Talk:2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting

be bold?

why is the suspect's name in boldface? is that normal?

haven't noticed it in other articles. 2601:18A:807C:1C40:D09C:10E6:667F:70F7 (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

what there applies? there is no redirect; it is, rather, being used for emphasis, which your linked guidelines specifically discourage. 2601:18A:807C:1C40:D09C:10E6:667F:70F7 (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Several variations of his name redirect to this page, hence the bolding is appropriate. WWGB (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

oh, an INBOUND redirect! that MOS page should word that better.

that said, the guidelines say "first mention", such as "in the lede".

this hasn't been done here, but rather a later mention way down the bottom. can we correct that? 2601:18A:807C:1C40:D09C:10E6:667F:70F7 (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The redirects land in the Perpetrator section, so that is the appropriate place for the bolding. WWGB (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

not per the MOS, but ok. 2601:18A:807C:1C40:D09C:10E6:667F:70F7 (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hmm? It is per the MOS right now. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I see your issue, you’re missing this passage: … or at the beginning of another section; for example, subtopics treated in their own sections …. In this case, as the perpetrator is unlikely to warrant his own article (WP:BLP1E) we have information about him in this event article. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

no, i saw that, but in context is it not saying when that is the INITIAL reference? i.e. use bold when the redirect term is first mentioned -- usually the lede, but "other section / subtopic" when necessary.

since he IS mentioned in the lede, THAT is where the bold should be applied, no? 2601:18A:807C:1C40:D09C:10E6:667F:70F7 (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T122292

No, both Shane Devon Tamura and Shane Tamura redirect to the Perpetrator section currently, not to the lead. WP:PLA suggests we should make it clear to readers who get to the article via one of those redirects that they've arrived at the correct location. We do that on Wikipedia by emphasizing the name from the redirect. As an aside, when you link to an article to itself from within itself, MediaWiki doesn't generate a link but instead generates an emboldened version of the text. For an example of this, go edit the Cher article, and add the wikitext [[Cher]] to the article, then hit "Preview". You'll note that wherever you inserted [[Cher]] you have Cher instead of the link Cher. It'd be nice if the software could detect an article link to a redirect to itself and do the boldy stuff automatically (it would also be good in case an article is actually created in the future, so then the link would presumably become active automatically) but such magic doesn't yet exist (though I did just find a feature request, so maybe it'll happen someday). :P —Locke Cole • t • c 19:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested semi protection at WP:RFPP since this is now the subject of edit warring and the MOS is clear here. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

dunno if that was directed at me, but i haven't edited ANYTHING.

i have complained -- HERE -- abt the inconsistency of this policy, but have not, at any point, BEEN BOLD and touched the lines in the article. 2601:18A:807C:1C40:214F:837E:6752:BECC (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

so...now that the article has been renamed, "2025 new york city shooting" redirects.

and yet, i don't see "new york city" highlighted anywhere, as everyone insists it must for the (redirected) perp's name. what distinction am i missing here? 2601:18A:807C:1C40:214F:837E:6752:BECC (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

New York City is not a redirect, it's an article. And in the WP:LEAD, Midtown Manhattan is linked, which also links to the larger article in its lead. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

straw men. there is a redirect from the "new york city" version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_New_York_City_shooting&redirect=no

so shouldn't "new york city" be **highlighted** prominently in the target, per all the above? 2601:18A:807C:1C40:214F:837E:6752:BECC (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:RPLA Most (but not all) "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title should be mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to put the redirected term in bold at its first occurrence in the target. This would be an "obvious close variant". Plus "New York City" is mentioned in the lead as I already mentioned. The article title itself is currently bolded in the infobox if that's what you meant. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

fair enuf. "often appropriate" but not always, i guess.

but who decides? if i bolded the first mention of "new york" there, same as tamura, would anyone object? 2601:18A:807C:1C40:6D15:1164:40DB:B216 (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

As bolding is rarely used, but done to aid readers in making sure they're at the correct article, and the lead mentions New York City directly in the first sentence, I can't imagine it being necessary (as the other reason we even have a redirect is because of a page move where the community decided this current name was the better/more correct title to have). As redirects are WP:CHEAP, we don't tend to delete redirects without very very good reasons to. Contrast this against someone coming from Didarul Islam, Wesley LePatner, Shane Devon Tamura or Shane Tamura. Those readers are likely going to be expecting a biography, so it's important to make it easier to scan text for the name they were looking for. If the text "2025 New York City shooting" occurred near the beginning of the article, it would be appropriate to bold that, but just bolding the city name might actually be more confusing. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

RFC: Bolding

Should the names of the perpetrator and victims be in boldface? 14:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

There are two or about that many editors who are bolding names in the accompanying article. Let alone that we should not have a page for the perpetrator and likely for that matter bolding their name. Some media choose to even not publish the perpetrator's name for this incident or others. Efficacity (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note, especially to closer. Efficacity, who opened this RfC, has been indeff blocked as a block-evading sock. The closer should probably take this into consideration when evaluating the consensus. I would personally like to ask, however, that the RfC remain open for the remainder of its course, so that the good-faith comments of other editors can be given due consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Seconded, best to let this run its course at this point, no early closure. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  I agree too. Efficacity's arguments, however, were based mostly on argumentum ad passiones, so I think it would be easy for a closer to ignore those and weigh the arguments actually referencing the P&G. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support bolding perpetrator's name. Oppose bolding victim names, based on a strict reading of MOS:BOLDREDIRECT, which says that names are "commonly" (not "required to be") bolded when the names appear at the beginning of another section; for example, subtopics treated in their own sections or alternative names for the main topic. The perpetrator does have his own dedicated section, so I agree it would be appropriate to boldface his name. However, none of the victim names are subtopics treated in their own sections, nor are they alternative names for any main topic. Not only are these names lumped under the "Victims" section, but they appear scattered through the rest of the article. One victim is mentioned in four other places outside the section, including before the "Victims" section. Another is mentioned twice but not bolded. Not only do the boldface names violate WP:PLA when reading the article without having been redirected to it, but the inconsistency in boldfacing as one reads through the article also violates WP:PLA. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support bolding perpetrator's name, weak oppose bolding victims names, per Anachronist. It's a valid point that with the victims not having specific sections, and also with the "Victims" section not being the first mention, it makes sense to not boldface those. (Note that after some time, usage data will be able to show if people are even using those redirects to access the article.) ButlerBlog (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Bad RfC, close per this comment by ~Anachronist FaviFake (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  I more or less "fixed" the problem with this RFC by inserting a question in boldface at the top. Now it's OK for people to weigh in on the question now that it's clear what this RFC is about. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  Format was addressed with these adjustments by Anachronist and Firefangledfeathers. @Efficacity is a newer user, so the adjustments were made in good faith to move things forward rather than just shut things down. It should be clear now what the RfC is on. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support bolding perpetrator's name, Didarul Islam's name, and weak support bolding Wesley LePatner's name. The perpetrator is standard procedure and consistent with many other articles (see some examples in the previous discussion section below), Shane Devon Tamura and Shane Tamura both redirect to this article. Didarul Islam was an off duty police officer who received signficant coverage in secondary sources and had an article which was redirected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Didarul Islam. Wesley LePatner was the CEO of an organization that operated within the building, and as a CEO is more likely than your typical victim to be searched for by name. The bolded names are all consistent with the direction at MOS:BOLDREDIRECT and keeping the articles readable per WP:PLA and WP:RPLA (Most (but not all) "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title should be mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes.). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  Repeating, universal perception should count for something and it appears that by bolding we're emphasizing (call it giving publicity, status, whatever term fits here). It shouldn't happen.

