The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.
The result of the proposal was unanimous support for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
November 2008 Mumbai attacks → 2008 Mumbai attacks — When we last had the discussion, some editors felt that the move was premature as there was a possibility of attacks happening before the end of the year. Editors (including me) who agreed with the move accepted keeping the name until the end of the year. As we approach the end of the year, I feel we should open up the discussion, so that we can change the name as close as possible to the new year. I think five days of discussion is plenty enough for what should be a trivial change. The proposal also includes renaming all other sub-articles that contain the "November"in the title (Do not worry if it is too much work to change, I can do it all if needed). Thanks! — Cerejota (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: As detailed by naming conventions, previous precedents and the fact that this has been the only terrorist attack in Mumbai this year. Also support the view explained in detail by Cerejota below. SBC-YPR (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Well thought out and presented proposal, and a definite improvement on the current names. Andrewa (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Will support now. KensplanetTC 14:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: As no other article on any attack on Mumbai in the year 2008 exists...so November is needless. --KnowledgeHegemonytalk 17:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Any additional comments:
Could you please outline a particular reason for the move? I think "November 2008 Mumbai attacks" probably gives more information in its title than "2008 Mumbai attacks", but if you could explain the context for the move for folks like me who were not involved in earlier discussions, that would be helpful. Thanks. - Max- You were saying? 05:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
First, to answer your argument -which was not raised AFAIK before- article names are meant to give the least amount of unambiguous information, this is true for article names as it is for section headers (see WP:NAME and WP:HEAD). So giving more information is not required, and I find is actually less appealing (for example, you have to type more when linking, it is less visually compact etc).
However, in this case, I suggest we follow an increasingly common naming format for terrorist attacks, riots, and other conflicts (Which has its origins in other naming conventions, see for example Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Year in front and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Other events). While we are not required to follow any format, at least not as of now, it has been the custom of the community in many instances to include only the year, in case of a single attack on a given year, and only offer more precise dates in case of multiple attacks, with a descending order of preference in including the month, and in the rare case of multiple discrete events in a single month of a single year, the day. For example 2006 Lebanon War, 2008 Greek riots etc.
Ultimately, we also have the verifiable name the reliable sources give, which are overwhelmingly calling it the "Mumbai attacks". However, since there have been attacks in the past, and we are an encyclopedia, not the media with its recentism, we need to identify the date, and since this was the only attack this year, it follows that the year is enough as a unique identifier. Standardization is good because it allows us to quickly handle large amounts of information, and move forward with more semantic management. Its all really logical, really. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
What do others think? I found this in the archives:
I changed "casualties" to "victims" because there is nothing casual about someone being killed. Please join me in rejecting military euphemisms. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, "casualties" is not a military euphemism, it a word used to neutrally describe a situation were there are dead and wounded:d:casualty. It stopped having a relationship with "casual" somewhere in the middle ages. In wikipedia, we have to be neutral in our presentation. Calling the dead and wounded "victims" breaks neutrality, in so far as there many military and security personnel among the casualties, and calling these people victims is a misuse of the word. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is calling military and security personnel deaths victims a misuse of the word? It doesn't seem like it to me. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The two terms are generally synonymous but casualty has, for better or worse, become the accepted word to use in situations like this. We follow the trend in wikipedia. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 17:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw the suggestion and am archiving the talk section; I see there is no easy way to avoid the use of the word in question. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.