Talk:2006 New Bedford gay bar shooting and manhunt

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: moved. Per WP:BARTENDER, moving the article to the 2006 option as that garnered the most support. Consensus against the current name. (closed by non-admin page mover) In solidarity, Iseult ^Δx talk to me 07:40, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Jacob D. Robida → 2006 New Bedford gay bar shooting and manhunt – This is a WP:BIO1E and WP:CRIME violation, so we have to either move it or send it to AfD (it seems to be notable... not that the sources in the article help, but there are some good academic ones if you search). Manhunt or some other event needs to be included because the two people he killed were while he was on the run in other states, not in New Bedford. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 10:41, 26 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 19:09, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose year, fine with a move to New Bedford gay bar shooting and manhunt. Per WP:NOYEAR, the event can easily be described without the year and adding a year when it isn't needed for disambiguation nor an intrinsic part of the event like 2026 East Surrey Council election per WP:PRECISION and User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation is not helpful and suggests there was another shooting in a different year. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  I oppose moving whatsoever without the year.

  Per WP:NCE, events include the year by default and are only not included if they are especially well known, as it is important for WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. That essay is wrong.

  Scheduled events like 2026 East Surrey Council election are not covered by WP:NCE, but by a different guideline. Why would you mention that? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  No the year is completely unnecessary and wrongly implies that there was another in a different year, why have titles that imply something false? WP:NOYEAR says "Some articles do not need a year when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it.". Scheduled events would be examples of events that do nead the year because they can't normally be described in a historic perspective without it, this isn't and we shouldn't suggest otherwise. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Personally, I don't think that identifying the year in which something happened implies that something fitting that description also happened in some other year(s). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  No, it isn't, and it doesn't, any more than specifying gay bar implies that there were non-gay bar New Bedford shooting and manhunts. It is descriptive. Or, why not object to the gay bar part then?

  Scheduled events are not included, because they are not included in NCE. By that logic, nothing cannot be described in historic perspective, so it is clearly not what it means, given that the example in the guideline 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and 1993 Russian constitutional crisis which are not disambiguating. Historic perspective is significance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  Why don't you think so? Unless there are others or the year is part of the WP:COMMONNAME there is no reason why it is needed so why wouldn't it suggest others in different years?

  The name of the nightclub is a proper noun which includes "New" in the title, this event isn't.

  Scheduled events would be expected to include the year because of such inherent ambiguity, this isn't the case here. I would argue that the examples of the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and Russian constitutional crisis contradict the point about an event being "easily described without it". In any case at the top of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) it says "This guideline complements the WP:Article titles policy and should be read and understood that way. In the case of any contradictions the policy page takes precedence.". Given the guidence about adding the year contradicts WP:CRITERIA then I'd argue that that applies. As far as CRITERIA goes, Recognizability, a person wo has some knowledge of this event but not an expert would easily recognize it, Naturalness, "New Bedford gay bar shooting and manhunt" would be a more natural way to look for and link to it unless you thought that there was another, Precision, "New Bedford gay bar shooting and manhunt" alone does this fine, Concision, adding the year would clearly not be concise, Consistency, the title without the year is consistent with most topics on Wikipedia that don't include additional information when not needed for disambiguation or part of the common name. Therefore I would argue that according to NCE either is arguably acceptable but it is quite clear that the title with the year fails CRITERIA. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  The name of the nightclub does not include "gay bar" or "New Bedford". And yet that's fine?

  That you think the naming guideline WP:NCE is wrong and all the examples there are wrong does not make it not a guideline; WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is not determined by anyone who knows a lot about the Individual Topic, but anyone who knows a lot about the topic area (e.g., mass shootings, or anti-gay prejudice, in this case). That logic is circular, anyone who recognizes an event recognizes an event, so by that logic it is impossible for it not to be familiar and therefore any article title is acceptable under RECOGNIZABILITY. Not the case. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  That might well be the common name of the event but I'm fine with removing that as well.

  Just like the guideline also about not needing that year which you also think is wrong and should be make to encourage the year but as I've said the guideline says In the case of any contradictions the policy page takes precedence. which I would argue does apply here and similar cases. This article is about a specific shooting/attack rather than attacks in general so all that is needed is knowledge of this specific one (even if not a proper noun) just like Blue Afternoon is about a specific album not albums in general. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  It may be helpful to read the recent discussion and closing consensus summary at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events)/Archive 2#NoYear. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  There is no contradiction.

  Can you name any example that, per NCE, is an appropriate inclusion of a year in your view? What would be a "pass"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  That discussion resulted in a consensus consensus against meaning no changes rather than a consensus that years aren't needed so I reverted the changes made in June to the guideline.

  2026 East Surrey Council election (NCELECT) even though there is only one article now it is expected that there will be others in the future meaning the year would be needed and expected to be discussed in a historical context, recurring events such as 2026 FIFA World Cup (NCNUM) for the same reason as East Surrey or 1975 Chapeltown riot as there were 3, see Chapeltown riots. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  That is what the discussion said, that the year is not for disambiguation only.

  The election is not covered by NCE. The riot is for disambiguation, so it is unrelated to NCE. What is an example that would be covered by WP:NCWWW? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  No the close said "There was consensus against this proposal, meaning that there will be no change to WP:NCWWW as a result of this discussion." I don't want to get into an edit war with you so could you please revert and wait for the new RFC to end. Consensus against proposal for change it not the same thing as consensus for opposite change. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  This is now more tangential to the topic at issue so I'm going to ping you and the person who originally made that edit at the talk page of the guideline. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom, WP:BIO1E and WP:NCWWW. This is not such a well-known event that it needs no clarification of its historical context. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
• Neutral but if moved it does need a year. Not sure if we need the "and manhunt" bit either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  The problem is the most notable part of the incident is him murdering people in a different state. No one actually died in the first part. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Massachusetts, WikiProject Death, and WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 10:41, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Support – I don't particularly like any of the new names proposed here, but the current name cannot remain as-is, per nom. FaviFake (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we shouldn't keep the current title. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2026 (UTC)