*:Further, I support a secondary RFC after this one to address other topics which some editors seem to not want to take up. This is not about one simple thing like bolding or not. The other subjects are germane. Efficacity (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC) *::It is highly and inappropriately simplistic to say other articles have bolding. However they probably should have the bolding removed there as well. Efficacity (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Well, it's as I explained above in a prior discussion, I believe the reason MOS:BOLDREDIRECT and WP:RPLA is because it is attempting to duplicate the behavior of MediaWiki when an article links to itself. For example, this link: Talk:2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting; renders as unlinked bold text (because it's linking to the page we are on), where this link: 2025 Midtown Manhattan shooting is an unbolded functioning link (because it's another page). Because these people don't have their own articles, but redirects to articles that discuss them, we try to help our readers by bolding the names the same as the software would if it processed redirects to the source page as it did self-links. It shouldn't happen. It isn't happening. They're not being emphasized because of some celebrity status or because we necessarily like or dislike them, they're being emphasized because readers may be confused why they searched for Special:Search/Didarul Islam, Special:Search/Wesley LePatner or Special:Search/Shane Tamura and wound up here. It's to make the article less confusing for readers. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

*:::You refuse, absolutely will not listen! Inherent in bolding is giving significance, highlighting. You can't be not understanding you are recognizing a perpetrator. Just stop it, cease with the blinders on mentality. Efficacity (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• You may want to give WP:AGF a read. You're ascribing motive and behavior that is simply not there, as I explained clearly above. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Efficacity: As noted by several editors, we generally consider manual of style as well as policies and guidelines (MOS and P&G) when seeking to arrive at consensus. I think everyone here, including Locke Cole, understands what your reasoning is for not bolding. Continuing to restate your position isn't necessary. Let the RfC play out. That's how we arrive at consensus. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  Appeals to emotion like this will not work, since we rely on what the MOS says here. And that MOS says that since the link to the perpetrator redirects to this article, it should be bolded. And remember, Wikipedia is not censored. --GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

*:::::Did it occur to you that we (I, someone else) could remove the link so it would not have a redirect? Efficacity (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Before you do that, I'd recommend reading WP:POINT and consider carefully whether it's worth getting blocked indefinitely. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  So you want to remove links to possible search terms of this article just so the perpetrator and victims won’t be bolded? Ignoring the decision of an AFD for Officer Islam that closed on redirecting his article to this one? I agree, you should read WP:POINT before taking this any further. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 12:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  An editor cannot just "remove the link so it would not have a redirect". Such changes require consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. WWGB (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think he's suggesting that he'd blank the redirect. @Efficacity: you should refer to the law of holes and consider where you're headed here. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  Anyone !voting here should also give MOS:BOLD a read, as in addition to being where MOS:BOLDREDIRECT lives, it gives the very few instances of where bold is allowable according to the Manual of Style. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support bolding perpetrator, Didarul Islam, and Wesley LePatner's names as per MOS. --GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose bolding any of the names, per WP:BLP, which outweighs WP:MOS. Specifically, I oppose bolding the victims per WP:NPF and WP:BDP, and I oppose bolding the perpetrator per WP:BLPCRIME. I get it, that MOS wants us to bold redirect names, but that becomes a lot less useful here, because the names appear lower on the page, so it's not particularly useful to readers as a navigational consideration. Having these names appear in bold font just makes it look to readers like we want to draw attention to the names, and that's inappropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
• Note. I have posted at WP:BLPN: . --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm trying to understand the reasoning based on WP:BLP. Likewise, I don't see how WP:BLPCRIME applies. Can you be more specific as to how you're applying these in this instance? ButlerBlog (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  I assume you are asking because the persons are no longer living. WP:BDP applies: the policy can extend... beyond the date of death... such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  No, actually, that's not what I'm getting at. I completely understand BDP as it relates to BLP. What I'm asking is how does BLP apply in the case of bold text where a redirect with that name lands? I'm not understanding at how you arrive at how BLP and BLPCRIME specifically apply to BOLDREDIRECT? ButlerBlog (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  OK, for me, that's about the issue of using bold font to draw attention to the names. Putting the names in bold tells the reader to "look at this big deal". Part of BLP/BDP is respecting the privacy of non-public figures, and when that is in conflict with BOLDREDIRECT, those privacy concerns are more important. As I said in the pre-fixing part of the discussion, a case can be made that the names should not be included at all. I'm not pushing for that, but there's no good reason why we cannot provide the information as regular text. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, @Tryptofish. I understand your reasoning better now. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  Their names appearing lower in the article is more of a reason to bold, not less. Again, people arriving at these articles via the redirect will be confused about why they are here. Bolding the names makes it easier for our readers to skim the article and find the name that brought them here. I also do not see any BLP concerns whatsoever here. BLP concerns would be relevant with inclusion at all, but we've already decided that through WP:EDITCON. Now it's a presentation matter, which is purely an issue of the Manual of Style. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  MOS:BOLDREDIRECT says only that redirect terms are "commonly" bolded, and specifically doesn't say that bolding is required or even recommended. It's an editorial choice, and I explained above why bolding the victims at makes no sense. Therefore, the arguments in favor boil down to nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT, and the arguments against are actually grounded in policy. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  Whatever. WP:RPLA is more explicit, since you're trotting out ILIKEIT in the face of actual WP:PAG: It will often be appropriate to put the redirected term in bold at its first occurrence in the target. "Often", not "whenever you feel like it", or "whenever the moon hits at the right angle and a squirrel sees its shadow", "Often". —Locke Cole • t • c 20:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with what Anachronist said. The argument that the discussion section above settled something is based on a limited local consensus, which can be reexamined through an RfC. And even "often" is not the same as "must". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  I mean it's in the Manual of Style. It's literally where we decide how the encyclopedia should look. This RFC isn't going to change WP:RPLA or MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  And in this case, the MOS does not offer any prescriptive guidance. It just says what "commonly" or "often" (synonyms) happen. It does not say that the practice is mandatory, required, or even recommended. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  Oh. That's at the top of the page, sorry you missed it: This is the part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style which covers when to format text in articles, such as which text should use boldface or italic type. And then there's WP:MOS: Editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct, and easily understood language. Editors should structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting (which are detailed in this guide). Wiktionary defines often as 1. Frequently; many times on different occasions. So... is there some misunderstanding here around what a "style manual" is or what the dicdef of "often" is? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  Non sequiturs. None of that changes the fact that, as I already said, "often" isn't prescriptive guidance or even a recommendation, it's just a statement about a practice that's permissible for the purpose of enhance readability and comprehension. And, I have already explained why boldfacing the victim names fails at this; you can re-read that. Nothing in MOS suggests that bolding victim's names is necessary for clarity; in fact it does the opposite, which, I'll point out again, I have already explained. Therefore, I don't see anything left but ILIKEIT arguments about misapplying the MOS in a way that does more harm than good. This specific guidance about boldfacing redirects isn't prescriptive, and treating it as prescriptive demonstrates a misunderstanding of what the style guide actually says in its own words. If you want to make this particular guidance more prescriptive, this isn't the venue for it. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  You know, it's funny. I just got done reading the archives at WT:MOSTEXT and WT:MOS. My understanding is absolutely correct, and yours is not. You keep saying what you want, but the truth is you're 100% wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  In this instance you are 100% wrong. If the archives contradict what the MOS actually says in its own words, then the MOS should be corrected to reflect a consensus that it is prescriptive, if such a consensus actually exists. And this is not the venue for that. The MOS is what it is, and that is what we going by, using its own words. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  It's also in BLP, which this RfC isn't going to change, either. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think BLP is relevant here at all (at least in so far as whether or not to apply stylistic choices to text). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I get it, editors disagree, and that's what RfCs are for. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

*::::::::Tryptofish, I made exactly the identical points you did and Locke Cole and Butlerblog still want to hammer their side through. I say no way. Efficacity (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC) *:::::::::Sure, this RFC can change almost any Wikipedia principle because those are ideals and subject TO CHANGE. Efficacity (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

• No, this RFC will not change any sitewide policy or guideline. It is at best a WP:LOCALCON which is only relevant for this article. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

*:::::::::::If I were a RFC closer I would say your statement nullifies any opposition here because you proved my point. You're treating this article differently than every other calamity, natural disaster, castastrophe, and act of God. It's not different and you have made my point incredibly well. You do not fully understand the principles you cite. You do not have the latitude to pick and choose when to apply the MOS. You don't get to say this discussion affects only one article when nearly all talk pages or other noticeboards have the potential to make sweeping and necessary changes. I don't know where you get the authority to say this kind of thing. Encylopedias are not around any more. World Book, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Bottinor, and the rest may have had higher standards than Wikipedia, no matter what you think. The last printed sets of encyclopedias were sold in 2009, 16 years ago. Sales for printed Encyclopedia Brittanica sets went from 120,000 sets sold in 1990 (the best year ever for them) to 40,000 sets only six years later. I guess I would strongly advise you to go find any volume of any encylopedia and see if your dogmatism makes sense. To me you totally won this RFC for me or whoever else (so far one person). I count 6 to 2 or something, maybe 5 to 2. That's not unanimous. If you have this much zeal for things, go write novels which could be turned into movies which more than eight people will see (the total voting populace here). Additionally you hold the MOS out to be like Holy Scripture or the laws of the Medes and Persians (you may have to look that reference up), it's not even followed universally. I think any DDF team (high school) or college forensics team would annihilate, extirpate, and pulverize most of your arguments. I don't say that to infer that you couldn't be a journalist, just merely you misapply almost everything. Efficacity (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Some reading of which you may choose to avail yourself. This link talks about S&W (Strunk and White, The Elements of Style), it references the Associated Press Style and the Chicago Manual of Style in addition to the MLA (Modern Language Assocation) Handbook. Contained on that page are other writing guides you could peruse. Even a source as highly respected as S&W has been critiqued. Wikipedia is not the end all be all. https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/25738/alternative-to-strunk-white

*::::::::::::Another link, https://dl.acm.org/doi/full/10.1145/3625286 talks about Wikipedia, it's usage and quality. Efficacity (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• @Efficacity I just want to acknowledge that I read your personal-attack laced rant many days ago. I would try to help you by pointing out WP:NPA, but given the fact that you've ignored and/or deleted any piece of advice I've tried to give you, I suspect this will be ignored as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Efficacity: I fail to see how my participation qualifies as trying to hammer [my] side through. Focus on content, not the contributor. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

*::::::::::You are the blind trying to lead the blind. While you are able to rattle off 40 to 85 of the Wikipedia guidelines (principles-which you fail to understand are merely guidelines), you have imagined attacks all around you. Maybe you're getting a conscience? Efficacity (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• I'd like to add some further thoughts to my reasoning. It seems to me that this RfC question comes down to how best to reconcile a guideline (MOS, and its subpages) with a policy (BLP). I think that there is no question that MOS and its guidance on bolding redirects are directly applicable here. I also think that editors can, in good faith, have differing opinions on how directly BLP does or does not apply. To the degree that BLP applies, it's a policy that should take precedence over any guideline. Some editors have argued that BLP does not apply at all, in any way whatsoever. That argument is unreasonable. Of course, it applies to some extent, but there is a reasonable debate as to whether it applies strongly enough to override the MOS guideline. I hope that the person who closes this RfC will evaluate the consensus by evaluating whether arguments are policy-based, and also keep WP:NOTAVOTE in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish, imagine that you were asked this question a bit more than "six months, one year, two years at the outside" from now. BDP would explicitly, by its own words, not apply. What would you advise then? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  Interesting question. To whatever degree that BDP would not apply, I guess it wouldn't apply. I try to think about this in terms of why we have a BLP policy in the first place. It's not in order to have rules for the sake of rules. And it's not primarily to shield WMF from liability for libel. It's because we care (or should care) about the effects of our content on real human beings. We don't want to carelessly hurt people, all the more so for non-public figures. Elsewhere, I've argued against limiting content about highly public figures like Trump on the basis of BLP. But here, where we have murder victims and their surviving families who are private citizens, I think it's more important to be sensitive to not putting their loved ones' names in prominent fonts than to treat a formatting guideline as a Rule That Must Be Obeyed. In any case, here, we are within the BDP time frame, and if anyone wants to come back to this issue in two years or so, that's fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support bolding names as per MOS. Frankly this RfC subsequent to the edit-warring by the opener over this seems entirely WP:IDHT-driven clutching at straws at this point. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support bolding the perp's name only in the #Perpetrator section. Oppose bolding the perp's name in the lead because it's unnecessary and gives undue focus to the perp as nothing else in the lead is bolded; also oppose bolding victims' names anywhere in the article as they are non-notable people without Wikipedia articles. Some1 (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, notability isn't a criteria listed at MOS:BOLDREDIRECT or WP:RPLA. WP:NOTEWORTHY already eliminates notability criteria when discussing article content, while WP:NPOV and WP:BALASP support naming them directly, and unless their redirects get deleted at WP:RFD we should follow the MOS and not give WP:UNDUE weight in this stylistic choice to just the assailant. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support bolding names per WP:BOLDREDIRECT. I don't think the victim name redirects should exist, but that's not the discussion here. Nom's argument boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, without any understanding that MOS exists. Celjski Grad (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

