Talk:2012 Aurora theater shooting/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Article Protection

Use WP:UTRS to contest a block rather than evading it.

Considering the only vandal here is VQuakr, did this user himself protect the article? If so his privileges should be removed. A motive section has been under discussion for quite some time. James Eagan Holmes is still alive as well.. 209.140.44.56 (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

We seem to have been through all this before. The edits have problems with WP:DUE and WP:REDFLAG. There is no reliable evidence that more than one shooter was involved, and the MKUltra stuff is way off base unless it has received significant mainstream coverage. As for the motive, while Holmes undoubtedly had mental problems, a jury found that he was sane enough to understand what he was doing at the time. This is why he was found guilty of first degree murder; the jury did not accept that his judgement was impaired to the point of legal insanity.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Per Dred Scott v. Sandford & Shooting of Michael Brown, documenting all relevant discussion not necessarily agreeing with court cases is worthwhile. The mkultra conspiracy bit is, admittedly, a bit WP:Fringe, but WP:Due doesn't come into play at all for the rest as significant adherents are named to avoid WP:Redflag. Jeh4u (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC) @InedibleHulk:
How do I figure into this web of half-truths? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
We are writing about the case in 2016, not 2012. As far as a jury was concerned, Holmes was the sole shooter and was sane enough to understand his actions. Cobbling together sources which attempt to contradict this is wrong for a range of reasons.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

One thing that stuck out to me in the article is this sentence "According to two federal officials, he had dyed his hair red and called himself "the Joker", although authorities later declined to confirm this.[29][30]" yet later in the article it states that police had found a Batman mask. This leads me to believe that he did call himself the joker but for some reason the authorities just didn't want to say this? Other articles don't even mention this about claim so randomly but it leads me to believe this was just a random piece of information thrown into the wiki? Even the placement is a bit random but seriously why even add the statement of his hair being false but then adding the fact they found the mask? it just feels a bit off since it leads me to believe he might have wanted himself to be seen as the joker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.248 (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

"About 12 people were killed..."

"About 12 people were killed and 70 others were injured..." Poor word choice here. People are either dead or alive, so there should be no "about" in regards to the number of people killed. Please review. Shan31 (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)st-112916

Agreed and fixed. The 12 dead is a firm figure, and the 70 injured is an approximate figure.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC at Smith & Wesson M&P15

Talk:Smith & Wesson M&P15# Request for comment: add three instances of criminal use. Should the 2012 Aurora shooting be mentioned in that article? Please post on that page if you have a comment. Felsic2 (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2012 Aurora shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

BBC News article - July 2017

Quite a few photos and a lot of info in this BBC News feature. Could be used in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2012 Aurora shooting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

most casualties up to then?

IT is insane that everyone wants to ignore the 2009 Binghamton ACA shooting that killed 13 (one more than Holmes). Possibly because they were immigrants, so they don't count? Either way, the line about this being the shooting with the most casualties until Orlando and Las Vegas surpassed is wrong. Not to mention, it isn't even as if the Binghamton one was the most. So I don't know where this came from at all. 24.94.59.120 (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Binghamton shootings says that Wong killed 14 and injured 4. The Aurora shooting is notable for the large number of non-fatal injuries; the deadliest was the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting which left 32 dead until Orlando and Las Vegas. There is a list here. The use of the word "casualty" has been discussed previously. It isn't intended to say that this was the deadliest mass shooting, because it wasn't. However, a large number of people were injured but not killed in the Aurora shooting. It's true that the Binghamton shootings have faded from the public memory, but they are not ignored on Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

24 convictions of first-degree murder

Holmes' guilt is well established in the article, in his trial and documented in extensive media coverage. What I don't quite get is how 12 murders equals 24 convictions for first-degree murder. (2 for each murder) As I (and many other editors, presumably) am not a lawyer, can someone please better explain this in Laymans terms in the article? Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

It's explained here in the Denver Post: "For each of the 12 slain victims and the 70 wounded victims, Holmes was found guilty of two counts. One count alleged first-degree murder or attempted murder after deliberation. The other alleged first-degree murder or attempted murder with extreme indifference." It's baffling for a layman, but the prosecution seems to have been hedging its bets, possibly due to controversy over Holmes's mental state at the time of the killings.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 04:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

