Talk:Otley Run pub crawl attack

Requested move 13 June 2026

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: no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus for a move at this time. This close is made somewhat more difficult by the fact that it contrasts with a similar discussion raised here, but consensus in another discussion cannot work an end run around the need for consensus to develop around this title. BD2412 T 03:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Otley Run pub crawl attack → 2025 Otley Run pub crawl attack – Not notable enough to have a WP:NOYEAR title NesserWiki (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 22:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 08:31, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Instead support alternative, more WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE 2025 Otley Run crossbow attack. The "pub crawl" in the title is unnecessary, as the Otley Run is a pub crawl. However, per WP:NCWWW, most article titles need to say when, where, and what for identifying purposes, and this attack does not appear to be recognizable enough to go without. Most mentions of the attack also emphasize that a crossbow was used. I understand that other crossbow attacks don't use "crossbow" in the title, but in all but one, the Takarazuka familicide, the attacker did not just use a crossbow. The air gun in this incident was just used by the perpetrator to kill himself. Raskuly 🐰 00:58, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose no need for DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary WP:OVERPRECISION and per WP:CONCISE. The title is not ambiguous and if moved would just redirect back to the longer title anyway. The WP:NOYEAR guideline does not require years in every case, and we should not imply by the title that there were other pub crawl attacks here in other years. Station1 (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment please note Talk:W. R. Myers High School shooting#Requested move 13 June 2026, where a discussion about these similar nearly simultaneous opened RMs took place. Each article should be judged on their own individual basis, but since most of the responses (at time of posting) were mostly copy pasted across these RMs, it seems relevant to point towards. Raskuly 🐰 17:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support (Raskuly's suggestion) per WP:NOYEAR; the year is included by default per the naming guidelines, and this is not so well known as to be described in "historical perspective". The year is included for identification; are we expecting people to have the years of all shootings memorized? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support Raskuly's suggestion as a first choice and the proposed title as a second choice, preferring Raskuly's suggestion per the accompanying rationale and being for inclusion of the year in the title per WP:NCWWW and WP:NOYEAR as the event is not recognizable enough to warrant not including it. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 01:40, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see where the justification is for changing the name. It's not like all other articles about attacks (in the UK) follow the same convention. Look at Category:Attacks in the United Kingdom by year and you'll see a mix of articles with and without preceding years. On that basis I see no reason to change it. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  All articles on English Wikipedia should follow the same naming conventions. There is no UK exception. Pointing towards articles which don't follow the naming conventions as examples for why this one shouldn't doesn't make any sense. The main argument about whether or not to include a year in an event title is how recognizable an incident is, which means how defining an event is in comparison to it's counterparts. This attack is hardly one of the most defining attack articles across the thousands that exist. The second is if this event has a special name, which it doesn't. Raskuly 🐰 10:35, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  Attacks can generally easily be described without the year, I think we need to tighten the guideline to only cover cases like elections etc where a year would be needed. This title doesn't appear ambiguous and I doubt that it is called "2025 Otley Run pub crawl attack" though both this title and "Otley Run pub crawl attack" alone mainly return Wikipedia results. I would argue that Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami can easily be described without the year and the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia follow WP:PRECISE, I see no reason why attacks that are unambiguous (at least on Wikipedia) and can easily be described without the year should follow the normal rule of not including unnecessary disambiguation like Blue Afternoon instead of Blue Afternoon (album). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  Attacks cannot typically be described without the year without a special name because there are thousands of attack articles on Wikipedia, and only a few are so recognizable they can manage without a year. Of course no one is searching that with the year because it happened a year ago. If you think another title would be a better WP:COMMONNAME, please suggest it.

