A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource about Brighton and Hove. If you would like to participate, please visit the project pageBrightonWikipedia:WikiProject BrightonTemplate:WikiProject BrightonBrighton articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hotels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the hospitality industry, including hotels, motels, resorts, and destination spas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HotelsWikipedia:WikiProject HotelsTemplate:WikiProject HotelsHotels articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish RepublicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish RepublicanismIrish Republicanism articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
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.
Yes they do, actually. While some sources call it the Brighton hotel bombing (as I’ve already said), the weight of sources is ‘Brighton bomb’. As I'm rewriting the article at the moment, I’m quite familiar with the sources. If you really don't believe me:
Oppose - regardless of whether 'Brighton bomb' is the common name or not, a common name isn't the only criteria to decide on a title. Per WP:CRITERIA, a good title has five characteristics:
Recognisability - 'Brighton hotel bombing' is definitely more recognisable and easy to understand than simply 'Brighton bomb', which is quite ambiguous.
Naturalness - It is more common for titles about bombings to be titled as such, rather than just 'bomb' which sounds awfully unnatural.
Precision - As said before, there is no ambiguity about 'Brighton hotel bombing', however there is for just 'Brighton bomb'.
Concision - 'Brighton bomb' is too short to adequately identify the subject.
Consistency - 'Brighton hotel bombing' is more consistent with other articles than 'Brighton bomb' - see WP:NCE.
Recognisability: being the common name by a long stretch, it's much more recognisable by default. There is nothing ambiguous about "Brighton bomb", which is why so many sources use it.
Naturalness - Given so many sources use "Brighton bomb", it sounds more natural to me - "Brighton hotel bombing" sounds unnatural and forced to me. This point is down to personal choice, so it's a bit of De gustibus and all that
Precision: The title "Brighton bomb" is precise enough, without the unnecessary clutter of the superfluous noun
Concision - "Brighton bomb" is much more concise and is obviously sufficient to identify the topic, particularly given most sources use it as the COMMONNAME without any problems
Consistency - There’s no consistency in the naming approach at the moment. Category:Hotel bombings in Europe, for example, shows no common pattern that would support ‘Brighton Hotel bombing’.
Support: I've had a good rummage in the online archives and it is clear to me that "the Brighton bomb" has been the usual way of referring to the atrocity. The term "Brighton hotel bombing" is much less to be found in newspaper reports at the time and since. I can imagine that as we get further and further away from the event the term "the Brighton hotel bombing" may in due course become more usual than "the Brighton bomb", but in this year of grace 2024 the latter is, I'm sure, the norm. I concur with SchroCat, above. Tim riley talk21:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the article is about the event, not the explosive. But there is a reasonable argument that "Brighton bomb" is a set-phrase that should be in the title of the article about this event. What about "IRA Brighton bomb attack"? Walsh90210 (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to who else’s bomb? And what else is a bomb but an attack? "IRA Brighton bomb attack" isn’t a name used by anyone (possibly a description, but not a title). Two of the six documentaries are actually called “The Brighton Bomb”. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move to simply "...bomb". A perusal of Category:Provisional IRA bombings in London and similar categories shows the consistent title format would be "...bombing", so would support a move to Brighton bombing, which is equally common as "Brighton bomb". The guidance at WP:CRITERIA specifically states "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles", the vast majority of articles on IRA bombings use "...bombing" not "...bomb". Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that that Iranian Embassy siege was a hostage taking by gunmen, and the Darkley killings was a gun attack, it's hardly surprising that neither of the articles you are using as examples of supposed inconsistency in naming actually ends with "...bombing", since neither of them were bombings! Kathleen's bike (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: There is a rough consensus that "Brighton bomb" is the common name, but editors are concerned by WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Relisting to get additional input, as well as to consider the alternative title "Brighton bombing". BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Brighton bomb" is just too vague and non-specific; "Brighton hotel bombing" carries exponentially more meaning, one immediately knows the event that is being referred to (rather than some other bomb in Brighton, historical ordnance found on the beach say, or maybe a local drag act?). Even if the reader is unfamiliar with the event, the title conveys that there was an explosion which the other does not. There is no gain only loss in changing the title, keep "Brighton hotel bombing". Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Vague and non-specific"? "Brighton bomb" is the flaming COMMONNAME for the specific event, referred to in countless reliable sources and used as the title of two of the six documentaries and as the sub-title of one of the books about it. "Local drag act"? What bloody nonsense, this vote shows zero grasp of the WP:CRITERIA or of the subject matter and the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – appears to be the overwhelming common name. Some of the opposition arguments could be better considered if there was a plausible alternative actually used by a substantial amount of reliable sources, but that doesn't seem to be the case. – Aza24 (talk)19:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that "Brighton bomb" is more common in the reliable sources than "Brighton bombing". There are five different criteria for naming, and consistency with other titles is just one of them, but 'bomb' is stronger everywhere else in the quality sources. It wouldn't be the worst title in the world (certainly better than the current one), but not as strong as 'bomb'. - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at WP:CRITERIA, "Brighton bomb" arguably only fits two of the criteria - recognisability and naturalness, which is due to the WP:COMMONNAME you keep referring to. Now, in my opinion, this really isn't a natural title, mainly because this article is about