved
Tram 5011 was the tram involved. As the article develops, there may be room for a photograph of the tram. File:BRU tram 5011-III.JPG is available at Commons. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Tram 5014 also involved. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

>>>Where?
News pictures suggest that the scene of the crime is closer to position 52.079734, 5.091897, more than 100 m away from the one given at the top of this article. Is that right? Is anybody here familiar enough with the spot to say for sure? Kelisi (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Terrorist or mass shooter?
Is this a mass shooting or a terrorist attack? 97.118.129.179 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Apparently, the culprit targeted a woman with a hand gun and then emptied his magazine on anyone trying to help her, killing two and wounding five others.--MWAK (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What is your source? This still doesn't say whether he is a mass shooter or a terrorist.  97.118.129.179 (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is currently unclear whether or not this is a terrorist attack. The Dutch authorities are further investigating the situation. MrClog (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This page should not speculate or feed into speculation. Wikipedia should not be feeding into racist speculation.  97.118.129.179 (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't speculate, it provides the speculations of various Dutch government agencies. MrClog (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that because the shooter is of middle eastern descent, that this was automatically assumed by the press and wikipedians to have been a terrorist attack with zero evidence to back up this speculation. Wikipedia should not feed into the racist stereotypes which lead to actual terrorist attacks like in Christchurch.  97.118.129.179 (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. 2) Please WP:AGF. 3) If government agencies say it is a possible terrorist attack, Wikipedia should report that, see point 1. MrClog (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not censoring anything. This should be mentioned on the Current Events page and be in all applicable lists of mass shootings which exist.  I'm not trying to pretend it didn't happen, it's just clearly not worthy of its own article.  Wikipedia is not a newspaper as per WP:NOTNEWS.  97.118.129.179 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Notability?
Is this event even notable enough for a wikipedia page in the first place? It appears to be one of many domestic violence shootings which occur all over the world every day and don't get their own wikipedia page. It seems that a politician speculated that this may be terrorism based on the ethnicity of the shooter and that that is the only reason this is even receiving attention in the press. 97.118.129.179 (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 'a politician speculated'? Not "a politician", but the Dutch police force, the Openbaar Ministerie, the Prime-Minister, and the Nationaal Coördinator Terrorismebestrijding en Veiligheid. Also, the wide-spread international coverage makes it, in my opinion, notable enough, as per WP:DIVERSE. MrClog (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, this speculation happened even before the identity of the shooter had been found, which is why mosques, government building, etc. had extra security. MrClog (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * NOTNEWS may be instructive here. 97.118.129.179 (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That section links to WP:N(E) to determine whether or not something is notable. WP:DIVERSE (which I linked earlier) is a part of that. MrClog (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Long term notability is a part of determining if a subject is worthy of an article to its own or not. The speculation that this may be terrorism seems to be what fed the rapid news coverage.  This appears to be a tragic, but common crime, that is likely not terrorism.  This should not have its own article and its existence only feeds into racist stereotypes about muslims and terrorist attacks.  97.118.129.179 (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, it seems like your reason for questioning the notability is not Wikipedia policy, but your own opinion. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, so even if it does support certain stereotypes, that is no ground for deletion. I have linked to notability policy that supports this article's notability, you haven't responded to it. Also, please read WP:RAPID. May I please know where you base "[t]his appears to be a tragic, but common crime, that is likely not terrorism" on? MrClog (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This shooting happened in the Netherlands (where crime is low and shootings are rare), and 3 people have been killed. That makes it very notable in this context. Spooners21 (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly is it that makes this shooting worthy of its own article? There's nothing particular unusual or special about it.  There's no political, religious or racial motivation (by the article's own references) to the shooting.  I don't understand why this particular shooting is worthy of its own article.  97.118.129.179 (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As per WP:DIVERSE. Also, it shouldn't be deleted, as per WP:RAPID. "no political, religious or racial motivation" is false, it is unknown if there is such a motivation. Please read the linked policies. MrClog (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * More than one mass shooting occurred yesterday in other parts of the world that were each covered by a diversity of sources, yet this is only one that has its own article. Why this shooting in particular? What about this shooting makes it worthy of a Wikipedia article all to its own?  The source referenced in the article says that police in Utrecht are calling it "a family matter" and not terrorism.  Wikipedia does NOT speculate or make speculations.  97.118.129.179 (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As per WP:DIVERSE, the happening received significant international coverage. Also, as per WP:RAPID, you should give the article a few days before nominating it for deletion. MrClog (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS, something is not automatically notable because it receives lots of coverage in a very short amount of time. I encourage all editors to review WP:EVENTCRIT as all articles must fit all the criteria of notability and not just one or some.  97.118.129.179 (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the following:"Articles about breaking news events—particularly biographies of participants—are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete. There may be alternatives to deletion, such as merging or reworking the article so that it conforms with policy, for example, by rewriting an article about a person known only for one event to be about the event. Other alternatives to deletion while the story develops are userfying or incubating the article in draftspace."This comes from WP:RAPID, something I linked you to multiple times already. If you still want it deleted right now, start a WP:AFD please. MrClog (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have nominated this article for deletion now twice and it has been once removed without discussion. This is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS.  97.118.129.179 (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The first one was a proposal to delete, that may be deleted by anyone that opposes it. Please follow the step listed at 2019 Utrecht shooting at the top to finish your AfD. MrClog (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I'll do it. MrClog (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 97.118.129.179 (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Notable event, Definately keep article. I cannot understand the rush to want to delete it. Whilst I'm not comfortable with these type of events being given quite so much media attention, it seems very clear that it is a highly unusual notable incident in the dutch context, even if hindsight may teach us that it was notable for being an over-reaction, or perhaps too quickly labelled a terrorist incident. I very very rarely edit wikipedia (so please forgive any newbie format errors here) but as a daily/hourly wikipedia reader I've found that articles like these give important clarity & conciseness that I often can't find elsewhere. Surely these sort of articles will be very helpful for future research. I've worked all my adult life in UK media, now living in NL. MVG / Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.163.66.189 (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, that future research should be used by Wikipedia to write this article, not the other way around... Encycloon (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

