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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ecuador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ecuador 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.EcuadorWikipedia:WikiProject EcuadorTemplate:WikiProject EcuadorEcuador articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Latest comment: 7 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Do we want to try to enforce some content policies on the reactions section so it doesn't get too cluttered with unimportant statements? I tried removing all reactions cited to WP:PRIMARY sources in order to bring the section in line with WP:DUE but was reverted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@189.217.192.251 please discuss here before again adding such reactions. a lot of officials are going to say a lot of things. we should not be cluttering the entry with it. when officials DO things, we can evaluate and add as necessary. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
In a meeting the Venezuelan president has recently announced the closure of its embassy in ecuador is this notable to include in the reactions section? Mochatbh (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Do we include "Supported by: Nicaragua" in the infobox? I understand they broke ties with Ecuador in solidarity with Mexico, but Nicaraguan forces weren't in the raid itself. - MateoFrayo (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
This would have been less awkward if the word belligerents wasn’t in the infobox. Support a previous rev referring to them as parties. Borgenland (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
And "Commanders and leaders" reads as too military for this context; I tried putting the presidents under "parties involved", see if that survives community scrutiny. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Units involved" jars. Maybe it'd be better to ignore that parameter in the infobox (and, in any case, the Ecuadorian national police is probably in the back seat compared to the Ecuadorian foreign ministry in terms of involvement). Moscow Mule (talk)
Latest comment: 6 months ago18 comments9 people in discussion
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.
Comment The year is not necessary which I support removing, but while the embassy is in Quito, the embassy is representative to the country as whole, not the city or just the city. For embassy and consulate article titles they have the city location, but this is not an embassy article rather an event pertaining to the diplomatic office. So it should be titled either Ecuadorian raid on the Mexican embassy or Raid on the Mexican embassy in Ecuador. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support. I didn't want to get involved in the move war during the first days of this article's existence, but I was happier with the various "Mexican embassy in Quito" formulations rather than the present "Mexican embassy in Ecuador". On the grounds of "embassy to Ecuador" vs. "embassy in Quito", which is the usage I'd instinctively follow. And the precedents Howardcorn33 gives are compelling. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am certain that every history article on Wikipedia covers a "historically significant" event. If it was historically insignificant then there would be no reason to include it as an article. As it stands, an Ecuadorian raid on a Mexican embassy is unprecedented, so including a year in this case provides no disambiguation. WP:CONSISTENT (assuming that is the intended article which is linked in your message) compels us to follow the precedent of the titles of articles covering attacks on diplomatic missions perpetrated by sovereign states, i.e. that the title needs to remain consistent with both the titles of United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The latter article has already been through an extensive RM discussion which has set the precedent for the titling format which shall be applied for attacks on diplomatic missions perpetrated by sovereign states. Finally, the titles you have presented as example do not follow this precedent as they all concern attacks on embassies which have been perpetrated by non-state actors (such as Romanian émigrés, unnamed Gabonese bombers, or Croatian militant separatists) whereas the precedent which I have described only concerns those attacks perpetrated by sovereign states. ―Howard • 🌽3319:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't see how "United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade" is "very obviously" the exception. What makes this specific event so much more "significant" than any other attack on embassy article? What does it mean for an event to "maintain historicity"? WP:N states that all Wikipedia articles must cover a subject which is notable, otherwise it is to be deleted, and I don't see any meaningful difference between "significant" and notable.
In that case, I feel like a wider standard should be implemented for the titling of these articles. This isn't a format we can decide separately on three different articles. ―Howard • 🌽3311:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. WP:NCWWW indicates article titles for events should contain "When", "Where" and "What" in the title. Titles should also be concise without being overly precise. Adding "Who" to the title seems superfluous and pedantic to me, and would only be justified if other naming criteria and article sources clearly supported the longer name as the most recognizable one. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment. I do not see the the need for an RFC for renaming the other articles. What I see is that those titles are more recognizable common name used by sources. These names use a format of "Who", "What", and "Where", omitting the year or the "When" aspect of the title. As such, the names deviate from the normal way of naming events, but that is because the names are based on those used in sources, or by consensus by the editing community for individual articles. I see no reason to disturb the consensus that has been reached in particular cases for the sake of consistency. There are 5 criteria and consistent naming is only one of them. Having some diversity in naming is like throwing out the rules for those particular cases, because the naming is more appropriate. The intent of these guidelines is to come up with succinct and recognizable titles that summarize the article subject for readers. The guidelines need to be tempered by common sense, and my objection to the proposed move is that it is more verbose and complex than necessary, which makes it harder for the reader to understand. Wikipedia should provide useful articles for readers that they can understand readily. Good titles assist with this aim. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
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.
