Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Requested move 30 December 2014
- The below discussion must be ignored for the existence of the separate article, 2014 Odessa clashes.
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved to 2014 Odessa clashes. Number 57 23:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
2 May 2014 Odessa clashes → May 2014 Odessa clashes – Or 2014 Odessa clashes? Whether there are other clashes in Odessa in 2014 or May 2014 is up to WP:notability. We should make the title more concise to readers who want to search for the topic without the need to know exact date of the clash. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Support a move either to: 2014 Odessa clashes or Odessa clashes, 2014
"massacre" is also used but it seems there was more than one event. See:
GregKaye 13:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely and completely oppose – These clashes were only on 2 May. They did not take place across the whole year or month, and there have been many minor clashes since. Your proposed titles blow the event out of proportion. This is not a more WP:CONCISE title because it gives less information to the reader. WP:CONCISE says "sufficient information to identify the topic". Your proposed title does not give sufficient information. The article title must define the scope of the article. The scope is the clashes that took place on 2 May, and on no other day. That's why the day must be included, to meet WP:PRECISE. This article is not going to be expanded to deal with other clashes during 2014. RGloucester — ☎ 14:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Support 2014 Odessa clashes per WP:PRECISION and per User:RGloucester. Now that 2014 will be over in Ukraine in less than 5 minutes, it is clear that the actions dealt with in this article (which, according to the article were of more than one day) are evidently the only notable such ones of the year. — AjaxSmack 21:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think you read the article. The clashes were only on one day. The "aftermath" section is about the aftermath, not about "clashes". RGloucester — ☎ 17:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- I did read the article and there were two days of clashes covered. I'm not sure what an "aftermath" is in this case. If the 3 May clashes can be covered in an article on the 2 May clashes, then so can other "aftermath" clashes. (The the Ukrainian article (which also uses "2014" but not the day or month) does this with a few sentences tacked onto the end of the article.) Since the entire sequence of events is dealt with in one article and there are no other independently notable clashes of the year, "2014" is precise enough. — AjaxSmack 01:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- There were no "3 May clashes". The Ukrainian article is irrelevant. "2014" is not precise. It is unacceptable. These clashes took place only on one day, that is, 2 May. This article is not about clashes in Odessa across 2014. RGloucester — ☎ 03:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, why not add extra precision on 2012 Benghazi attack? --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I wish you would do. That's a rubbish title, and I've told you so. I proposed disambiguation by date, but that discussion was a mire. It has no relevance here. You are going to destroy this article, and create ten tons of work that otherwise would not be necessary. I'll have to expand this article, then fork off a sub-article for this specific incident. It is a disaster in the making. I don't understand what you don't understand. "2014 Odessa clashes" is not CONCISE or PRECISE. It does not specify what event this article is referring to, other than to say "clashes in 2014 in Odessa", which means that the scope of the article would change with a title change. This article is ONLY about the 2 May clashes, not about any other clashes. RGloucester — ☎ 05:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't mind broadening the article as long as other clashes of the year in the same area were reported. Why feeling upset? Do you want glory or something? --George Ho (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm upset because you are destroying an article for no good reason. RGloucester — ☎ 05:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't mind broadening the article as long as other clashes of the year in the same area were reported. Why feeling upset? Do you want glory or something? --George Ho (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I wish you would do. That's a rubbish title, and I've told you so. I proposed disambiguation by date, but that discussion was a mire. It has no relevance here. You are going to destroy this article, and create ten tons of work that otherwise would not be necessary. I'll have to expand this article, then fork off a sub-article for this specific incident. It is a disaster in the making. I don't understand what you don't understand. "2014 Odessa clashes" is not CONCISE or PRECISE. It does not specify what event this article is referring to, other than to say "clashes in 2014 in Odessa", which means that the scope of the article would change with a title change. This article is ONLY about the 2 May clashes, not about any other clashes. RGloucester — ☎ 05:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, why not add extra precision on 2012 Benghazi attack? --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- There were no "3 May clashes". The Ukrainian article is irrelevant. "2014" is not precise. It is unacceptable. These clashes took place only on one day, that is, 2 May. This article is not about clashes in Odessa across 2014. RGloucester — ☎ 03:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I did read the article and there were two days of clashes covered. I'm not sure what an "aftermath" is in this case. If the 3 May clashes can be covered in an article on the 2 May clashes, then so can other "aftermath" clashes. (The the Ukrainian article (which also uses "2014" but not the day or month) does this with a few sentences tacked onto the end of the