  Since Anachronist elected to remove them, I think it's fair to mention the nom replied to @Celjski Grad (prior to Celjski fixing their missing sig) with some colorful commentary. If the existing AN/I topic for this editor hadn't fallen off I'd have gone right back and posted the diff there. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

*::It doesn't matter to me what you would have done, LC. I don't agree with most of what you are representing. There's no reason to not be able to see obvious things I have pointed out to you. Efficacity (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Does this mean we're not friends anymore? You know, Efficacity, if I thought you weren't my friend... I just don't think I could bear it! — (hopefully somebody gets the Tombstone reference) —Locke Cole • t • c 05:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

*::::We don't have to like or "get" the Tombstone reference either. LC, how did you go 20 years on here and not understand simple stuff? Let's pretend that you're making more mistakes than I am. You can't see that you and Butlerblog spend a large amount of your time both on here and trying to get your views across? If said views are based in logic which isn't supported, then? Also Wikipedia has all of these principles. Whoever said (besides the two of you) that they're infallible? Or even adhered to? Efficacity (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• I never said they were infallible, though they are definitely logical in so far as concern for our readers goes. As to adhered to, contrary to what Anachronist may think, the MOS is generally adhered to. Just because the words "must" or "recommended" don't appear immediately with a certain part of the style guide doesn't somehow make it any less a part of the guide than the whole. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

*::::::It is a guide, that should tell you something. Not something to absolutely follow. "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception.” That is one of the five pillars. Going on, ignore all rules is one of the policies on Wikipedia. You can see that if I chose to I could debate you and probably win on any point. Efficacity (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• To invoke WP:IAR you need a reason significantly better than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT (BTW, for anyone thinking this is another redirect to the same page as WP:ILIKEIT, it's actually a much longer essay on the subject). Meanwhile, I've expressed the consistency in formatting concerns and the assistance this provides our readers searching for the named subjects these redirects apply to. All far better reasons to follow MOS:BOLDREDIRECT and WP:RPLA than to ignore them as you suggest. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

*::::::::Higher? Meaning ethically, morally? Those apply. Efficacity (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• WP:NOTCENSORED. Avert your gaze if you are offended, we'll not be determining content based on how offensive or immoral someone thinks it is. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

*::::::::::You really don't get it at all, we're talking about people who are related to those in the article. Efficacity (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• It is merely one point of view that it is wrong to publish the perpetrator's name. American media morals have traditionally gone ahead with publishing them or are still in the middle of debating this: . 174.138.218.72 (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  I will for now, not notice how you edit or why and reply to your statement which to me is 1/2 accurate.

*::::::::::One, we could fill pages about how wrong Wikipedia may be or what people think of right vs. wrong. Two, mentioning a perpetrator is not equivalent (akin) to highlighting, bolding, and such. Three, if you found three links supposedly supporting your views on this RFC or the topic, were I to find 65 that don't, then what? Four, you're talking about American perspectives, what about worldwide? Five, you haven't addressed how the relatives of people mentioned in this article both would like or want things to be or how they feel. Five, you didn't comment on others perspectives here. Also I may add this is not unanimous. There well could be a groundswell of support which just isn't seeing this page. Have already said it's time to make a policy which may cover news without drawing attention to criminals. Kind of simple you'd think. 19:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC) Efficacity (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC) *:::::::::::Simplifying that a tad, we could distill my POV or perspective: I suggest we unbold all of the names, find other ways to cover the news or redirects. Also I'm not against mentioning the name of the perpetrator once. We could make an article or subsection about the executive who lost her life. A new policy could be created for these subjects going forward and even applied retroactively. Efficacity (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• RE: it's time to make a policy which may cover news without drawing attention to criminals. You're welcome to pursue that, but this isn't the venue. Discussing anything outside of to bold or not to bold is outside the scope and won't contribute the outcome of the RfC. It just makes it more work for a closer to go through irrelevant discussion. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

