NOTE: This is not the place to request moves. Please follow the instructions given on the project page. If you seek instruction on closing existing requests, please see the closing instructions.
The following discussion 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.
Since an RfC has been suggested by myself and others, instead of repeated RMs creating inconsistency, I thought it would be a good idea to start a discussion on how to proceed. I have a low success rate in creating well-conceived and organized RfCs. @BarrelProof, Roman Spinner, and Levivich: Would any of you be willing to help me craft a unbiased RfC for this? I think the best place to do this is at the village pump but we should agree on a good primer and question. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, ha, I promise you I have a lower rate of success in creating well-conceived and organized RfCs than you do :-) I think it's a great idea, though, and I'd be happy to help. Are you aware of the experimental "get help drafting RfCs" program going on at WT:RFC? Maybe that's a good place to go? Levivich[dubious – discuss] 19:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about asking people that have not been around the subject about neutrality of the question. Here is my first crack at a simple question:
Question: In cases where the death has been ruled a homicide by a medical examiner or similar expert, should articles titled "Shooting of [name]" be renamed "Killing of [name]" (or something else) even if the shooter has not been charged or convicted of a crime?
Primer: Many of these articles are police-involved shootings. COMMONNAME has been an unfruitful guide in previous RMs because in most cases both "shooting of" and "killing of" have been commonly used in RS to describe the events. Arguments for CONSISTENCY have won out in these discussions to keep the titles at "Shooting of [name]". This RfC aims to determine if there is consensus to consistently rename all such articles as "Killing of [name]"
We can also give people options instead of insisting on a yes/no !vote for "Killing of [name]"
===="Shooting of [name]"====
===="Fatal shooting of [name]"====
===="Killing of [name]"====
===="Death of [name]"====
====Other titles not listed above====
====Further discussion===
Before posting an RfC, we should indeed achieve a mini-consensus regarding the form of the proposed main title header. There may be agreement that the handful of headers describing non-fatal shooting can remain at "Shooting of..." The fatal shootings that have resulted in murder convictions already are or should be at "Murder of..."
For all the remaining fatal shootings, we could submit two possibilities and await consensus — move those headers to "Fatal shooting of..." or move them to the already-existing form "Killing of...". The header "Death of..." is much too general and all-inclusive, having been also used for non-violent historical events such as Death of Ludwig van Beethoven or Death of Michael Jackson. Other contributors to this discussion will certainly explore every alternative option. —Roman Spinner(talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is clear consensus to keep non-fatal shootings as is. If no one else objects, I have no problem limiting to just "Fatal shooting" or "Killing of" and not mentioning "Death of" as an option. I agree with you that it "is much too general and all-inclusive".--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Coffeeandcrumbs, I've had success going to the WP:Village pump (idea lab) as a place to stage major RfCs before they're launched. If you want to prepare it on a subpage, I recently created {{Draft RfC}} which may be a handy banner to place at top.
One way to structure things might be to make the question something like "What should be our naming standards for articles about the death of a person?" Then propose two or three different standards, some of which allow renaming to titles like "killing of" or even "murder of" sooner, whereas others adopt a more conservative approach, sticking with "death of" until there is a lot of evidence it was specifically a killing or a murder. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if this RfC is big enough to require its own subpage. But if others think we need one I will be sure to use your suggestions.
As for the question, that is not bad idea. Perhaps we can propose two or three different flowcharts for determining a naming scheme for all death related articles and ask editors to choose from among them. The flowchart could even include examples of actual articles. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A flow chart of a sorts is absolutely needed as this is a strong area where BLP can be easily tripped with the wrong title. "Has the cause of death been ascertained?" "Has that cause of death been directly tied to the intentional action of another person?" "Has that person been convicted on that action?" etc. type questions. In other words, what might be better is not to run an RFC yet but to set up this flow chart, with input, and then run an RFC saying "Is there consensus to use this flowchart in aiding in the determination of naming of "death of X" type articles?" which ends up as a simple yes/no/more feedback situation. -Masem (t) 21:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at creating a flowchart. I can create variations or make modifications. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, nice work on the chart! I can see a few possible exceptions, though. For instance, not all natural causes deaths are going to be "Death of [name]"; they might instead be something like "Drowning of [name]". {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chart As IsThank you Coffeeandcrumbs! The chart makes sense and does not overly complicate the title naming process. An encyclopedia needs consistency and simplicity w/o sacrificing accuracy. Causes of death not on the chart can be covered in the lead of the subject articles. Murder is unlawful killing, thus someone does not "murder" unless a court adjudicates the matter, regardless of common usage. Trying to determine commonality of usage by sources is time wasting and often an inexact endeavor. Continuing ad hoc decisions on retitling (moving) a title has obviously been inconsistent. Without the consistent naming of articles readers will continue to wonder if article naming reflects some ulterior motives (e.g. an article regarding killing of a black man by white men is titled "shooting"-Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery while killing of a black man by a white cop is titled "killing"-Killing of Rayshard Brooks.) While we may feel the chart is imperfect, it is logical and will further Wikipedia being an encyclopedia rather than a debate society.Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently five active RM discussions taking place that include discussion of a choice between "Shooting of" versus "Killing of" (Talk:Shooting of James Scurlock, Talk:Death of Sammy Yatim, Talk:Shooting of Kathryn Johnston, Talk:Shooting of Oscar Grant, Talk:Shooting of David McAtee). Rather than opening another discussion of the same issue as an RfC now, I suggest to wait until those are closed. Once those are closed, we will know whether we have "RMs creating inconsistency". I haven't noticed recent inconsistency in outcomes. I believe there are at least two questions. One question is about non-murder deaths by shooting, since clear cases of murder use "Murder of". The second question is about intent, since it may not be appropriate to use "Killing of" for an unintentional homicide or a homicide in self-defense (e.g., per this definition of "killing"). Personally, I think the status quo is to typically use "Shooting of" for non-murder deaths by shooting and "Death of" for other non-murder deaths. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please let us avoid arguing this here. I started this section only to offer an opportunity to all comment on the framing of an RfC. I think most, even you, will agree we should settle this once and for all, and an RfC will be able to do that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I was arguing. I was describing issues that I believe should be considered and describing what I believe to be the status quo, which is rather different from your diagram. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I believe the above-mentioned five RM discussions have all been closed, and no inconsistency has resulted. All of the discussed non-murder deaths by shooting are at "Shooting of" titles. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Macmillan definition is sure to be problematic, since it defines a killing as when "someone is deliberately killed." If you believe that kill is not an exceptional verb when it comes to how a noun is formed from it, an unintentional killing is excluded from this definition. Flejern (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also as a consideration for this RFC, I would recommend that advice related to "when" a rename should happen be added. If an article is being created editors should use the most conservative naming scheme given what is objectively known. This likely will be "death of " or "shooting of " in most cases. Obviously as events proceed there may be a push to change the article, but we should avoid rushing to move pages just because some status of the case has changed under the terms that are being developed here; ideally we'd want to have only one more "final" page move once it is determine if there was a motive or intent involved. --Masem (t) 00:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, I support the flowchart. When push comes to shove, fall back on the description to be found in reliably published secondary sources. If reliably published secondary sources don't exist, the answer is WP:AfD, not WP:RM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Holy cow, I come back a day later and there's a flowchart. @Coffeeandcrumbs: I think the flowchart is exactly on point. I say the proposal should be to add that flowchart (with some appropriate accompanying text) to WP:BLP (or some other appropriate page) with a reference pointing there from WP:AT (and/or other appropriate pages). Basically, seeking global consensus to make the flowchart a policy (or at least guideline) is exactly what we need to resolve these repetitive disputes. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 21:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of both Shooting of David Ortiz (which did not involve a death) and Deaths of Jakelin Caal and Felipe Gómez Alonzo (which involved neither a shooting nor a murder charge), I support the scheme set forth in the flow chart. I would add a few caveats, as we also have a number of "Suicide of" articles, which should remain an option for such cases, as should "Execution of" where applicable. BD2412T 21:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm wondering about Death of Benito Mussolini (and Death of Muammar Gaddafi). Technically, he was executed. His death occurred in wartime, which is its own thing. Also, not to complicate things more (sometimes they are just complicated by themselves), but we also have a bunch of "Assassination of" titles. Perhaps it would be best to nail down all of the extant variations first. BD2412T 04:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There will always be exceptions and more kinks to work out. This is just a general guideline. I have always thought it should be Killing of Benito Mussolini and Killing of Muammar Gaddafi. Although there was no "medical examiner" per se, all reliable sources say they were killed. Assasinations are rare exceptions we can deal with as they come. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For most of the articles under discussion are standalone articles where the subject is only notable for one thing. When the subject (victim) has broader notability, it may make sense for the title to deviate from pattern to fit within the topic of the subject's broader notability. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see at least a couple problems with the flowchart. Homicides without a murder conviction should not automatically be titled "Killing of..." For example: Death of Osama bin Laden, Death of Michael Jackson, Death of JonBenet Ramsey. All three of those are considered homicides, but they could plausibly have been self-defense, negligence, or accidental. I don't think the titles of any of those three articles are controversial. "Killing of..." is actually used pretty rarely, and arbitrarily (although it seems to be mostly used by articles about people who were killed by police).
If the flowchart is to match what the current consensus seems to be, then "Has someone been convicted of murder? > No" should branch off into "Were police involved in the homicide? Yes > Killing of [name]; No > Death of [name]"
Yes, I am suggesting changing the status quo. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support the conventions brilliantly encapsulated by Coffeeandcrumbs’ flowchart including the title changes they imply. Including it in the page makes sense. Who says titling can’t be algorithmic? —В²C☎ 14:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Algorithmic is great for starting points, but beware because for some it causes thinking to shut down, algorithms should assist consensus decision making, not replace it. Always check that the algorithm approach doesn't conflict with source use. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thats just part of the algorithm. —-В²C☎ 06:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Start with the flowchart; check that result to see if it conflicts with sources. If that's an algorithm, I'm good with it. I have been looking into Death of Muammar Gaddafi, versus Killing of Muammar Gaddafi. The flowchart leads to "Killing of". "Death of" errs on the side of neutrality, and I think it errs. The page log shows contention involving the WP:SALTed "Murder of Muammar Gaddafi". In the flowchart, "someone" I guess implies an individual, implies that a mob cannot murder? For Gaddafi, there is no evidence that the individual(s) who killed him did so deliberately with premeditation. I think "Killing of" fits better, as per the flowchart, but I am not sure that the change significant enough to be worth doing. Maybe the flowchart should be provided primarily for new articles, and not be considered to be intended for changing old stable articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret "someone" to mean "at least one person". Maybe I should fix it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "has there been a murder conviction"?
