Talk:2016 Nice truck attack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 23 December 2019

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

A Nice biscuit

2016 Nice truck attack → 2016 truck attack in Nice – As the two above posts say, the current title is like a garden-path sentence that causes a strange ambiguity at first. This move would add clarity, at the cost of no longer being WP:CONSISTENT with similar articles. – Thjarkur (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per nom and the two previous sections. Good reason for an exception in this case. Station1 (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose. Stick to convention. What would a "nice truck attack" be, in any case? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Oppose per Pincrete. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose If you cannot understand that "Nice" is a place, that's your own problem, not the encyclopedia's.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Zxcvbnm, who makes the point perfectly. -- Veggies (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
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.

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)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI