Jump to content

Talk:Brighton hotel bombing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Name[edit]

The common name for the event in virtually every source available is the Brighton bomb. Why, Elli, did hou ignore WP:COMMONNAME when you reverted my page move? - SchroCat (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat someone requested to revert the move. I don't have any opinion on the underlying dispute and suggest you open an RM. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elli, So you just did it without looking or considering? Did you do any checking first? - SchroCat (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: again, I did not do this with an opinion on the underlying dispute. Harrz is the one who requested the revert, so I would suggest discussing this with them, ideally as an RM. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no checking, no thought. I get it. - SchroCat (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 June 2024[edit]

Brighton hotel bombingBrighton bomb – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Sources overwhelmingly use the name ‘the Brighton bomb’ to deal with this event. While there is some use of ‘Brighton hotel bombing’, these are much less common. Support the move, of course. - SchroCat (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. No they don't. They often call it the Brighton bombing, but not the Brighton bomb. The current title is fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do, actually. While some sources call it the Brighton hotel bombing (as I’ve already said), the weight of sources is ‘Brighton bomb’. As I'm rewriting the article at the moment, I’m quite familiar with the sources. If you really don't believe me:
It's clear on book refs too:
COMMONNAME really is quite clear... - SchroCat (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - regardless of whether 'Brighton bomb' is the common name or not, a common name isn't the only criteria to decide on a title. Per WP:CRITERIA, a good title has five characteristics:
  1. Recognisability - 'Brighton hotel bombing' is definitely more recognisable and easy to understand than simply 'Brighton bomb', which is quite ambiguous.
  2. Naturalness - It is more common for titles about bombings to be titled as such, rather than just 'bomb' which sounds awfully unnatural.
  3. Precision - As said before, there is no ambiguity about 'Brighton hotel bombing', however there is for just 'Brighton bomb'.
  4. Concision - 'Brighton bomb' is too short to adequately identify the subject.
  5. Consistency - 'Brighton hotel bombing' is more consistent with other articles than 'Brighton bomb' - see WP:NCE.
In conclusion, 'Brighton bomb' is just an unnatural name and there is no need to alter the current title. harrz talk 20:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Recognisability: being the common name by a long stretch, it's much more recognisable by default. There is nothing ambiguous about "Brighton bomb", which is why so many sources use it.
  2. Naturalness - Given so many sources use "Brighton bomb", it sounds more natural to me - "Brighton hotel bombing" sounds unnatural and forced to me. This point is down to personal choice, so it's a bit of De gustibus and all that
  3. Precision: The title "Brighton bomb" is precise enough, without the unnecessary clutter of the superfluous noun
  4. Concision - "Brighton bomb" is much more concise and is obviously sufficient to identify the topic, particularly given most sources use it as the COMMONNAME without any problems
  5. Consistency - There’s no consistency in the naming approach at the moment. Category:Hotel bombings in Europe, for example, shows no common pattern that would support ‘Brighton Hotel bombing’.
In conclusion, 'Brighton bomb' is just a natural name, one used by the great weight of sources, making it the superior title and, of course, it's still the WP:COMMONNAME and aligns with WP:NCWWW (and WP:NOYEAR). - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Category:Provisional IRA bombings in England which clearly shows the pattern for consistency. harrz talk 07:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that even cherry picking categories doesn't show consistency, given the differing formats in this cat. Looking through the naming of events covered in the category Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in the 1980s, again there is no consistency (Harrods bombing, Iranian Embassy siege, Altnaveigh landmine attack, Darkley killings, 1985 Newry mortar attack, Remembrance Day bombing, etc all show a wide range of formats). So of the five criteria, "Brighton bomb" is still ahead in all areas. Given there's no consistency, and given the lack of grounds on the other criteria, COMMONNAME is a particularly strong and relevant guideline. - SchroCat (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I've had a good rummage in the online archives and it is clear to me that "the Brighton bomb" has been the usual way of referring to the atrocity. The term "Brighton hotel bombing" is much less to be found in newspaper reports at the time and since. I can imagine that as we get further and further away from the event the term "the Brighton hotel bombing" may in due course become more usual than "the Brighton bomb", but in this year of grace 2024 the latter is, I'm sure, the norm. I concur with SchroCat, above. Tim riley talk 21:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The sources generally use "Brighton bomb" to refer to the event, and so should we. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per WP:COMMONNAME as it is more common in the sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ngrams. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]