Also, we'd have to define "execution"... I for one am confused about why Gaddafi would be "killing of" and not "execution of". That's a question that will be raised for bin Laden, I'm sure. If "execution" means "by legal authority", then that would make sense.
One of the problems with trying to capture every permutation in the flowchart is that we'd have to grapple with definitional issues... what, exactly, is an "assassination", an "execution", etc.
Maybe the question should be, "Do RSes refer to it as an 'assassination'?" "Do RSes refer to it as an 'execution'?"
Murder of Seth Rich poses a dilemma, where there hasn't been a murder conviction, but all RSes seem to refer to it as the "murder of Seth Rich".
On the other hand, the flowchart need not cover 100% of cases. 90% would still be a huge help. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 17:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, if all RS refer to it as "Murder of Seth Rich", then COMMONNAME wins. This flowchart is only intended for cases that COMMONNAME does not give a clear title of choice. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, that makes sense to me, to have this flowchart provide a "default" position when COMMONNAME does not provide an answer. It could be used for people who start articles and aren't sure what to call them (esp. before a common name emerges, in the early days of a current event), as well as a way to make a decision when editors can't come to consensus about a common name. Maybe in that case it's better to simplify that first blue bubble to just specify "assault", and then in an explainer somewhere, explain that commonname can override any of this, and so if the common name is "assassination," "execution," etc., then use that. Note that, at least as of right now, there does not seem to be consensus for Killing of Rayshard Brooks (a fatal shooting) to be at "killing of". If that's an indicator of where consensus is, that may suggest the flowchart needs to be revised. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 18:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, that is exactly the type of nonsensical outcome we are trying to prevent. "Shooting of" is winning in that RM because of consistency and I am trying to change that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, we currently have 23 articles titled "Execution of" (one of which is the name of a film, so 22 on people being executed), and over 80 titled "Execution of" or "Executions of" with respect to people or groups. BD2412T 17:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, so under those definitions, was bin Laden executed, assassinated, or killed? It seems there are arguments for and against each title. Or is bin Laden just a special case that we concede wouldn't be resolved with this flowchart (which is fine by me)? I agree with those definitions, but it seems like under those definitons, Gaddafi would be an "assassination" (a prominent person deliberately killed for political or military reasons). Whereas, I think of Gaddafi as being executed, similar to Nguyễn Văn Lém. Nguyễn Văn Lém's execution has been ruled a war crime; where Saddam Hussein's was the result of recognized legal process. Man it's a tough ball of wax. Levivich[dubious – discuss] 18:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did not read the above discussion ... I looked at the flow-chart. This is a comment about the flow-chart. And this topic often comes up in renaming-of-article discussions. The flow-chart proposes that the title "murder" only be applied when there is a conviction in a court of law. I absolutely oppose this. This is very flawed logic. I have repeated this argument many times. Under this flawed logic, Wikipedia cannot label something as an "unsolved murder" (since no one was convicted of murder). Yet, we have dozens upon dozens -- probably hundreds -- of such articles and references. Under this flawed logic, Wikipedia cannot label something as a "murder suicide" (since no one was convicted of murder). Yet, we have dozens upon dozens -- probably hundreds -- of such articles and references. We not only have Wikipedia articles (and references) ... we even have specific Wikipedia categories for these things (e.g., unsolved murders; murder-suicides; etc.). The logic is simply flawed. We cannot say that the Black Dahlia case was a murder case (no one was convicted). We cannot say that the O. J. Simpson murder case was a murder case (no one was convicted). We cannot say that the Devon Routier case was a murder case (no one was convicted). We cannot say that the kids at Columbine High School were murdered (no one was convicted). We cannot say that the kids at Sandy Hook School were murdered (no one was convicted). Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. I could go on and on and on. There are "millions" of cases of unsolved murders and murder-suicides, in which a murder occurred and a conviction has not. This proposed logic is absolutely flawed. Adopting this flow-chart will have -- unintended (?) -- consequences. I absolutely oppose this. The word "murder" can -- and should -- be used in the layman's sense ... if the RS's report it. We don't need to invoke a "legal" definition ... (of which, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of different legal definitions, anyway). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: When a serial killer murders, say, ten people ... they are often convicted in only one or two cases. And prosecutors "don't bother" with the remaining eight or nine victims (i.e., they "reserve the cases" for a future trial, if needed ... since murder has no statute of limitations). This is pretty common. But it does not mean that the "un-convicted acts of murder" were not, in fact, murders. Despite the absence of a conviction, the murders occurred; and the victims were murdered. It is illogical to "deny" the fact of a murder simply due to the absence of a conviction. The absence can occur for many reasons (an unsolved murder; a murder-suicide; an acquittal; a lack of prosecution; etc. etc. etc.). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot even state that JFK was murdered (or assassinated); no one was ever convicted. I believe in the 9/11 attacks, there were no convictions, either (and, hence, no murders?). What flawed logic. Look at the "Wikipedia categories" at the bottom of the 9/11 attacks article ... half of them use the word "murder", "mass murder", and/or "murder-suicide". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph A. Spadaro, this flowchart does not overrule COMMONNAME among RS. JFK would be titled assassination because that is how RS refer to it. In most cases which this flowchart is intended for, COMMONNAME is useless and jumbled. This flowchart is only trying to address that.