*:Cg, I was giving a couple of users (editors) here some leeway with which I don't even agree. You are assuming things about me, my knowledge of MOS. You're incorrect. Efficacity (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• You're also assuming because I created an account in 2023, that I haven't been an IP editor since 2010. And the entirety of your nomination (which someone else had to step in and formulate) was that the perpetrator's name should not be bolded, without giving any policy or formatting reason except for "avoid[ing] publicizing the perpetrator". Celjski Grad (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support bolding in accordance with the project-wide guideline MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. WWGB (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

*:WWGB shows up, well, well. That's Wrong way go back. I think you were kind of summoned here. Goes to show you that you can't even get people to look at a RFC, usually. The site doesn't allow me or others to recruit opinions so we're left with a small number of people who agree because they have been here for such a long time. That's hardly how it should be. Efficacity (talk) 06:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• If you had bothered to check the history of this talk page, you would have discovered that I first supported bolding redirects way back on 29 July. That's more than 3 weeks before you entered the discussion. WWGB (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support bolding per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. Just WP:RfD any inappropriately bolded ones. 174.138.218.72 (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment This RfC has been open over a week and we haven't had a new !vote in nearly a week. At this point, by my read, there is pretty solid consensus to bold the perpetrator, Didarul Islam, and Wesley LePatner per WP:BOLDREDIRECT. There seems to be enough input that we do not need to extend discussion. Per WP:RFCCLOSE, if consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Are there participants that feel we need an uninvolved closer? ButlerBlog (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  It's traditional for RfCs to stay open for a month, so I object to an early close. I also want an uninvolved closer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  There is no minimum or maximum period. However, I don't object to it staying open longer, nor do I object to requesting an uninvolved closer. ButlerBlog (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish Other than some personal attacks, I don't see the point in keeping this open for a full month if activity has slowed down significantly. I think minimally we should leave it open two weeks from the last !vote, or 30 days, whichever comes first. If no other !vote occurs by September 5th (which is two weeks after the last !vote) we should put in a closure request at WP:CR. They're typically backlogged anyways, so it could even take till the 30th day for a closure to occur. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC) (striking due to updated closure comment at top of RFC —Locke Cole • t • c 20:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC))

  I'm fine with using the CR process to get an uninvolved closer. To repeat: I object to an early close. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose bolding any of the names. It seems unnecessary. ~ HAL333 03:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

*:Agree, Hal333, I opened a discussion on a MOS board which should put this into effect. That there be no bolding. Referencing someone's name who is a criminal should be limited if done at all. Efficacity (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• Do you have something based on MOS or P&G to support that as unnecessary? Or just personal opinion? ButlerBlog (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. MOS:BOLD explicitly says, “This is not a requirement”, so editors insisting that MOS requires bolding in this instance are plainly wrong. WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME require that we treat discussion of criminal suspects with a high degree of sensitivity, and presume innocence until proven guilty; bolding the accused represents a stark lack of sensitivity, and is therefore a clear violation of WP:BLP.

Edit to add: perpetrator is dead, so I guess BLP doesn’t apply directly, but the spirit of treating such topics with high sensitivity should still apply. Is there any direct guidance for perpetrators who are no longer living (and therefore will presumably never end up being convicted of a crime)? Stonkaments (talk) 06:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

MOS:BOLD explicitly says, “This is not a requirement” For article title terms, indeed it does say that. For MOS:BOLDREDIRECT, it does not say that.