"Dutch prosecutors investigating the murder of three people on a tram say a letter was found in the gunman's getaway car and it is one of the reasons why a terrorist motive is being seriously considered". "No connection has been found between him (the attacker) and the victims". "The victims appear to have been targeted at random". At this point, terrorism is the most proable motive for the attack, as the police quoted. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47622916

Added by: Gianluigi02

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 2019 Utrecht shooting.jpg

Potential sources
These sources may be of use in expanding the article. Please feel free to add to them. Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Dutch
 * De Telegraaf


 * English
 * Dutch News
 * NL Times


 * I wouldn't recommend De Telegraaf - this is not the most nuanced Dutch newspaper to put it mildly... Encycloon (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "niet het meest genuanceerd" zijn echter juist de Nederlandse Wikipedianen die er op hun lemma een "beschieting" van maken, wat ondertussen zelfs De Telegraaf nog niet doet... GentleDjinn (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia title is still running, see nl:Overleg:Beschieting in Utrecht (18 maart 2019). 'Beschieting' ('Shooting') isn't my preference either. I hope we will switch to 'Schietincident' (shooting incident), but maybe we might choose another one when more details are known. Encycloon (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Election
Right-wing party of Thierry Baudet wins many votes. --Fidgetspinnerrambling (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism
Dutch media have stated that in the car he used for getting away, there was a letter suggesting allegiance to ISIL. The letter has not been made public, and islamic terrorism is definitely one of the major hypotheses during criminal investigation. These being said, he was arrested previously not for political crimes or terrorism, but for rape (verdict is still pending), shoplifting, burglary, illegal firearms possession. See. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn’t speculate. This isn’t terrorism, just because some people want to have been. 97.118.143.21 (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The main suspect has been charged with multiple counts of murder with a terrorist motive.Source, in Dutch This doesn't prove this particular incident by Gökmen Tanis is a terrorist attack, but I will mention it in the article. --MrClog (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

However, witness accounts and media reports have been very specific in explaining in detail, that the offender, Gökmen Tanis, shouted allahu akhbar at the scene. This is clearly Islamic. The offender is also of Islamic faith. His brother is positively confirmed linked to extremist Islam who fought in Chechnya

Only days before on Saturday 16 March 2019, president Erdogan showed the video of the New Zealand massacre taken by the gunman himself. As video of the massacre played, Erdogan exclaimed: “What does it say? That we should not go west of the Bosphorus, meaning Europe. Otherwise, he would come to Istanbul, kill us all, drive us out of our land!”

This broadcast drew immediate condemnation from New Zealand and the rest of the world; this is instrumental in the provocation toward religious acts of hate.