I do not see the point in arguing about articles that do not exist like Black Dahlia. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph A. Spadaro, until Murder of Black Dahlia is created, this is moot point. If it is created, then common name should first be considered. If no common name can be established, we would follow the flowchart. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous splitting of hairs. In that article, she is listed as a murder victim, umpteen times. And she is "categorized" in many, many Wikipedia "murder" categories. How can that be, with no conviction? That's my point. If I have to spell it out. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph A. Spadaro, I am not familiar with the Black Dahlia article but I assume that it says murder because most of the RS describe it as murder. In that case, there is no issue in calling it murder because that is what reliable sources refer to it as. I am not splitting hairs. I am simply saying it is not in contradiction with what I am proposing. I am only concerned with cases that are not consistently described as one thing or another in RS. My proposal is for borderline cases where COMMONNAME is not useful in determining what to call an event. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Look, I am not trying to be difficult. But, I think -- maybe incorrectly -- that you're missing my point. I very strongly object to the idea that we (Wikipedia) "require" a court conviction to call something a "murder". That notion (premise) is incorporated into the flow-chart. And it should not be there. It will (unintentionally) set a very bad "precedent". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If RS call it murder, then the COMMONNAME is murder and the flowchart does not apply. This is incorporated in the updated flowchart (above). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's the "updated version" ... that pink / red rectangle at the very bottom? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot even state that JFK was murdered (or assassinated); no one was ever convicted. I believe in the 9/11 attacks, there were no convictions, either (and, hence, no murders?). What flawed logic. You are omitting one very obvious factor here, and that is common sense. A shooting of a public figure from a concealed location = obvious murder. A plane deliberately flown into a building full of people = obvious murder. A prostitute stabbed and dismembered on the streets of Victorian London = obvious murder. An actual conviction is not necessary for common sense to be applied here. But many other killings are not obvious murders, even if they are clearly unlawful killings or homicides. Manslaughter is not murder and is, in my experience, not commonly referred to as murder in reliable sources, despite your previous claims to the contrary. Some historic unsolved killings are indeed commonly referred to as murders in reliable sources, even without a conviction (including murder/suicides that are declared to be such by the authorities), and if they are then we use that term, but media coverage of ongoing cases is frequently not especially reliable in the frenzy for a good story, and we should be very wary of using the term "murder" just because they do. Not because we're worried about the rights of any accused, but because we're a respectable encyclopaedia and not a tabloid newspaper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The pedant in me compels me to point out an error in the chart: an execution is a homicide. And the box "Has cause of death been determined?" should read "Had manner of death been determined?" EEng 04:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A change needed in the flowchart is that there are many examples of killings that didn't result in a murder conviction which were certainly murder & which should include murder in their titles, often in cases in which the killer couldn't be tried due to dying soon afterwards. An example of this is the murder of Gianni Versace by Andrew Cunanan, although we don't have an article on the murder. Jim Michael (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a good point. And it's the same exact point that I made above. Versace was murdered. Cunanan was the perpetrator, although never convicted in court. He either died of suicide or was killed by the police ... I forget which. None of that changes the fact that Versace was murdered. Cunanan's death by suicide or by police does not "erase" the fact that Versace was murdered. I gave dozens of similar examples above. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of this, but I think the American justice system should not be used to determine facts about "killing" vs. "murder". The US government doesn't determine our facts stated, or otherwise the Donald Trump article would have a spotless record of conduct... Let's not pretend that Floyd was accidentally killed, while there's video evidence of him being deliberately suffocated for over 8 minutes - I can't breathe. ɱ(talk) 18:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ɱ, that's true but the choices aren't "murder" or "accidental killing". "Murder" specifically means an illegal killing, i.e., an unjustified killing. That definition still fits the GF case in my opinion, but it's not my opinion that matters. "Killing" doesn't just mean "accidental killing", it can also mean "intentional but justified killing". Levivich[dubious – discuss] 18:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's justified or not should not be up to the US, which has an uncharacteristic level of corruption and racism against people of color. The reliable sources don't call it justified murder, even if somehow it may be legal right now. ɱ(talk) 18:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Barr, top legal official in the country, declined to charge the police in Eric Garner's murder. Why? Nobody knows, but he is among the most corrupt and racist in Trump's cabinet. ɱ(talk) 18:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ɱ, that issue can only be solved with RS. If RS overwhelmingly describe an incident as murder, then your concerns about this are handled by COMMONNAME which is king. I hope you are not suggesting that we decide on our own whether it is a murder or a killing. We have no right to do that. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You state: I hope you are not suggesting that we decide on our own whether it is a murder or a killing. We have no right to do that. Exactly. I agree 100%. But, please see this, um, "reasoning". Here: Talk:Killing of Tessa Majors#Requested move 2 June 2020. Where an editor (User:Sceptre) rationalizes / justifies that it's OK for his/her "feelings" to supersede and to trump what RS's say (in a "murder" versus "killing" situation). And then closes the discussion in that vein. I forget his/her exact words ... something about "he/she is not convinced". As if that's the standard. The RS's need to "convince" some random Wikipedia editor. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph A. Spadaro, the current COMMONNAME is "Killing of Tessa Majors" as seen in Google search results. We have not superseded the RS. We followed their lead. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffeeandcrumbs: (1) Who says that that is the "common name"? (2) If so, why was it named "Murder of Tessa Majors" up until yesterday or the day before? (3) If so, why did the first "move" discussion (January 2020) end with "do not move"? Please explain. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Google. (2) We erred. (3) We erred. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. What convenient answers! And, helpful, too! (1), (2), and (3) I was born yesterday. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the American media predominantly relies on the US court system, which is a problem; I don't think they want lawsuits for claiming someone's guilty unless they're proven so. There's an extreme disconnect here that needs to be fixed, and it may need to involve a closer analysis of the evidence beyond the weak, lawsuit-squirmish wording of RSs. ɱ(talk) 19:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ɱ, you are aiming to high. Before we try to tackle the whole prison-industrial complex, I would like to first correct such stupid titles as Shooting of Philando Castile, which seem to imply Castile was just shot and not killed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree, though sure 'killing' is more accurate, even if it is slightly more awkward wording. ɱ(talk) 00:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ:@Levivich: An interesting development on Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks is that justifiability is taken by some users to be the dividing line between "killing" and "shooting"/"death" rather than the dividing line between "killing" and "murder"; some of these users also wrongly believe that it is appropriate for their belief about the shooting of Rayshard Brooks to be reflected in the article's name. But I think the question on the implications of the justifiability of a killing on the naming of an article needs to be resolved, because a resolution to this question could reduce some of the uncertainty around what the name of this article, and many others, should be. --Flejern (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the chart is the best thing we can use. I'm sick of all these discussions in individual talk pages about the title, this needs to be decided here and set in Wikipedia policy. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I think that the chart is a great stepping off point, but it fails to recognize some of the nuances of naming. For example, Death of Adolf Hitler could also be accurately entitled "Suicide of Adolf Hitler". It is my impression, however, that Death of Adolf Hitler carries the correct title, despite not conforming to the flowchart. While I can't exactly place my finger on why I feel this way, it's my feeling that people who are not famous for the specific circumstances surrounding their death probably don't need a title more specific than "Death of...". This is with the exception of extrajudicial killings, which are almost always covered widely as "murder of" or "killing of" such that "death of" would clearly fail WP:COMMONNAME. I do appreciate the WP:COMMONNAME disclaimer, but I still feel like the flowchart is limited even with its inclusion. As for homicides, I believe that "murder case" is probably acceptable as it does not necessarily imply that a specific person committed a murder, only that a murder is being prosecuted. Where a living person has been accused of a murder, Wikipedia should absolutely not be referring to killings as murders until a conviction is secured. On top of the obvious WP:BLP violations not taking these precautions would entail, every murder case would turn a talk page into a courtroom. While I understand the mistrust in criminal justice systems in the U.S. and elsewhere, a user-generated internet website is not going to be a better arbiter of truth. For cases where no one is accused of a crime (unsolved murders) or where those accused are deceased, I think it may be acceptable to review the reliable English-speaking media to decide whether a homicide is best referred to as a killing or as a murder. Mysterymanblue 05:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mysterymanblue, Death of Adolf Hitler is so titled because it is the common name in corpus.[1] Also, the flowchart does not oppose "murder case" as in the O.J. Simpson murder case which is also the COMMONNAME. However, we still need help for cases that do not have COMMONNAME which this flow chart tries to address.
