Talk:2019 Virginia Beach shooting

Requested move 31 May 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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. El_C 01:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Virginia Beach municipal complex shooting → Virginia Beach shooting – Page was moved by user Democratic Backsliding without discussion or consensus reached. There is no other notable "Virginia Beach shooting" and the current title is too detailed and long. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support Yes, clearly this title is too much. IWI (chat) 23:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Unnecessary disambiguation as it is. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. --Wow (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support How many other shootings in Virginia Beach have there been? There shouldn't be any confusion with just Virginia Beach shooting Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - There is no need for disambiguation. - MrX 🖋 00:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support - No need for disambiguation. No previous notable mass shootings have occurred in VB Compilergeek (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Full support - Current long title needs to be simplified to just "Virginia Beach shooting" since there hasn't been any other notable shootings in this community. Tinton5 (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – I suggest this discussion comes to a speedy close and move. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• I second. There shouldn't even be a discussion for this. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Moved, Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 01:07, 1 June 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.

Should the page include the victims names?

Seeing as how there has been multiple users, create a back and forth about the inclusion of the victims names in the section and multiple points to start a discussion on the talk page, I've decided to start it. I for one believe it would be beneficial to include the names of the victims, as multiple other mass shooting incidents such as the University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting and STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting. However, other pages such as Thousand Oaks shooting and Sutherland Springs church shooting focus on identifiable characteristics about the individuals such as age, occupation and gender. Even among the 2019 mass shooting incidents found through List of mass shootings in the United States the documentation of victims names varies.

Overall, I think humanizing the victims in some form even if its about how many years they worked for the state instead of their names would be beneficial to the page.

Leaky.Solar (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Leaky.Solar

Approximately 90% of similar articles contain victim names.[1] Not only is this humanizing but it is information. An article should contain an abundance of good-quality information. The material in question can be perused carefully or casually by a reader—but if it is absent it can't be seen at all. Bus stop (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Approximately 90% of similar articles contain victim names. - For editors unfamiliar with the history, effective counters to that argument, from multiple experienced editors, were made in the discussion now archived at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 2#RfC: Victim names. Just look for "90%". And yet Bus stop keeps arguing the argument, hoping to sway editors unfamiliar with the history. Hey, it works for Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 2#RfC: Victim names resulted in a decision to omit victim names, therefore that article would be among the 10% of similar articles that do not contain a victim list. Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's be quite clear: the oft-"quoted" figure of 90% is a complete furphy, based on WP:OR, and has no credibility. WWGB (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

90% is only an approximation but based on what I consider exhaustive and exhausting original research. I couldn't find a New York Times article to support my findings. If you want to take the effort you can examine the documentation, incomplete though it may be, of my original research. Bus stop (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, verifiable RS reporting alone is not enough. The names are completely meaningless to all but a very few readers. The criterion for inclusion of any information is whether it adds to a reader's understanding of the event; these names do not and cannot. If they are deemed relevant, genders and ages could be summarized in prose.
  Further, there are arguable privacy concerns. These victims are not "public figures" who chose to waive their privacy, they had absolutely no say in their selection. "Well it's available in the news anyway" has never been an accepted reason to include something in Wikipedia.
  For the multiple counters to arguments about precedent in other articles, including the vast majority in which the lists have received little or no discussion, search for "90%" at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting/Archive 2#RfC: Victim names. That argument has been duly defeated and needn't be re-defeated here. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The names of the non-notable deceased do not add to the reader's understanding of the attack. Whether a victim was named "Bob Smith" or "Fred Jones" is utterly irrelevant in the context of this article. WWGB (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)