2012 Aurora shooting → 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting – To avoid confusion with Aurora, Illinois shooting and harmonize with 1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 01:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Support disambiguation. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: "Aurora shooting" alone is unnecessarily imprecise. See also Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting#Requested move 16 February 2019 discussion. – Athaenara ✉ 04:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per above. -- Netoholic @ 08:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article does not require disambiguation by year AND state. In fact, Aurora Colorado and Aurora Illinois mean nothing to non-American readers like me. There was only one shooting in (any) Aurora in 2012. WWGB (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. We need to be consistent across the three articles Aurora, Illinois shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting and 1993 Aurora shooting. WWGB (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move, as proposed. The situation with the two articles with rather similar names is too confusing, and providing extra disambiguation (in the titles of both articles) would be useful. Nsk92 (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There's no reasonable confusion between this & either the 1993 or the 2019 shootings. They're in different years & the recent one is in a different state. It's 1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting which should be at 1993 Aurora shooting. Each is the only notable shooting in any Aurora, so disambiguation by state isn't needed. Jim Michael (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Withdraw --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC) 1993 Aurora, Colorado shooting was moved back to 1993 Aurora shooting and I'm going to request a move for that article. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't think it is possible to withdraw a page move request when other editors have voted to support the move. WWGB (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - while I believe 2012 is enough of a disambig, 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting is a more complete article title. Hydromania (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - per nom and WP:NCEVENTS guideline. --Gonnym (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, counterpropose Years are different enough for now to distinguish these, without slowing everything down with a comma (the bane of good titles everywhere). And the states aren't as memorably distinctive to everyone as American schoolchildren are raised to believe, anyway. As days go by, even the years blur together a bit for everyone, and no sources title these things by their years (as WP:COMMONNAME recommends they should). If we really want to be precise, concise, informative, distinctive and common, we should really think about Aurora restaurant shooting, Aurora factory shooting and Aurora theater shooting. No matter where we are and how long it's been, we all instinctively remember to not take our children to factories for their birthdays or catch the latest Greer Garson picture at Chuck E. Cheese's. It's intuitive design, I tell you, in line with policy and the Rule of Three to boot. Here are three sources showing "Aurora theater shooting" had staying power in 2016, 2017 and 2018. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Specifying the type of establishment in which each shooting took place - rather than the state or year - would be clear (providing that no other mass shooting takes place in a restaurant, cinema or factory in any Aurora). However, I'd say that it's more relevant that this month's shooting took place in Illinois than that it happened in a factory. Jim Michael (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. All these Aurora shootings should use the following KISS format and disambiguate by year only: YEAR Aurora shooting. So this one at 2012 Aurora shooting is already fine. --В²C ☎ 01:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The events did not occur in the same Aurora. Davidsousa1 (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per OP. I think a consistent title format across all three of the mentioned shooting articles is a great idea. @Born2cycle: wouldn't your year by year disambiguation idea fail if more than one prominent mass shooting occurred in a single town in one year? this seems more and more likely a problem every passing week...--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 06:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Shibbolethink, the format implied by the proposed title (year, city, state shooting) would fail in that very unlikely case too. Besides, we don’t choose conventions based on highly unlikely cases for which we have no actual examples in the domain in question. Generally, WP avoids unnecessary disambiguation such is proposed here. —В²C ☎ 06:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. It's clear that using the form "[Year] Aurora shooting" for shootings that occurred in two entirely different Auroras fails precision and recognizability. Adding the state is an easy and logical fix, and consistent with the pattern of our article titles for Aurora, Illinois and Aurora, Colorado. It should be applied to all three Aurora shooting articles. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:22, 28 February 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move earlier 5 March 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 section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn/snow by nom. Will follow up with the good suggestion of an altrernative way to fix the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


– These states offset by a comma without a matching comma after are against the advice of essentially all English grammar, style, and usage guides; so let's add the commas. Without prejudice against other name changes that some may still wish to revisit at some point. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose at least for Aurora, Illinois, shooting. The proposed title, three words separated by two commas, looks bizarre and reminds me of Rock, paper, scissors or Veni, vidi, vici. It's meant to be an article title, not a multiple choice test. Surely a case for WP:IAR. WWGB (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    I could agree if you suggested Aurora Illinois shooting, but it's imparsible with the one unbalanced comma. Dicklyon (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WWGB. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose—styleguides vary. Me, I really don't like the bumpety-bump. I'd rather have no commas. One comma, I suppose, is better than two. Tony (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above and WP:SNOW. -- Netoholic @ 10:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to "2012 shooting in Aurora, Colorado", etc., and just avoid the dispute, at no cost but a sliver of concision. Otherwise, use both commas. Or have a consensus discussion at WT:MOS to change MOS:COMMA to have a narrowly circumscribed exception (with some kind of actual rationale beyond "I [don't] like it"), or this will keep coming up. As I pointed out elsewhere, "Aurora, Illinois shooting" (one comma) is rather gibberish to anyone who hasn't memorized all the US states and remembered that they're states (or other regions) and not something else like cities or lakes or something. Why would someone from, say, Zimbabwe or Singapore have a US gazetteer in their heads? How many Americans know, without looking it up, wither Ayr is a town, a large area, or both, and whether it's in Scotland, England, Wales, or Ireland? Especially given the frequency with Aurora is a person's name, the one-comma version looks rather like an "Alita, Battle Angel", or "Bond, licensed to kill" sort of construction. No punctuation pattern is going to look lovely in every imaginable construction, but if all else fails we should stick with what makes the most sense semantically and what is most consistent with the rest of our comma usage, which is going to be "Aurora, Illinois, shooting" on both counts. Here, all else does not fail; WP:CONCISE is arguably the least important of the WP:CRITERIA and one that we sacrifice for clarity all the time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't get the grammar argument at all. In titles like these, most forms of grammar don't apply and it's entirely about convention. In this case, I either think it should remain as is or change to 2012 shooting in Aurora, Colorado. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:11, 5 March 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.

