Talk:2022 Nong Bua Lamphu massacre

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: no consensus. I decline to relist this because I do not believe that consensus will form on whether the attack is noteworthy enough to omit the year even if it was relisted. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. No need to include the year, it is a unique attack in the region. WWGB (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose.
  2022 Thailand shooting, but we shouldn't remove the year. Incidentally, the above-mentioned other Thailand shooting also included the year originally, it was later boldly moved without discussion by the nominator of this discussion, so I hardly think it establishes any precedence here. It should really be moved to 2020 Nakhon Ratchasima shootings or 2020 Thailand shootings.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose Title should to be descriptive but brief. Without the year implies a well established common name; this event is too recent for such and there are none. Oppose "shooting" in the title since this incident also involved stabbing and vehicle-ramming.--Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I mostly agree with the proposal, that the article be renamed. The event has received worldwide coverage, and there has not been other attacks like this that necessitate the use of the year to differentiate this attack. However, I also believe that Amakuru's comment has merit and I propose that the title be "Nong Bua Lamphu Thailand attack" to be more descriptive and tie to what has been reported in the news as Nong Bua Lamphu may not be recognizable to persons outside of Thailand. However, by adding "Thailand", it adds clarity to the title and is more recognizable. Just my two cents... Jurisdicta (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per
  WP:NCE, as cited above. Right now the year seems obvious, but in the future it can serve as a useful identifier. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. - Disambiguation is not needed, there are no other major attacks in Nong Bua Lamphu that would make readers confused. Per
  WP:NCE, I would support that the year is not needed in the title. Please see, for example, the following pages of other attacks (out of many) that do not include the year: Plaine Savo massacre, Imam Reza shrine stabbings, Nogolait shooting, Owo church attack, Christchurch mosque shootings, Sobane Da massacre..among many others. It makes sense to put the date/year if there are multiple notable attacks/events in the same place/city, i.e., 28 July 2019 Kabul suicide bombing, 7 August 2019 Kabul bombing, 17 August 2019 Kabul bombing
  , but this does not apply to this article and the year should be taken out of it.

Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 17:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those examples are incorrectly named. If you don't like the guideline, then start a proposal to get it changed, but for now NCE mandates us to use the year.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Kanjuruhan Stadium disaster was recently changed to not include the year and the consensus was to not put it. Why is this different? Its not that I "don't like" the policy; I am seeing inconsistencies with this policy and trying to understand. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 21:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and there was a very strong consensus for that move earlier this month. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's also a poor move. Just because lots of people believed the nominator's rationale and it was closed early, does not mean it complies with the guidelines. In the majority of cases we should be using the year, and that stadium disaster certainly isn't well-known enough to warrant an exception. Nobody has heard of the Kanjuruhan Stadium, and if you tell someone in the street that name around the world in ten years time, they will not be able to place the event in 2022. Like I say, there's little point in having a guideline if we do'nt follow it, and it should be changed if there's consensus to do so.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i would add that discussing this kind of move just after the event is kind of defeating the guideline's orginal intention to guard against recency bias. Human brain is hard wired to treat recent events as more important. If say after a few month you can still firmly remember and clearly understand what this means without the year, THEN it is the right time to have all this discussion about omitting the year.

A seperate point is the pages listed above all showed the precise location of the event (a camp, a shine or at least a city). Nong Bua Lamphu is a province name and it would be very hard for someone unfamilar to link an attack in a province with a shooting at nursery, with or without the year. At least for the Kanjuruhan Stadium disaster,it would be clear that a disaster occured in a stadium which may infer that is something to do with a sporting event or relating in the design of the stadium etc. 59.152.212.113 (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose per
  consistent with each other in title format, which states that in the majority of cases the title of the article should contain [...] When the incident happened. There is no reason to believe that this event will remain notorious enough to not require the date in the future. Ask yourself: in 5 years, will you and other readers find this article more easily with or without the year in the article title? Pilaz (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Edited again by Pilaz (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC) [reply
  ]

If you remember Nong Bua Lamphu, you won't need the year. If you don't, the year being in the title won't help you. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it might be a bit too soon to say this, but I suspect that in the coming years, this will be the case. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support - Per the article, "It is the deadliest mass murder by a single perpetrator ever recorded in Thailand". I think that this is an extremely notable event and should be addressed as such. Per
  WP:NCEVENTS, there aren't any other significant attack articles on Wikipedia that address Nong Bua Lamphu. A very sad and crucial, historic event for Thailand. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong support per everyone else. This is a very notable event in Thailand's history, as tragic as it is. A year isn't needed to disambiguate it from any other event. Love of Corey (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support I don't know of any other mass shootings in Nong Bua Lamphu. It's also very notable because it's the deadliest 1-person attack in the history of Thailand. Silent-Rains (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support As Smuckers stated, there are no other major attacks in Nong Bua Lamphu so removing the year wouldn't confuse readers. "Oppose per
  WP:NCE says Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. As this is a judgement call, please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement, hence this move discussion. Some1 (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]