🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2016_Nice_attack
Jump to content

Talk:2016 Nice truck attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:2016 Nice attack)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2019

[edit]

Reword attacks from Nice to put the date between Nice and the attack. When reading in another page and the link has turned purple due to past use it can at first appear to be talking of the adjectival word nice ie a nice truck attack. A lot of people who need Wiki are unskilled in English and can easily pick things up wrong. change 2016 Nice truck attack... to Nice 2016 truck attack or 2016 truck attack Nice

Bertybear (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to start a requested move discussion for this. "2016 truck attack in Nice" would be more clear, but most of our articles about events follow this format. – Thjarkur (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 December 2019

[edit]
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: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


A Nice biscuit

2016 Nice truck attack2016 truck attack in Nice – As the two above posts say, the current title is like a garden-path sentence that causes a strange ambiguity at first. This move would add clarity, at the cost of no longer being WP:CONSISTENT with similar articles. – Thjarkur (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


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.

Footnote in the lead detailing deaths

[edit]

IP 131.251.10.14, Regarding this edit, if one says that on a certain date, a certain thing occurred, which killed n people, of course it implies that they were killed on the 'certain date', rather than over a period, simply as a result of what happened on the 'certain date'. Of course the key issue is that n people died, when and how they did is relevant, but not crucial information, so a footnote is preferable to elucidating in text, but the clarification benefits the article. I'm not sure what your objection to footnotes is, they are often used for exactly this 'clarifying' purpose.

WP:BRD makes clear that when your change has been challenged, as it has several times, you take the issue to talk, not edit-war. If we - and other editors - can't agree, there are mechanisms. Please make your case here, not edit war. Pincrete (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP 2a00:23c8:d30d:7c00:91ca:5895:ec4c:f740 again the same argument as above. Your edit reason ("resulting in the deaths of" and "killing" are synonymous. …) is just wrong for reasons given above. They were not all killed on the date we say this happened, but did die as a result of injuries on that day. YOU may find the distinction irrelevant, the people who wrote this article did not and that wording has been in place for a very long time. The WP:ONUS is on YOU to get a consensus for change, not to edit war your own (cruder IMO) version of events, hoping the body of the article will remedy the error. The footnote is being used for a simple clarification and does not in any way impede the text flow.Pincrete (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth having the footnote stating that 84 people died on the day of the attack and two died later. This is commonplace nowadays and the article should not give the impression that all of the 86 died immediately.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect 2016Nicetruckattack has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 14 § korzoix title case or unspaced redirects (wow) until a consensus is reached. consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]