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) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 19 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]
  • Support An examination of articles and works on the subject supports the WP:COMMONNAME argument. ~ HAL333 23:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the article is about the event, not the explosive. But there is a reasonable argument that "Brighton bomb" is a set-phrase that should be in the title of the article about this event. What about "IRA Brighton bomb attack"? Walsh90210 (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As opposed to who else’s bomb? And what else is a bomb but an attack? "IRA Brighton bomb attack" isn’t a name used by anyone (possibly a description, but not a title). Two of the six documentaries are actually called “The Brighton Bomb”. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move to simply "...bomb". A perusal of Category:Provisional IRA bombings in London and similar categories shows the consistent title format would be "...bombing", so would support a move to Brighton bombing, which is equally common as "Brighton bomb". The guidance at WP:CRITERIA specifically states "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles", the vast majority of articles on IRA bombings use "...bombing" not "...bomb". Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in the 1980s, shows no consistency (Harrods bombing, Iranian Embassy siege, Altnaveigh landmine attack, Darkley killings, 1985 Newry mortar attack, Remembrance Day bombing). CRITERIA has several criteria (discussed above), and while both bomb and bombing fit all the criteria, Brighton Bomb is one more commonly used in the reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that that Iranian Embassy siege was a hostage taking by gunmen, and the Darkley killings was a gun attack, it's hardly surprising that neither of the articles you are using as examples of supposed inconsistency in naming actually ends with "...bombing", since neither of them were bombings! Kathleen's bike (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: There is a rough consensus that "Brighton bomb" is the common name, but editors are concerned by WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Relisting to get additional input, as well as to consider the alternative title "Brighton bombing". BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bombing is a more natural title and omitting the hotel part also works against the proposal. Killuminator (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the move to "Brighton Bomb", as per the sources, COMMONNAME, and WP:CRITERIA. CassiantoTalk 18:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Brighton bomb" is just too vague and non-specific; "Brighton hotel bombing" carries exponentially more meaning, one immediately knows the event that is being referred to (rather than some other bomb in Brighton, historical ordnance found on the beach say, or maybe a local drag act?). Even if the reader is unfamiliar with the event, the title conveys that there was an explosion which the other does not. There is no gain only loss in changing the title, keep "Brighton hotel bombing". Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Vague and non-specific"? "Brighton bomb" is the flaming COMMONNAME for the specific event, referred to in countless reliable sources and used as the title of two of the six documentaries and as the sub-title of one of the books about it. "Local drag act"? What bloody nonsense, this vote shows zero grasp of the WP:CRITERIA or of the subject matter and the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]