This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ecuador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ecuador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EcuadorWikipedia:WikiProject EcuadorTemplate:WikiProject EcuadorEcuador articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Do we want to try to enforce some content policies on the reactions section so it doesn't get too cluttered with unimportant statements? I tried removing all reactions cited to
@189.217.192.251 please discuss here before again adding such reactions. a lot of officials are going to say a lot of things. we should not be cluttering the entry with it. when officials DO things, we can evaluate and add as necessary. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a meeting the Venezuelan president has recently announced the closure of its embassy in ecuador is this notable to include in the reactions section? Mochatbh (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we include "Supported by: Nicaragua" in the infobox? I understand they broke ties with Ecuador in solidarity with Mexico, but Nicaraguan forces weren't in the raid itself. - MateoFrayo (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would have been less awkward if the word belligerents wasn’t in the infobox. Support a previous rev referring to them as parties. Borgenland (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Belligerents changed to 'parties involved'; Nicaragua removed. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And "Commanders and leaders" reads as too military for this context; I tried putting the presidents under "parties involved", see if that survives community scrutiny. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secretariat of Foreign Affairs under "units involved" also looks quite strange to me, since it isn't really a "unit" in the usual military or policing sense. Liu1126 (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
"Units involved" jars. Maybe it'd be better to ignore that parameter in the infobox (and, in any case, the Ecuadorian national police is probably in the back seat compared to the Ecuadorian foreign ministry in terms of involvement). Moscow Mule (talk)
Requested move 17 April 2024
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.
Comment The year is not necessary which I support removing, but while the embassy is in Quito, the embassy is representative to the country as whole, not the city or just the city. For embassy and consulate article titles they have the city location, but this is not an embassy article rather an event pertaining to the diplomatic office. So it should be titled either Ecuadorian raid on the Mexican embassy or Raid on the Mexican embassy in Ecuador. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I didn't want to get involved in the move war during the first days of this article's existence, but I was happier with the various "Mexican embassy in Quito" formulations rather than the present "Mexican embassy in Ecuador". On the grounds of "embassy to Ecuador" vs. "embassy in Quito", which is the usage I'd instinctively follow. And the precedents Howardcorn33 gives are compelling. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am certain that every history article on Wikipedia covers a "historically significant" event. If it was historically insignificant then there would be no reason to include it as an article. As it stands, an Ecuadorian raid on a Mexican embassy is unprecedented, so including a year in this case provides no disambiguation.
extensive RM discussion which has set the precedent for the titling format which shall be applied for attacks on diplomatic missions perpetrated by sovereign states. Finally, the titles you have presented as example do not follow this precedent as they all concern attacks on embassies which have been perpetrated by non-state actors (such as Romanian émigrés, unnamed Gabonese bombers, or Croatian militant separatists) whereas the precedent which I have described only concerns those attacks perpetrated by sovereign states. ―Howard • 🌽33 19:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
states that all Wikipedia articles must cover a subject which is notable, otherwise it is to be deleted, and I don't see any meaningful difference between "significant" and notable.
If indeed the community consensus at WP:MR decides to revert the title of
WP:COMMONNAME. ―Howard • 🌽33 06:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:NOYEAR). A new RM to move it to a title with the same format as this RM was also started --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
In that case, I feel like a wider standard should be implemented for the titling of these articles. This isn't a format we can decide separately on three different articles. ―Howard • 🌽33 11:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.
criteria and article sources clearly supported the longer name as the most recognizable one. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
If all 3 articles' fates are to be linked (as seems likely) then perhaps an RFC to decide on all 3? --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to start an RFC, so I'd be thankful if you could do it. ―Howard • 🌽33 13:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Without necessarily taking a position as to the best title for this article, I see no reason why this must be consistent with
Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. In those cases, Country A attacked Country B's diplomatic mission in Country C. In this case, Country A attacked Country B's diplomatic mission in Country A. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. I do not see the the need for an RFC for renaming the other articles. What I see is that those titles are more
readers that they can understand readily. Good titles assist with this aim. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
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.