In any case, this is not an RfC, only a call for comments for a future RfC on how that RfC should be structured and what it should ask. There is no need for !votes. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apologies for voting, force of habit. I still feel that even when there is no WP:COMMONNAME, we should not necessarily default to the most specific title. Sometimes the circumstances of the death are not very important. Mysterymanblue 06:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is poorly-placed as this talk page relates to the Wikipedia RM process, not specific naming conventions. This entire discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events). -- Netoholic@ 10:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - possibly with a few changes to address some issues raised here - I think we need a guideline as these article titles are proving to be endless battlegrounds. I agree any homicide resulting in a conviction should be titled "Murder of" and death without conviction a "Killing of" - regarding cases like those of serial killers mentioned above - I've never seen a serial killer case where every victim has their own article anyway. But in those cases we can discuss those, as with cases like Michael Jackson...but in clear cut cases of homicide we should have a clear guideline - at least we won't be debating every single homicide article title. Bacondrum (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, in the case of a manslaughter (not murder) conviction, an article should stay at killing. --Flejern (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Before I realized this discussion existed, I was about to request a move for numerous articles involving the shooting deaths of people at the hands of other people (e.g. Shooting of Michael Brown, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Shooting of Justine Damond, etc., etc.). Now, during my search for articles regarding the topic, I actually noticed something. We have the Shooting of Abdullahi Omar Mohamed and Shooting of Charles Kinsey articles, both of which also involved the shootings of people at the hands of other people...but the victims in question survived. Who knows how many other articles we have out there about people who were shot by others and survived? Therefore, I think it is extremely important for Wikipedia to make a distinction between articles involving people who died as a result of encounters with armed individuals, and articles involving people who survived those same encounters, otherwise it will be extremely misleading. An uneducated, uninformed reader who had just read the Charles Kinsey article could find the Michael Brown article and think he survived until he reads the lede. Even if "killing" doesn't work in the community as a replacement, we really do need to think of a different way to name these articles so the distinction can be illustrated. Love of Corey (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note and Oppose. This discussion was initially advertised as just a collaborative way to "craft a unbiased RfC", not as a discussion of whether the proposal was desirable or not. Previously, when I commented in a way that looked like I might be expressing opposition to the proposal, there was a response saying "Please let us avoid arguing this here. I started this section only to offer an opportunity to all comment on the framing of an RfC." So the discussion of the merits was never really opened. Later, there was no objection when some people started expressing support, but expressions of opposition have not seemed as welcome. I'm wondering whether this is now a discussion of the merits. Are people now allowed to start arguing against the proposal? I see that a couple of people have started to do that. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support flowchart I think the flow chart makes a lot of sense and while nothing is ever 100% full proof, the chart helps resolve many of the inconsistencies in article titles. I would move forward with the chart in a properly formed RfC. --Enos733 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Flowchart looks good, excellent work with it and the COMMONNAME exception. Would also support mass RM. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is too soon to tell right now. It depends on the outcome of the autopsy. Unless RS predominately describe the event as "murder", we should wait for a conviction. However, if the M.E. determines it is homicide, which is possible to do even with skeletal remains, then I think it should be moved Killing of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow. We can move to murder if RS begin to consistently use the term or when there is a conviction. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Murder of ..." in an open case, would be an unacceptable pre-judgement in the WP:Voice of Wikipedia. As above, a formal conviction may not be necessary, as someone may be murdered by an unknown person. I think what is needed is a coronial finding, not a conviction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of killing
A neutrally-worded RFC should present facts about the defintion of the noun killing. Dictionaries including MacMillan and Cambridge define it as an intentional act to kill.[2][3] Merriam-Webster only calls it the act of one that kills.[4]. This can lead to an NPOV issue if readers are misled about any intent involved in a death. Part of editors' confusion might be that other forms of kill do not specifiy intent,[5][6] while the noun can. These would not imply any intent: "He was killed while in police custody." "He was shot by police, killing him". But this could say his death was intentional: "The killing of Floyd prompted protests."—Bagumba (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to read mens rea and actus reus. It is possible to have an "intentional act to kill" without an "intentional act to murder". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't taking a position on one versus another. My point is that a well-prepared RFC should lay out the facts being disputed, inasmuch as possible, for a fair assessment. People often won't read important points in other peoples !votes. Feel free to summarize the main points of the links you presented.—Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
American dictionaries define "killing":
American Heritage: The act or action of causing death, as of a person.
Merriam-Webster: the act of one that kills ("kills" defined as to deprive of life : cause the death of)
Dictionary.com (Random House): the act of a person or thing that kill ("kill" defined as to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.)
For the sake of completeness, the MacMillan link above is for American usage, and it is not consistent with that ENGVAR interpretation: an act in which someone is deliberately killed. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a British company, but it is not publishing that as just a British definition. It says "This is the American English definition of killing. View British English definition of killing." (with a link to a different page). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An example of why one shouldn't purchase an American English dictionary from a British publisher (and vice versa) :-) Levivich[dubious – discuss] 02:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More discussion
We are unlikely, as with many things in WP, to be able to come down to any "one size fits all" solution. "Murder of" can only be used in the clearest cases. In UK (and probably many other places) murder has to be premeditated, whereas manslaughter is still culpable homicide, but without any express intention - the result of gross negligence; an unlawful and dangerous acts; provocation; etc. If the death resulted from the killer acting in self-defence against foo. The article would certainly be "killing of foo", but it would neither be murder not manslaughter. "Death of" will certainly be appropriate, when the cause of death is not clear or in cases of natural death, e.g. when there is a full-length bio-article on a person, but with a separate "main" article on his death. One reason for having death/killing/murder of articles is to deal with the situation of people who were NN except that their deaths became notorious. Which is to be preferred of the alternatives will tend to depend on context. The important thing is not to have multiple articles: there can be multiple names, but any others should be redirects to the single article. As long as that has a name that fits the context, it does not unduly matter which of the alternatives is selected. I would point out that shooting, stabbing, etc do not necessarily imply that the victim died. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffeeandcrumbs: I think the pink advisory box at the bottom is a good improvement. The "Execution of" branch looks out of place to me. "Execution" is not a "manner of death" (unlike homicide, suicide, and natural causes); also, I'm not sure who "decides" that something is or is not an execution, other than reliable sources, in which case it would be COMMONNAME. So I'm not sure if we need execution in a "default flowchart" at all, and I think my first choice would be to remove it. Second choice is to come up with a test other than "manner of death", because I don't think any autopsy will ever report the manner of death to be "execution". Levivich[dubious – discuss] 00:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think an RfC is necessary and will likely lead to more WP:NOCONSENSUS. I think I have convincing evidence in the prepared mass RM that we should move all the pages per WP:CONSISTENCY.