Requested move 5 March 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 section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. A broader discussion may be required, as this format is in use in many articles. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bradv🍁 05:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

– Agreeing with Tony in prev RM that too many commas makes it "bumpy", and following up SMcCandlish suggestion endorsed by several there, as a better way to avoid the ungrammatical mismatched-comma problem. Dicklyon (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support- I think this is a much more palatable and easy to read title and should, imo, become standard for similar articles. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks much better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - firstly, we have many, many other articles about shootings in the current format, so I don't know why we're limiting this to only these three. That makes them not WP:CONSISTENT. Also, overall, I think we're straying from WP:COMMONNAME principles. If I look up "2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting" or "2012 shooting in Aurora, Colorado", what comes back is more often like "Aurora, Colorado theater shooting". The 1993 event comes back as "Aurora, Colorado Chuck E. Cheese shooting". "Aurora, Illinois shooting" is common for that one. I think we've had so many recent page moves around these three events that its somewhat getting burned out. I'd say take this to a discussion elsewhere, figure out if we want to move all shootings to the proposed format, or if we want to use more commonname styles. We need a standard that all these articles can follow, not just these 3. -- Netoholic @ 14:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Note that the majority of these articles do not appear to include a state name. It's that which makes the current construction look weird. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I think "look weird" thing was brought up in one of the other RMs, and it seems like that's a regional thing. U.S.-based or -focused editors don't see the titles as weird at all for the City, State construction. I have complaints, but that aspect isn't one. -- Netoholic @ 22:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
        • What "looks weird" is the unbalanced comma. It looks like "Colorado shooting" is in apposition to "Aurora". There is no sense in which this title can be correctly parsed in English. Adding a second comma would fix it, but that has its own awkwardness. See my elaboration below. Dicklyon (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Yeah, it seems to be a regional thing. For U.S.-based editors, the current titles would seem perfectly fine. Americans tend to think of the "XCity, YState" format as a full name, and not as a grammatical qualifier or explanation (contrary to MOS:GEOCOMMA). Not sure what to do. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
          • I disagree. It looks wrong to my American eyes. WikiWinters (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The WP:CRITERIA are listed in priority order. WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENCY are at the bottom for a reason, and we regularly drop them when WP:PRECISION is enhanced by doing so. If doing it in this case improves precision, then it's a good bet that it will do so in other cases. That is, we should be examining more articles for moving to names like those proposed here. WP isn't bound by past precedent, remember. CONSISTENCY can thus (and often does) move in the direction of a new decision, not an old one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    Well, if we follow this line of thought, then WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:NATURALNESS are the top considerations. Avoiding the use of "theatre" or "Chuck E. Cheese" in the titles fails to add recognizability, and using the year is not the natural way people use to search for these events. -- Netoholic @ 22:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
    Google's search algorithms don't care about which comes first, they care about the "context" words. To scrawling PageRank bots and Relevancy bots, these two titles we're suggesting are essentially equivalent.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    Also, the articles you just linked place an emphasis on "how a thing is described in English." So why don't we take a look at how other people have described the events in WP:RS? Here are a ton of prominent WP:RS examples of "BLANK Shooting in BLANK PLACE."--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    Um, "fails to add recognizability" isn't a concept we employ.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Netoholic. Dohn joe (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A look at Mass shootings in the United States shows that the standard form for shooting articles is <Place> shooting or <Year> <Place> shooting. We need to be consistent. WWGB (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
So why don't we become the change we want to see in the world? --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support—I'll go with this. Tony (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this cleaner presentation per other supporters' points. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mostly per Netoholic. It's just usually not referred to that way. I'm in favor of dropping the comma altogether, grammar rules be damned, as it's an article title. Hydromania (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy dropping all the commas, too, as in 2012 Aurora Colorado shooting. But it's just not done, so I don't expect we could get a consensus for that very modern alternative. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Nom's support elaboration: Essentially all English style and usage guides treat the current single-comma version as an error to be fixed; [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] for examples. A few do complain about the "bumpiness" of the conventinal paired commas in contexts where the city and state as used as modifier (Garner says "Although California home and Austin jury are perfectly acceptable, Sacramento, Californa home and Austin, Texas jury are not. To make matters worse, some writers place a second comma after the state. Thus, using a city plus a state as an adjective disrupts the flow of the sentence. ... Such consrtruction contrribute to NOUN PLAGUE, lessen readability, and bother literate readers."). So let's fix it. In the case of "Jr." offset by commas, essentially all guides came around to the point of view than 0 commas would be better than 1 or 2, and a similar solution is used for years in Europe, but for states or years in America, 1 is still a grammatical error, and 2 is a "bumpy" solution, and 0 is not yet accepted, so it's best to re-order and avoid the problem. There aren't any others like this (that I can find), where a state is needed for disambuguation; I've just removed the unnecessary state from the six I could find that had them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the detailed analysis. If I was having any doubt at all about favoring the current proposal, that doubt is now erased.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Dicklyon. Tony (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Dicklyon and his support elaboration, to fix the MOS:GEOCOMMA problem. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC),
  • Support, as it’s at least better than an ungrammatical title. WikiWinters (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Netoholic. I don't really think this is necessary at all. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Netoholic. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
    But the above are based on the false premise that "many other articles about shootings in the current format". There simply are not. Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support because I've seen the same problem with California State University, Fullerton, massacre and I've suggested rewording to avoid that odd second comma. Matuko (talk) 03:45, 18 March 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.

