Talk:Sandy, Utah attack

Requested move 14 April 2019

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 section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The consensus is against the move proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) qedk (t 桜 c) 21:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Sandy, Utah attack → Sandy attack – Without discussion, a user inserted an unnecessary disambiguator and a mismatched-comma error. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. -- Dane ^talk 19:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Dicklyon and WWGB: I prefer that this is handled as a page move discussion.
• Oppose. First, as there is more than one "Sandy" in the US. Second, "Sandy attack" sounds like Sandy is an adjective, like gritty attack or earthy attack. Silly I know, but that's how it sounds. WWGB (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  Just as there was no ambiguity in the Aurora shooting until one happened in another Aurora, and just as so many other articles with just city name, there's no actual ambiguity unless there an article on another notable attack in another Sandy. Anything would be better than leaving the mismatched comma grammatical error. Dicklyon (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Move to Sandy, Utah, attack or Attack in Sandy, Utah, per MOS:GEOCOMMA. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  I'm OK with the two-comma version, but that style has been objected to by quite a few editors; the "Attack in Sandy, Utah" form has been found to be OK in some cases, so that's OK by me. Dicklyon (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Fix the mismatched comma somehow for sure. Sandy attack is too short. Attack in Sandy, Utah works. For these isolated single day events, I thing the year should be in the title. 2017 attack in Sandy, Utah. A bit of description would be good, enough to enable dropping the hatnote. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Dislike Sandy, Utah, attack as excessive commas, but can’t quite bring myself to suggest anything I like. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose all alternatives - There is nothing grammatically wrong with the commas in the current name. This article has WP:TIES to the U.S. and this handling is acceptable, easily understandable, and often preferable in American English and should be retained per WP:ENGVAR. I am very open to a title that doesn't call this simply an "attack", and especially if that alternate title avoids the use of the city's name - but I can't read in the sources any particular WP:COMMONNAME for this event. Perhaps Rackley-Patterson murder-suicide? -- Netoholic @ 13:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Disagree with you about grammar. The title implies that Sandy is a type of Utah attack. Agree with everything else you say. Place (and time) uniquely define events, but they fail as relevant descriptions. It was an attack, but was much more, murder-suicide is right. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd be interested in knowing if there's any support in sources (grammar or usage guides) for the idea that this mismatched comma is acceptable in American English. I think Netoholic just made that up. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing wrong with the current title. As long as "City, State" is a commonly accepted form of place name, nobody would be confused by a title like this. feminist (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Please show any source that says such construction is commonly accepted. All the grammar and usages guides I've looked at say explicitly not. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing wrong with the current title. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a weak oppose because it's true that most guides do indeed call for the second comma, but still an oppose because the objections seem rooted in an overly zealous interpretation of the style guidelines (see below). If we believe our readers are the sort of people likely to misinterpret "Sandy, Utah attack" as "a type of Utah attack", then it's similarly reasonable to think they'd misinterpret "Sandy attack" as an attack that has the quality of sandiness. The current title, if not following the letter of the style-guide law, is at least clear.

  As for style guides, I think the problem is that what's necessary (or desirable) punctuation in American English varies based on context. The style guides I've checked discuss the use of enclosing commas around geographical identifiers in sentences: e.g., "Birmingham, Alabama, gets its name from Birmingham, England." However, a title does not follow the punctuation rules of a sentence; for instance, they don't end in terminal punctuation marks, which American English sentences must. Enclosing commas also don't follow the same termination rules as (say) parentheses; if they did, then the article on the city would have to be Sandy, Utah, (with a terminal comma), which of course is silly. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  Well, yes, it would be silly to add that comma if the text doesn't continue. The guides are not silent or ambiguous on this. It's unclear to me why so many people here are asserting without evidence that it's "OK" to just do it wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  My guess is that it's mostly due to context: something that's wrong in a sentence isn't necessarily wrong when you're dealing with three words by themselves in a title. Faithfully following the style guidelines gives us the technically correct form "Sandy, Utah, attack"... and while I'm not strongly opposed to that form, my guess is that most editors — even those like me who would be happy to use that construction in a sentence — recognize that separating every word in the title with commas looks a little fussy. (Based on what I see in forums like this, it could also just be a gradual shift in common usage.) ╠╣uw [talk] 09:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

---

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.