I would like to see if I can get moderate support for starting this RM before causing all disruption that is bound to come from tagging 98 articles with RM discussion notices.
The flowchart may be adopted some day. But, right now, I want to first deal with the most pressing issue: how police killings by firearms have become either an exception or disjointed from the corresponding lists, depending on how you look at it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop. Do not disrupt any article talk page with this. Instead, use a projectspace new dedicated talkpage.
Are you sure that they are are the same? If they can be subcategorized, eg "probably", "surely" and "slam dunk definitely", then do so. It may be all very sensible, but a bulldozer running over a few bystander exceptions will kill your project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked each one to ensure it was correctly categorized. Before I start this, I could do another round of checks to ensure that there is a source cited that they were shot and killed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, I was thinking of doing this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events) but that talk page has very few followers and is very quiet (maybe that is a good thing for this purpose). Am I correct in assuming that, even if I start this RM in project space, RMCD bot will know what to do? Courtesy ping Wbm1058. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know. I think a note there plus the talk page notifications on every talk page would attract more than enough? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Referring back to the #Definition_of_killing thread, "shot dead" does not necessarily mean it's a "killing"— it could depend on which side of the pond your dictionary is from. Now perhaps these victims were all Americans, and you get more American !voters that are ok with "killing" meaning "plain ol' caused a death with no intent implied. Period." My suggestion would be to RM one page as a litmus test, say Breonna Taylor's, and see how that goes before considering a mass.—Bagumba (talk)
The lists use killing but I am open to running more litmus tests. Breonna Taylor would garner the most opposition which makes it the ideal candidate for a litmus test. Maybe then I could run a less controversial one to check the logic. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba:, after see this, I have reconsidered the idea of another litmus test. I am convinced we are arguing in circles and we have done enough tests. One more will not change anything. We cannot tell if their is enough consensus on whether "killing" inherently implies wrongdoing or not, while CONSISTENCY is blocking the way. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs: Well, consensus is rarely unanimous. At any rate, you don't need my (or anyone's) approval to start anything, so take the feedback as you wish. Good luck.—Bagumba (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve no procedural advice here but I think it’s a good idea, perhaps better than the RfC, and will align past errors up. Also makes it easier to have future titles on these issues named correctly. Re. the RM diff, might want to collapse the 3rd list (long scroll). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I generally will agree that "Killing" over "Shooting" is generally better. Taking "how" or the "why" from the titles of these article titles is a means to make them neutral regardsless how much we know factually or post-event to be true. (This would even be for "Murder of Name" when we know the death was pre-meditated) How the person was killed is less important than that the person was killed, so I would support the mass RM here. --Masem (t) 13:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Preferred Name: I would lean toward "Killing of" since it would follow the same format with other mechanisms of police related killings. My opinion here is not strong though.
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.
Locations of RMs
I realize this has probably been discussed before, but I think it is time we set some definitive rules for where RM discussions concerning multiple pages take place. I believe if an RM is made that would swap an article at the base name with a disambiguation page, the RM should be held at the talk page of the base name. See the recent move request at Talk:Yard (disambiguation) for an example. By holding the RM at the disambiguation page, instead of at Talk:Yard, it is in a less trafficked location. In that example, someone might not realize the same move request had been rejected previously at Talk:Yard. -- Calidum 16:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the template is set up in such a way that it's a bit easier to start an RM on the page that at the time occupies the primary title. Ideally, this shouldn't matter: the template can be altered to make it convenient to start the RM at whatever page we decide is best. In the past, there was a preference to have those discussions on the talk page of the content article, as it would generally have more watchers. This is no longer relevant now that RMCD bot places notifications on all pages concerned. If we want to make it easier to notice previous discussions, we can choose either the article page (as it's a bit more likely that previous discussions would have taken place there) or the dab page (it will be much easier for the current discussion to be noticed in the course of future proposals, as it's unlikely there will be much talk page content intervening). However, if we're going to make any rules here at all, it will make more sense to go for what we're after directly (just require proposers to link to previous RMs), than to adopt elaborate indirect guidelines. Personally, I find dab pages to be the more logical choice as the substance of such an RM involves essentially a question of disambiguation that doesn't have much bearing on the topic of the article concerned. – Uanfala (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we wanted all RMs to be placed on the page currently at the base name that would mean all moves involving a DAB where there is a proposal to move to primary topic would then have to be placed on the DAB page then. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New RMs should summarize all previous related RMs, linking them especially if on other pages. This would solve much the problem of people being unaware of a previous discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed last year at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 32#Where to hold discussions involving multiple pages and my point stands that the bot still notifies the article and talk page (and Wikiprojects are still notified). Interestingly the previous RM in 2016 that I didn't notice until you added the old moves was on the article but was malformatted so the DAB page wasn't notified) As noted unlike Isle of Mull/Mull the RM motivation is exclusively to have the DAB page at the base name, the move of the unit away is a consequence of that. While its probably true that more often than not a RM involving a DAB and an article at the base name where the nom is exclusively making the move due to lack of primacy are held on the article's talk, I'm not aware of anyone else questioning when they have been placed on the DAB page's talk. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guidance on repeat RMs and moratoriums between RMs?
