WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography 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
WikiProject icon 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
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays 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.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
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.
Support: When I was a small child, I came across biscuits with the word "NICE" on them. I thought that this meant that they were nice biscuits due to my lack of knowledge of the French Riviera at that time. The proposed article name change might help to address this ambiguity.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)07:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:I also as a child made ianmacm's 'biscuit error', but that is what it is isn't it? - A childish misunderstanding that fails to have yet learnt the difference between Nice and nice. The implication of making the change here would be that any article capable of such a 'misreading', would also need to be changed. Nice tramway, Nice model, OGC Nice and how about the city itself? Why is that not ambiguous? Pincrete (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not proper form, and I find it hard to believe anyone familiar with Wikipedia would seriously assume it would describe a truck attack as "nice" in the title of an article. The fact that the N is capitalized and it comes after a year indicates to me that any potential confusion is overstated. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2019 (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.
IP 131.251.10.14, Regarding this edit, if one says that on a certain date, a certain thing occurred, which killed n people, of course it implies that they were killed on the 'certain date', rather than over a period, simply as a result of what happened on the 'certain date'. Of course the key issue is that n people died, when and how they did is relevant, but not crucial information, so a footnote is preferable to elucidating in text, but the clarification benefits the article. I'm not sure what your objection to footnotes is, they are often used for exactly this 'clarifying' purpose.
WP:BRD makes clear that when your change has been challenged, as it has several times, you take the issue to talk, not edit-war. If we - and other editors - can't agree, there are mechanisms. Please make your case here, not edit war. Pincrete (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP 2a00:23c8:d30d:7c00:91ca:5895:ec4c:f740 again the same argument as above. Your edit reason ("resulting in the deaths of" and "killing" are synonymous. ...) is just wrong for reasons given above. They were not all killed on the date we say this happened, but did die as a result of injuries on that day. YOU may find the distinction irrelevant, the people who wrote this article did not and that wording has been in place for a very long time. The WP:ONUS is on YOU to get a consensus for change, not to edit war your own (cruder IMO) version of events, hoping the body of the article will remedy the error. The footnote is being used for a simple clarification and does not in any way impede the text flow.Pincrete (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth having the footnote stating that 84 people died on the day of the attack and two died later. This is commonplace nowadays and the article should not give the impression that all of the 86 died immediately.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)07:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