It is important to note that this is not yet confirmed as terrorism and this word has not been used in this passage. It was the actions of a single Islamic Male, who as of now, is confirmed to have killed 3 people. Given the significance of the events, and that the Quran incentivises mass murder of non-believers, the faith of Islam in this criminals behaviour is of significance to the reader and should not be censored for the appeasement of extreme-left ideological leanings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.250.32 (talk)
 * I suggest that you read WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:BLP. "Allahu Akbar" means "God is Great", and is used very often by Muslims. Until reliable sources confirm it is Islamic terrorism, we will not mark it as such. Thank you. --MrClog (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that term "Allahu Akbar" is in keeping with Islamic practices and is entirely relevant to the circumstances and this section. This constant jumping to the defence of Islam is a fanatical unhelpful behaviour and not at all balanced, please refrain from non-sequiturs. It does nothing to help maintain the facts of the situation all of which are of course relevant. It is well understood that "Allahu Akbar" is used before a deliberate act of Islamic terrorism. However, let’s be clear, the accusation of this particular incident by the authorities as a confirmed act of terrorism has not been established and there is nothing in the text above which suggests otherwise. Please try to keep your feelings out of the equation at this stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.250.32 (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but at this point is unclear to me what changes you want to see to the article. Note that Wikipedia is not a forum, and talk page messages should be solely focused on changes to the article. "This constant jumping to the defence of Islam is a fanatical unhelpful behaviour and not at all balanced" doesn't seem to adhere to that goal. I advise you to read this page on original research, this page on reliable sources and this page on articles relating to living persons (and more specifically this section). Thank you. --MrClog (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Below is a reworded exhibit to publish, minus discourse.

Dutch media have stated that in the car he used for getting away, there was a letter suggesting allegiance to ISIL. The letter has not been released to the public yet; meanwhile, Islamic terrorism remains a major hypothesis during a criminal investigation. These being said, he was arrested previously not for political crimes or terrorism, but for rape (the verdict is still pending), shoplifting, burglary, illegal firearms possession. See. Tgeorgescu The main suspect has been charged with multiple counts of murder with a terrorist motive. [https://nos.nl/artikel/2277179-gokmen-t-bekent-aanslag-utrecht-motief-blijft-onduidelijk.html However, witness accounts and media reports have been very specific in explaining in detail, that the offender, Gökmen Tanis, shouted “Allahu Akbar” at the scene, which is indicatively Islamic in nature and has historically been shouted aloud before a deliberate act of Islamic terrorism. https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-forensic-files/201501/allahu-akbar-psychological-abstract-mass-murder The offender is of the Islamic faith along with his Islamic brother who has been positively confirmed as linked to Islamic terrorism and is known to have fought in Chechnya. The killer’s actions coincide with recent events, where on Saturday 16 March 2019 President Erdogan presented the video of the recent New Zealand Islamic massacre taken by the gunman himself. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1102555/new-zealand-terror-attack-mosque-christchurch-erdogan-turkey-australia As video of the massacre played, Erdogan exclaimed: “What does it say? That we should not go west of the Bosphorus,” meaning Europe. “Otherwise, he would come to Istanbul, kill us all, drive us out of our land!” This broadcast drew immediate condemnation from New Zealand and the rest of the world; this propaganda is instrumental in the provocation toward religious acts of hate. It is important to note that it is not yet confirmed to be an act of terrorism. But it is confirmed that the mass killing was the actions of a single Islamic Male. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6830343/Dutch-tram-shooting-suspects-older-brother-links-Turkish-jihadis.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.250.32 (talk)
 * The possible terrorist motive has already been clearly presented throughout the article. Additionally, unless you have a source that actually links Erdogan's claim directly to this mass shooting, it is pure WP:SYNTH and will therefore not be included. I will include the fact that witnesses claim the suspect shouten "allahu akbar" in the article. Thank you. --MrClog (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In the Dutch media there were allegations about it and Erdogan, but just opinions, not hard facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

And this ^above is why terrorism against Muslims is so common. Apparently, according to Wikipedia, all Muslims are terrorists. Why is it so hard to just censor all instances of islamophobia? 97.118.143.21 (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 2019

 * 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 section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Utrecht tram shooting. No prejudice against speedy renomination for the year as there doesn't appear to be consensus on the inclusion of the year. (closed by non-admin page mover)  SITH   (talk)   19:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Utrecht shooting → Utrecht shooting – (Policies: WP:CONCISE, WP:COMMONNAME; Guideline: WP:NOYEAR) This is the only article on Wikipedia about a shooting in Utrecht. Therefore, this could be renamed to Utrecht shooting until a second notable shooting in Urecht happens in the future to adhere to the title's conciseness.

For example, see

''2017 Manchester Arena bombing → Manchester Arena bombing (talk)

''2018 YouTube headquarters shooting → YouTube headquarters shooting (talk)