Is there any guidance published anywhere on when repeat RMs (a new RM soon after one on same article was closed) are allowed and/or discouraged and under what circumstances? I know informally at least most long term participants seems to think there should be at least 6 months if not a year between RMs, presumably with certain exceptions. But is this published anywhere? If not should it be? If so, where? —В²C☎ 16:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be wary of WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. This does not seem to be a problem in my experience. On the rare occasions when someone has attempted such an RM without good reason, it's usually shut down fairly quickly. Station1 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and that can be problematic. If vague implied rules are actually being enforced documenting them for clear guidance is not creep. —В²C☎ 20:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, maybe WP:CCC is exactly what we're looking for. Station1 (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A repeat with an identical RM to one recently closed after a clear consensus or a very lengthy discussion that stalled should be frowned upon. However a new, different RM taking into account the discussion in the recently closed RM may be good. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between moves and deletions is that deletion is a yes/no choice, while moves may be multiple choice. Sometimes the initial request isn't the best option, and if a better option doesn't surface until late in a discussion it can be hard to pivot to that in the first discussion. In these cases, I think opening a new request for the better option after a short wait can be OK. But yes, frequently reopening requests to move something like Kiev to Kyiv should be considered disruptive. You need to allow sufficient time for consensus to change, lacking an "event" that causes consensus to change "overnight". – wbm1058 (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
XfD is not always binary. RMs are usually “do something” vs “status quo”. Very similar. What is more similar is that banging on repeatedly, not listening to others, becomes disruptive. Also, what I think is important, is that a poor opening statement is the biggest culprit for non-productive discussions. And a good opening statement summarises the previous discussions and why this discussion is different. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Kiev/Kyiv is a good example. The nom points out how RS have recently shifted but much of the opposition seems to miss that. If this closes no consensus again it doesn’t seem right to require waiting another year. But we have no guidance on how to decide. Not to mention that a discussion about a preemptive moratorium has already been closed. Is that legit? Again, no guidance. The case I am thinking about is Parasite (film). I supported that move but I can see a new/better argument made for reversing that move. I would oppose it but I think it deserves to be heard. Yet it would probably be SNOW shut down as “too soon”. I’d like to see guidance that allowed repeat RMs with new/fresh arguments. —В²C☎ 22:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kiev-Kyiv? It’s still open, Talk:Kiev#Requested_move_28_August_2020, no? 1. Don’t come to policy pages to canvass. (People watching policy pages are not representative). If it closes “no” or “no consensus”, note how much wasted effort has been sunk, hugely distracting to productive editing. This title choice hurts no reader. Low quality subsequent move proposals should be banned, and in fact that sort of thing has resulted in blocks before. Wait six months, and even then, a new proposal has to be a better proposal than any preceding proposal. Address the reasons why people weren’t convinced before. Anything less, and you are disrespecting the previous participants. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is canvassing for anything here. This discussion is about whether we should publish guidance on repeat RMs anc moratoriums, not what we think such guidance should say. —В²C☎ 23:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think it's a good idea to have explicit guidelines apart from WP:CCC. If we leave it to people to exercise their common sense, they probably will. And I don't think time elapsed since previous RM is the most relevant factor, it's far more significant how much has changed and what different arguments have been presented this time round. If we told people to start new RMs only after six months, then we will on one hand be adding legimitacy to the practice of starting a new RM every six months until the particular configuration of participants is such that the proposal passes, and on the other hand making it easier for people to shut down new discussions in situations where such new discussions may be warranted. – Uanfala (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with all of that. Telling people to wait a precise amount of time has seen yet another poor RM discussion immediately after that time. Better to say “slow down”. Hasty renomination repeating the same arguments is well agreed to be disruptive. I think insisting that the next RM briefly summarise all previous RMs is a good way to slow down impetuous repeat RMs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I mean. Everyone agrees hasty RMs “repeating the same arguments” is a problem. But what if the new RM is presented with a compelling new argument? By today’s unwritten rules no distinction is made. “Too soon”, period. And the new RM is hatted. Sure, if for most participants their policy-based arguments are just rationalizations of JDLI it doesn’t matter, but I’m not that cynical about us. We can do better. We should do better. —-В²C☎ 05:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the closer of the previous RM. Expect that in the case of repeated contentious RMs, they are not being closed by non-admins. Ask (and answer), why does it need to be "fixed" in the short term? Read WP:TITLECHANGES a few times over. A short explicit statement summarising each of the previous RMs, and another on why this one is different. If the RMs have a history of dominating the talk page, use a subpage. Note that "compelling" means that it compels someone else, not just yourself. Getting a seconder to co-sign will always help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr close review requested
The closer of an MR requested input at an AN here:
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles § RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder?. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48