Footnote in the lead detailing deaths
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)
- 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)
- 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)
"2016Nicetruckattack" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect 2016Nicetruckattack has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 14 § korzoix title case or unspaced redirects (wow) until a consensus is reached. consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Title??
I'm confused about the title. Why would everyone say this horrific truck attack was "nice"? ~2026-12569-43 (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
- @~2026-12569-43 it's the name of the city the attack occurred in EvergreenFir (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Requested move 27 June 2026
2016 Nice truck attack → 2016 Bastille Day truck attack2016 Bastille Day truck attack – I propose moving this article to “2016 Bastille Day truck attack” because many readers have misunderstood the current title and thought the word “Nice” was being used as the English adjective rather than referring to the French city. The proposed title would reduce the confusion by making the context clearer while still accurately describing the event and preserving key details such as the year, the nature of the attack, and its association with Bastille Day. PlainWikiUser1 (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Because "Nice" is capitalized, anyone confusing it would have to not know English enough to understand the difference between an adjective and a proper noun. Even if they somehow got up in arms about such a seemingly nonsensical sequence of words, a simple read of the first sentence would alleviate their concerns. Since this is such an unlikely problem, a move is not necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:28, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but I don’t think “Nice” being capitalized in the title completely prevents confusion. Even though “Nice” is capitalized, some readers still interpret it as the adjective, especially those who are unfamiliar with the French city. Since “nice” is a very common English word and this article is in English, it’s natural for some people to read it that way. In fact, only three months ago, someone posted on this article’s talk page asking why the title was calling the attack “nice.” This just shows that the misunderstanding does happen. PlainWikiUser1 (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per zxcvbnm and similar rationale in the previous RM. The title also fails WP:COMMONNAME. The proposed title is a valid redirect though. Raskuly 🐰 03:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose aside from the rationale of Zxcvbnm and COMMONNAME considerations, the proposal fails by its own logic which asks us to picture readers who know so little about France that they have never realised there is a French city called 'Nice' (even if they don't know where exactly it is or how the name is pronounced), but who nonetheless know enough about France to know what Bastille Day is!
This is such an unlikely problem, a move is not necessary
or even beneficial.Pincrete (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2026 (UTC)- Well people are much less likely to get confused when they see “Bastille Day” in the title than when they see the word “Nice,” since “Nice” is a common English adjective that can be easily misread. This has already happened on the talk page, where someone genuinely thought the title was calling the attack “nice.” PlainWikiUser1 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Curious... You seem to think that encyclopedia article titles should be adjusted for those readers who don't know that Foo is a city in Bar or any of countless other things some people don't know? What is it that makes you think that readers who don't know about the French city of Nice, or how to pronounce it "neese" instead of "nice", WILL know what and where Bastille Day is? One is just as good or as bad as the other to those readers who are not well-versed about matters which pertain to France, don't you think? The job of an encyclopedia is to inform its readers, and I think this article does that nicely (pun intended) up front in the lead with a link to Nice in the very first sentence. I actually think that this title is a very good "eye catcher" that entices and seduces readers to find out more. Please forgive my curiosity – I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 14:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Well people are much less likely to get confused when they see “Bastille Day” in the title than when they see the word “Nice,” since “Nice” is a common English adjective that can be easily misread. This has already happened on the talk page, where someone genuinely thought the title was calling the attack “nice.” PlainWikiUser1 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose: Not an improvement for the reasons given above.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: It's perfectly normal to have the place name in the title per MOS:PRECISION. We can't help it if someone doesn't know where Nice is, or what Bastille Day is, or thinks that Nice is pronounced the same way as the English word nice. This was looked at and rejected in the last move discussion. Also, Bastille Day truck attack gives the impression that 14 July was chosen because of the date. It probably was because the attacker knew that there would be large crowds on that day, but it wasn't the specific motive for the attack.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)