2018 China–United States trade war → China–United States trade war (2018–present) → China–United States trade war (talk)

—Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – The year identifies the subject and context of the event. Also, it’s not like there has never been a shooting in Utrecht in the past.  IWI  ( chat ) 23:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Per WP:CONCISE. This was the first and only notable shooting in Utrecht on this wiki. MrClog (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Move to Utrecht tram shooting. MrClog (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would rather have Utrecht tram shooting so that it is consistent with Alphen aan den Rijn shopping mall shooting. Spooners21 (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That could be a good title. —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Agree the year identifies the subject and context of the event. XavierItzm (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose How about "Utrecht shooting (2019)"?   That brings us closer to the Dutch entry's title.   And the reason people are interested in ihe entry is more likely to be that it was an "Utrecht shooting" than that it is something that happened in 2019.   So put the interesting thing in first.   As for leaving the year, then alas, yes.   It may be the only shooting that made it to English news reports on 19 March 2019.   But it's not the only time someone got shot in Utrecht.   Alas.   (Also by leaving the year, you increase the chance that if, after say ten years, it is  no longer judged to be wiki-notable, someone will be moved to notice and return to the "Notability?" discussion which I see someone started below.) Charles01 (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your statement. I don't agree with adding the parenthesis. I know that this is not the only shooting in Utrecht, but this shooting is the only notable mass shooting in Utrecht. It may not [had] lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, but it [received] significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. (WP:EVENT) —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:NCEVENTS works fine here. --Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't know this guideline about the determination of the date in title exists. It should be mentioned in WP:TITLE policy. However, your arguement appears to be a counter example of your stance. WP:NCEVENTS quotes "Examples of some events that are so immediately identifiable that the date is not needed in the article title." and "The month or days should not be used in the title unless other descriptors are insufficient to establish the identity of the incident." indicate that the year is not necessary in the title. —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:This is the only article on Wikipedia. Sure sign of a bad RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that? I don't get it. We're not removing anything. I was proposing to move the article to a new title. —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * RM means requested move. I don't mean to be tedious but we get a lot of "This is the only article on Wikipedia" proposals here and they're almost always not the issue. Shootings occur more than once in any given city. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I know they occur more than once. But I think the year is not needed since gun killings are rare in Utrecht, as elsewhere in the Netherlands. —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per policy WP:CONCISE there is sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area and per naming convention WP:NOYEAR some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it- this article can certainly be described without a year - and will remain unambiguous. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The year obviously helps with recognition, and being a very recent event, it will be a long time until one can point to sources to say that this event was so infamous that it is referred to without pre-contexting the year.  As the year provides important unique information, stripping it does not improve concision, just brevity.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The year in the title does not imply other Utrecht shootings in other years to any reader except the few editors fixated on believing that Wikipedia titles are minimalist titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Good point. —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but you really shouldn't be commenting on everyone's comments like this. You are not running a training exercise.  Instead, create your own post-nomination section and put all your new comments there.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support move to Utrecht shooting or Utrecht tram shooting. This is the only notable shooting in Utrecht. Including the year is counter-productive. It unnecessarily lengthens the title & implies that there have been other notable shootings in the city. Also, the year isn't part of its common name. We say the Hungerford massacre (not the 1987 Hungerford massacre); the Dunblane massacre not the 1996 Dunblane massacre etc. Jim Michael (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point using the WP:COMMONNAME policy. —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Name still implies specificity and provides top-level navigational context rather than giving just a generic type of event. Could be Utrecht tram shooting though, which gives a different context. Reywas92Talk 00:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Read WP:NCEVENTS down past the first lines. It is very clear that you just put the name and leave the date off until you need a date. The article even states that mass shootings, and even shootings, are rare in the Netherlands. as WP:NCEVENTS says, if the likelihood of needing a date is low, don't put it in. So easy to add a date later if needed. This should be a no-brainer! TX 184.69.174.194 (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Utrecht tram shooting - that seems consistent with other similar events, as noted above. Not least Christchurch mosque shootings. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support is WP:CONCISE. No other shooting this year in Utrecht.  11:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Utrecht tram shooting per Amakuru. Sock   ( tock talk)  15:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The year makes the event much more recognizable. – Þjarkur (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Utrecht tram shooting per Amakuru. --Bohbye (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Utrecht tram shooting was originally proposed by me above (and likely buried afterwards with new posts). I'm glad user Amakuru has mentioned it again and now receiving support. --Spooners21 (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Utrecht tram shooting - this is even closer to the examples you gave than the suggestion you have right now. Swordman97  talk to me  05:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Agree the year identifies the subject and context of the event, and other arguments of SmokeyJoe. It will probably never be identifiable by city alone in the real world. Pincrete (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to 2019 Utrecht tram shooting. Concision is not the only factor to be considered. Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Change to Utrecht tram shooting – Concise enough to me because, as far as I know, there hasn't been an other shooting on a tram in Utrecht. Not to mention that when you search "utrecht tram shooting" into Google, up it springs. Geography Aholic   talk  19:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to 2019 Utrecht tram shooting. Cool12y (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Utrecht tram shooting – it's used by many news outlets, it's descriptive and concise, and there have been no other notable shootings on trams in Utrecht, so there's no need for the year. ~Asarlaí 03:07, 24 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.