article.) Since the entire sequence of events is dealt with in one article and there are no other independently notable clashes of the year, "2014" is precise enough. — AjaxSmack 01:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think removing "2 May" destroys this article. I searched for other Odessa clashes of the year and found no stories reported. If there is one, the article would have broadened. --George Ho (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, it would not've broadened, because this article is only about one day's clashes, not about any other day in 2014's clashes. You may have found "no stories reported", but that merely means you've not been thorough. RGloucester — ☎ 06:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I used Google News and Bing News. I typed "Odessa riots" and "Odessa clashes", and I found none other than May 2 or May 3. Links will tell you: [1][2][3]. --George Ho (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's because you're not looking into Ukrainian, Russian, and European sources... RGloucester — ☎ 06:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know whether you are pushy or overbearing or totally discernible. I tried searching for them in Ukrainian and Russian, but my knowledge in these languages is very poor. Perhaps you should search them yourself if you keep "opposing". Otherwise, your arguments become empty and ineffective. --George Ho (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- They are not "empty". Even if there were no other clashes, the proposed title does not define the scope of the article. It implies that the clashes took place over a year, when they only took place on one day in that year. It is a total kibosh, and there is no way to support it. RGloucester — ☎ 14:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's because you're not looking into Ukrainian, Russian, and European sources... RGloucester — ☎ 06:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I used Google News and Bing News. I typed "Odessa riots" and "Odessa clashes", and I found none other than May 2 or May 3. Links will tell you: [1][2][3]. --George Ho (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, it would not've broadened, because this article is only about one day's clashes, not about any other day in 2014's clashes. You may have found "no stories reported", but that merely means you've not been thorough. RGloucester — ☎ 06:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think you read the article. The clashes were only on one day. The "aftermath" section is about the aftermath, not about "clashes". RGloucester — ☎ 17:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't overly precise. It is necessary to disambiguate from other clashes in 2014. I don't want to have to work to expand the scope of this article to all clashes in Odessa in 2014. If this move takes place, I'll be forced to do so. That is inappropriate. This article is about one event on one day, not about the whole year. Please stop this nonsense, before you put a terrible amount of work on my shoulders. RGloucester — ☎ 17:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Take a load off your shoulders. If they're not notable, they belong at Wikinews, not here. Also see my comment above. — AjaxSmack 01:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- They are, but are covered elsewhere. You cannot rename this article. I oppose it. I will not be forced to expand the scope of this article and create a fork. These clashes were only on 2 May. That's it, and that's what this article is about. RGloucester — ☎ 03:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Crossing out double-voting for you. --George Ho (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- We don't "vote" here, so I can hardly "vote" for anything. Please don't modify my comments. RGloucester — ☎ 03:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Crossing out double-voting for you. --George Ho (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- They are, but are covered elsewhere. You cannot rename this article. I oppose it. I will not be forced to expand the scope of this article and create a fork. These clashes were only on 2 May. That's it, and that's what this article is about. RGloucester — ☎ 03:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Take a load off your shoulders. If they're not notable, they belong at Wikinews, not here. Also see my comment above. — AjaxSmack 01:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't overly precise. It is necessary to disambiguate from other clashes in 2014. I don't want to have to work to expand the scope of this article to all clashes in Odessa in 2014. If this move takes place, I'll be forced to do so. That is inappropriate. This article is about one event on one day, not about the whole year. Please stop this nonsense, before you put a terrible amount of work on my shoulders. RGloucester — ☎ 17:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support move to 2014 Odessa clashes per nomination. They were the only notable clashes of the year, so per WP:PRECISE there is no need to provide more detail than the year. — Amakuru (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's not true. There were other clashes, and these clashes did not take place during the year of 2014. They took place on 2 May 2014. This is a simply wrong title proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 18:08, 19 January 2015 (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.
Create "May 2014 Odessa clashes"?
The article was previously moved to "2014 Odessa clashes". However, the article was revamped before history logs were moved back to "2 May 2014 Odessa clashes", leaving the other a separate entity. This was filed at WP:ANI before the mess was cleaned up. I originally want to re-propose a move, but I fear some sole editor would try to cause more problems if the move happens. To avoid another mess like last time, I'm proposing a creation of "May 2014 Odessa clashes". If creating that article is impossible, perhaps I'll re-propose a page move. --George Ho (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)