As to your question, WP:BLPCRIME is currently silent on the situation, WP:BDP could be used with editorial consensus to extend BLP protection for up to two years. However, there doesn't appear to be any controversy with our sources in stating who the perpetrator was. If our sources were conflicted, or there were some documented controversy that was WP:DUE, I could see invoking that until new sources with a more definitive answer are available. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I would add that BLPCRIME is concerned with whether someone is or is not considered guilty. BOLDREDIRECT is simply concerned with whether a redirected term is bolded. It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, simply that the term (name) is a redirected term found in the lead or section of the article. They are unrelated and trying to conflate the two is pulling something into BLPCRIME that is not implied by this guideline. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The relevant section of WP:BOLD reads: Boldface is often applied to the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not (see § Other uses, below). This is not a requirement.... "This is not a requirement" clearly refers to redirects as well as the article's title terms. Stonkaments (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

That is speaking of synonyms, which is not what is being discussed here. MOS:BOLDREDIRECT is being discussed here. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:10, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose bold for perp. MOS:BOLDREDIRECT – says terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded, not that it is required. And when you type in Shane Devon Tamura in the search box, it takes you straight to the Perpetrator section, which obviously indicates our readers have arrived at the correct destination, and sure enough, there is the perps name right there in the first sentence. So I don't see any compelling reason to emphasize the perps name with boldface. Also oppose bold for victims names. Isaidnoway (talk)

  And when you type in Shane Devon Tamura in the search box, it takes you straight to the Perpetrator section, and if you scroll back up, you'll see a note saying you were redirected from Shane Devon Tamura. That is why we bold, because when people search (or come here by way of a link to a redirect) they often wonder why/how they arrived here. Also note that in the Wikipedia app, searching for Shane Devon Tamura does not take you to the Perpetrator section. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  The redirect notice isn't a valid reason to bold. And a guideline shouldn't be applied as a band-aid for a bug in the app. The app should be fixed instead. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  The redirect notice isn't a valid reason to bold. Correct, the reason to bold is because the MOS says we should in MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. I know you really really wish it was permissive, but until someone moves the MOS to Wikipedia:Manual of Style you can follow if you want but you don't really have to, it's in the MOS. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yes - you can follow if you want but don't really have to is exactly right, there are hundreds of articles that ignore the guidelines at MOS. So, until someone moves MOS to Wikipedia:Manual of Style you are absolutely required to follow; we will continue to rely on consensus, which is policy, for editorial judgments, like the one being discussed here in this RfC. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  I understand that it's not a strict rule, but these are not binary options. There are points in between, and I'd argue that commonly leans more towards "do this unless you have a good reason not to". Consensus is policy, but the reason we formalize styles in the MOS is precisely to avoid re-litigating the issue over and over. See WP:LOCALCON. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  The MOS absolutely doesn't "say we should in MOS:BOLDREDIRECT". It just says what is commonly done, without saying we should, without making a recommendation, without mandating anything. It just says the practice is common, meaning it's OK if you do it. That's completely different from "should", which is prescriptive. You're reading in meanings that aren't in the actual words, and if you want to change the actual words to agree with your understanding, this isn't the venue for it, as you well know. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  And you're ignoring implied deference from being in something literally titled as a manual. As I said in reply to Isaidnoway, I confess it is not binary, there are points inbetween, but pretending this isn't the guidance of the community is not going to help move things along. Again, WP:LOCALCON exists. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Nah, no one is wondering why/how they arrived at this article. Why would they be searching for Tamura in the first place, it's not like he is notable for anything else, and the same logic applies to the app as well - you have arrived at your destination, where you can read about the perp. And if there does happen to be another Shane Devon Tamura walking around out there in this big world, still living and breathing, and a reader is redirected to this article, welp, they'll figure it out pretty quickly - you have not arrived at your destination. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

*::Yes, we live in a mythical world where everyone is confused, apparently. They don't know their own names or which articles they are reading. Efficacity (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support bolding the perpetrator's name in the "Perpetrator" section per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT and the arguments by Anachronist, ButlerBlog, and Some1 above. No support for bolding the victims' names, as there were several and there seems to be no strong reason to so do. Gawaon (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'd argue that consistency is a good reason. And for folks who don't understand the bolding, it might seem like we're favoring the killer over the victims. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  Consistency might suggest that, if we bold the perpetrator's name in the "Perpetrator" section, we should also bold the victims' names in the "Victims" section. I could get on board with that. Gawaon (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  They would be, per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. Celjski Grad (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. New here, but strikes me as a privacy issue possibly for the victim's families and also the perpetrator's family.

Xkeylimepie (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

"Manhattan shooting" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Manhattan shooting 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 August 24 § Manhattan shooting until a consensus is reached. 65.93.183.181 (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)