Talk:2023 Goshen shooting

Requested move 8 February 2023

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. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 06:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

---

2023 Goshen shooting → Goshen shooting – This is the only notable shooting in the history of Goshen, California. In fact, I think this is Goshen's only mass shooting in its history. There's no need for a disambiguating year because there's nothing to disambiguate. Love of Corey (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Support per WP:CONCISE, as this is the only famous shooting in any city named Goshen. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  What about Goshen police release some details to Saturday's mass shooting in May 2022. Not (yet) in Wikipedia, but noteworthy nevertheless. WWGB (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  Reply - We will cross that bridge when such an article is created. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  WP:CONCISE is a part of a generic policy on article titles; WP:NCE is what controls here and is the norm for the naming of events. 2023 Goshen shooting is the most concise title that also meets our naming convention on events; it meets the When, Where and What. The proposed title omits the When. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCEVENT; it's not a "disambiguation" but a standard descriptive title. Tragic as it was, this is notable but far from a landmark event, and I don't see a strong reason to deviate from the well-established convention. No such user (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCE. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NCE: when, where, what. WWGB (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

Policy discussion at BLP mentioning this article

There is an ongoing policy discussion at WP:BLP entitled Naming accused perpetrators of crimes debating the question of whether articles about high-profile criminal cases should name any known suspect(s) prior to conviction, especially when they are only known for their involvement with the event in question. This article is featured as one example of twenty fitting these criteria which named the suspect(s) after being published by reliable sources. I will be copying this message to the other articles so that interested editors have an opportunity participate in the debate. Xan747 (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)