the event (bombing) rather than the device used to carry it out (bomb). There really is no issue with the current title, it is equally recognisable, more natural, consistent with other articles and perfectly concise and precise to avoid ambiguity which would likely relate to the Brighton Blitz article. harrztalk21:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say that but can you give a good reason why the current name is poor? The only thing you've said in your comment above is that your proposed title is 'stronger' - something which is purely subjective and has no relevancy to Wikipedia's naming policy. harrztalk15:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's much less common, both in general, and in the quality sources - it's less common than both 'Brighton bomb' and 'Brighton bombing', for example. By virtue of being of limited use, it's less recognisable and much more grammatically forced. - SchroCat (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this feels like sticking with the rules to our own disadvantage. The "Brighton bomb" is the name of the event, not just the device: keeping the current title—"Brighton hotel bombing"—only because three conventions at AT would rather have it stretched out into an unnatural three words which arguably fits better with Wikipedia policy but is out of touch with reality and basic common sense is a poor argument. Titles must be "recogni[s]able, concise, natural, precise, and consistent": out of those five, I'd say all are fulfilled bar "consistent", but there is no consistency here as SchroCat has demonstrated. On another point: why "Brighton hotel bombing"? "Brighton Hotel bombing" or better "Grand Brighton Hotel bombing" would be an improvement (currently the lowercase "h" makes it sound like a generic hotel in Brighton). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too easily confused with the Brighton Bombers (football team) and the Brighton bomber, who planted the bomb in the hotel. Also, Brighton was bombed on numerous occasions during the Brighton Blitz during WW2, so omitting the word "hotel" is imprecise. There are five criteria for an article title. However, using the most common name is not one of the naming criteria. While using a recognizable common name is a criterion, the title also needs to be precise and natural. The existing title meets these criteria. The proposed title is ambiguous and would suggest an article that is confined to just an explosive weapon called a "Brighton bomb", rather than the explosion of the IRA bomb in a Brighton hotel that killed people. Besides, the bomb itself is probably not really that notable, although the bombing is. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See above: the current name does not fit the five criteria and is - at the very best - the third best suggestion in this thread. The proposed title is neither ambiguous (not only is it the COMMONNAME, it's used as or in book and documentary titles - with zero ambiguity). "Brighton bomb" (and less so, "Brighton bombing") is precise, common and much less clumsy and unnatural than the current version. - SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: When it comes to naming notable events, there is a separate event-specific naming convention which sets out how to name the article, by including descriptors that answer the When, Where and What... happened? questions. A bomb is not a happening, it is a thing. However the bomb exploding is a happening and one synonym for that is that a bombing occurred. Grammatically, the title needs to use the gerund form of the word bomb to make grammatical sense because the word bomb can be used as both a verb and a noun, while bombing is clearly the gerund form of the verb to bomb because it ends with "... ing". Also, to be consistent with other events where a weapon is used, the gerund form should be used in the title. Thus we have titles ending in ... shootingor... stabbing, not ... gunor... knife. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the convention says that when there is an established, common name for an even, ... use that name”. ‘Brighton hotel bombing’ is not an established common name: ‘Brighton bomb’ or in some cases ‘Brighton bombing’ are. - SchroCat (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the purpose of this discussion was to establish a consensus on what the common name was. There doesn't appear to be a single established common name used by all sources, there appear to be at least two possibilities, if not more. The naming convention explains how to arrive at a workable common name in such a situation. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s not to get a consensus on what a common name is, and the conventions don’t show how to get a workable common name. Both are to get to an article title. The cumbersome and clumsy ‘Brighton hotel bombing’ isn’t a good one. Using the common name ‘Brighton bomb’ (common name in the weight of the reliable sources), is a good title. - SchroCat (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Brighton bombing". ie the name most people then alive then and in the aftermath would be familiar with. I don't really like "Brighton bomb", which although some US sources use it, seems as if the article is about the device. Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Brighton bomb as insufficiently precise, descriptive, or recognisable. As others have said, it's too easily confused with a specific device or other events such as WWII air raids. I'm ambivalent on "Brighton bombing" but it's certainly an improvement on "Brighton bomb". "Brighton hotel bombing" is imperfect but is still concise and is precise enough to clearly identify the subject, even to readers unfamiliar with the topic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?21:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HiHarry, I don't think "Brighton hotel bombing" identifies the subject at all to people. People are more likely to recognise the COMMONNAME for things (and the two most common names are "Brighton bomb" and "Brighton bombing"). 'BHB' is hardly used as the name - it's used as a description sometimes, but not really as a name. If we're after something that identifies the subject, even to the unfamiliar, then "Attempted assassination of Margaret Thatcher" would be far better than the current clumsy wording (and we have precedent for that form of wording too). - SchroCat (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it's a generational thing? I'm not old enough to remember the press coverage in the immediate aftermath so my perception is based on what I've read in books and seen on TV years later. But I assumed BHB was a descriptive title, otherwise it would be at Brighton Hotel Bombing™, which I'd probably oppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?20:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)}}[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