So how can we fix this?

At the beginning of March, the article was moved to a title with a punctuation error: one-sided comma offset of a state name, contrary to all English grammar and style guides. Several attempts to fix it have gone down without consensus, though there's a least a clear majority in favor of fixing it. There was a claim that this format is common, but I don't find any other shootings with this problem (we already fixed a few by removing unneeded states, or reordering to avoid the need for a second comma, or adding the second comma). If there are others like this for things other than shootings, I wouldn't be surprised, but I haven't found them. Anyway, the current title is absurd, and though a majority supported my latest attempt at a fix, that was not considered enough. Any suggestions? Closer suggests a larger discussion; does anyone want to suggest a good place or scope for that? Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not find the current titles in error nor absurd. They just look better than the two-comma alternatives. I suspect many other editors agree with me, which is why consensus cannot be achieved. The one-comma model has worked perfectly well in other attack articles, including Sandy, Utah attack, 2012 College Station, Texas shooting, St. Cloud, Minnesota mall stabbing, Crandon, Wisconsin shooting and 2003 Abbeville, South Carolina right-of-way standoff.
A title like 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting is perfectly clear and unambiguous: a shooting took place in 2012, in Aurora, in the state of Colorado. Insistence on a second comma is just pedantic, and does not improve readability or understanding. Just IAR. WWGB (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I do understand that some editors find conforming to standard grammar rules "pedantic", and like the looks of the version with the comma error. That's why I suggested fixing it in a way that avoids the whole comma mismatch problem, which offends those other editors who don't think grammatical errors to make a title "look better" are a good idea. Can't we accept one of those alternatives, like the majority suggested in the latest RM discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I take it you like this unmatched comma pattern so much that you want to use it even when state disambiguators are not needed. Why will you not just let those be fixed? Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The one-comma examples I listed above have existed without confusion for a considerable time (more than a decade in some cases). You are only seeking to vary them now because I pointed them out to you. WWGB (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Nobody said anything about confusion. It's a simple grammar error, worth fixing or avoiding one way or another. Why would you prefer to keep the unnecessary disambiguators that invite the errors? Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup

Content added by 67.184.212.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been removed from this article for copyright reasons. In spite of warning, the individual using this IP has persisted in copying content from copyrighted sources without compatible licensing to Wikipedia. Please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source, whether the one cited or another (issues have been detected from other sources than those named). Based on the editing pattern of this person, we cannot make the assumption that the content is usable. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/67.184.212.160. Thank you. --💵Money💵emoji💵💸 02:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Aurora_theater_shooting/Archive_7&oldid=1206946509"