Talk:2016 Citronelle homicides

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Alabama

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New title makes no sense

There wasn't a single "homicide"... Beejsterb (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a WP:BLPCRIME violation to call this a murder when the suspect has not been found guilty in a court of law yet. Besides, there is a similarly titled article in Wikipedia, under the same subject, no less. Parsley Man (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit disingenuous, since you renamed it yourself that same day. ansh 666 02:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming article

@Kristijh: Please discuss a possible rename for the article here before actually commencing with said rename. Both times you've done it were both unexpected and unwarranted. Parsley Man (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the ungrammatical second comma should be removed. Deli nk (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 September 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per nom. Amakuru and Cuchullain provided decisive arguments: per WP:USPLACE and practice, state name in this position is redundant and often perceived as awkward; disambiguation is not needed. No such user (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Same issue for both: ~~the strange, ungrammatical second comma~~ the unneeded state disambiguation, and the fact that they're both mass killings. I'm open to another descriptor than "homicides", but I think it's probably the best compromise. ansh 666 02:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly formatted pings: @Parsley Man:, who renamed both to include either the state or second comma, and @Kristijh, Deli nk, and Beejsterb: who also commented on the talk page. ansh 666 02:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the proposed move, but the proposer is egregiously incorrect in his description of the following comma as "ungrammatical". In fact, the following comma is required by all major style guides, and indeed our own MoS at MOS:COMMA. RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, RGloucester, and I've never agreed with you on this I don't think. Putting double commas in an article title is awkward and should be avoided. This is not running text, and different rules apply. One comma would be better than two, but none at all is the best option. — Amakuru (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no room for disagreement on this matter. The rules of English orthography, the MoS, and external style guides are all clear. If they are not suitable to your taste, try a different language. RGloucester — ☎ 14:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the case, the RM at Talk:Rochester metropolitan area, New York would never have been closed as "no consensus", and we wouldn't have had the enormous long debate at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2014/February. Clearly plenty of people disagree with you, and there are also plenty of instances of it not being applied the way you say. Your point of view is valid, and so is mine, which is why it's best to find ways to avoid the comma issue altogether. — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that commas should be avoided when possible. This is something that MOS:COMMA suggests. However, it is impossible to allow for "Citronelle, Alabama homicide", as this is a violation of the rules of English orthography, all style guides, the MoS, &c. I made no comment on whether the state name should be dropped here. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't. However, if the state is to remain, the comma must do so as well. People who don't know what they are talking about can fill endless pages with meaningless words that have no backing behind them, but that doesn't change the fact that RS are crystal clear on this matter. RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, thanks for pointing that out, I didn't know that; I was just following what another person said above. However, having the state in the title (which is why the commas are there) is unneeded disambiguation, so it's really a moot point here. ansh 666 03:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support pluralization, oppose dropping the state names - these were, in fact, each more than a songle homicide. We should keep the state names, to match the names of the articles about the locations where they took place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We only have one Citronelle on Wikipedia, and no articles about killings in any other South Valley (of which there are three) - are the states needed? ansh666 18:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - But there were no doubt similar killings in Citronelle and South Valley, they just didn't receive the coverage and notability as these incidents. We should keep the state names for clarification. Parsley Man (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dropping state names - Per Od Mishehu. Don't care about the pluralization either way. Parsley Man (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support both, as nominated. WP:USPLACE suggests using state names for the articles on the actual localities, but it doesn't normally imply they should be used in any other article title. The double commas is also an awkward construct, which we try to avoid where possible. See, for example, Ferguson unrest (not Ferguson, Missouri, unrest); 2012 Aurora shooting (not 2012 Aurora, Colorado, shooting); Sacramento metropolitan area (not Sacramento, California, metropolitan area). Dropping the state names is the correct thing to do here, despite the two opposes above, and pluralizing also seems sensible. — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominated, per Amakuru. Removing the states are more WP:CONCISE and WP:NATURAL without being any less WP:PRECISE (there are no other articles on murders in other Citronelles or South Valleys. As noted, articles on similar subjects generally exclude the state, and there's no pressing policy reason to keep it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:26, 4 October 2016 (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.

Removal of year

(cur | prev) 12:08, 11 October 2017‎ Surtsicna (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,958 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Surtsicna moved page 2016 Citronelle homicides to Citronelle homicides: Per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. The unnecessary disambiguation suggests there have been (or will be) more such events.) (undo | thank)

Reverted This one was from 2011 http://blog.al.com/live/2011/12/citronelle_slaying_man_accused.html In ictu oculi (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 September 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, therefore, not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citronelle homicides → Citronelle murders – Back on September 11 of this year, I updated this article to reflect that Derrick Dearman had plead guilty in the killings (see here), citing this, this, this and this as sources for that claim. Apparently, he has also been found guilty in the killings as well (at least according to al.com). As Derrick Dearman has both plead guilty and been found guilty in the killings, I think this article should be moved to Citronelle murders. Heart of Destruction (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). -- Alex^TW 08:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

retain 2016 I have reverted an undiscussed move in the interim which deleted the year, without checking newspapers, evidently In ictu oculi (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2018 (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.

Another proposed title

Why not call this article "2016 Citronelle, Alabama mass shooting" or "[date and place...] mass killing"? The fact of the mass killing is referred to several times in sources and it is classified as a "mass shooting" in the infobox. This descriptive title is not dependent on the outcome of the prosecution or trial.Parkwells (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]