  Regarding WP:PRECISE, that guideline is about disambiguation and guidelines don't work against each other, they work in conjunction with each other. It is also not disambiguation in this instance to include the year. A month or day would (typically) be that. I invite you to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events)#NCWWW. Raskuly 🐰 19:05, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  Might also note that just searching for it without the year is still going to get the article to show up in the results if you just create a few useful redirects to it. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 19:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  There was an RfC on tightening the guideline last September with the outcome being a consensus against doing so. Arguments can be had about whether or not it's necessary or whether or not the guidelines should be written different, but individual move discussions isn't the best forum for doing so, as they deal with the application of guidelines rather than the writing of them. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 19:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

  Most people at that RFC appeared to argue that it was useful etc to include the year rather than because it is part of the common name or otherwise really needed for context. This does appear to be against the normal rules on how we title which is to include the topic's name unless there is a need to disambiguate. See User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation. We recently got ride of the unnecessary disambiguation rules from WP:NCUKPARL and WP:NCROY and In any case I would argue that "the event is easily described without it". I would also argue that the current title gives far more information than the likes of Blue Afternoon as it says it is an attack at a pub crawl in Otley. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Small note, Otley is the name of another town, while Otley Run is the name of the pub crawl event. The attack took place in Leeds. Raskuly 🐰 21:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Unlike with WP:NCUKPARL and WP:NCROY (and hopefully at some point also WP:NCPEER), which apply to articles that have clear common names, WP:NCWWW is for articles with descriptive titles rather than those that have clear common names (the very top of it saying that common names are to be used where available). The when, where and what convention is just the consensus for how descriptive titles for events should generally be constructed. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  But why would the year be an appropriate thing to include? With descriptive titles I thought we still try to go by what they are normally called without including unnecessary additional information. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Exactly. "2025" could/should be included as part of the short description, which when read together with the article title should give a reader enough information to know what the article is about. 10mmsocket (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Why must mobile readers be required to open an article to find that information out? Different naming conventions exist, and the convention for events is to include the year. Are you attempting to impose non-event naming conventions on this? Raskuly 🐰 23:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  For the same reason they must open the article to find out it was a crossbow attack or that it happened in Leeds or that there were two victims or every other fact about the incident. Policy is to identify the topic without making it longer than necessary. Otherwise the title could be 26 April 2025 Otley Run pub crawl crossbow attack in Leeds with two victims. There's no convention to put years or any other non-identifying fact in titles, unless required for disambiguation. Station1 (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  There is such a convention to put years for events: WP:NCWWW. WP:NOYEAR states that The month or days should not be used in the title unless other descriptors are insufficient to establish the identity of the incident. Raskuly 🐰 17:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  A convention is "a rule, method, or practice established by usage". A WP guideline is theoretically meant to document that convention. Some editors do like to put years in event titles, other don't, but the widespread consensus established through usage and policy is that titles should be no more precise than necessary. And even the guideline says years are not always required. Logically, there's no more reason to add the year to this title than to add the month and day. Station1 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  The consensus for events, and different subject areas have various naming conventions, is that in the absence of a established, common name (which refers to special names such as the Great Depression) for an event, in the majority of cases the title should say when, where, and what. Yes, the year is not always required, but what makes this event so recognizable that it does not need a year to help with identification? This was an extremely minor attack. Some events do not need a year because their historical impact is well-documented. There is none for this. Logically, there's no more reason to add the year to this title than to add the month and day. Logically, there is since there is consensus against that. Even WP:PRECISION states Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Raskuly 🐰 17:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Law Enforcement, WikiProject Feminism, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject United Kingdom, WikiProject Death, and WikiProject Yorkshire have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 08:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Where?

The article doesn't tell us where the attack took place, though the infobox has a rather odd map which shows two branches of Otley Road north of the traffic lights. (Ok there's a traffic island, but the map looks like two roads).

And what does "the Otley Run route was closed off" mean? Closed a portion of the A660 to all traffic for a time, or instructed that there be no pub crawls? Please clarify. (Former resident of Far Headingley, hadn't heard of this dreadful attack until alerted to the above RM discussion). Thanks. PamD 10:50, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I made alterations to the article to hopefully address your concerns. You can see the edit history for my full explanation. Raskuly 🐰 13:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Raskuly Thanks. It's surprising and disappointing that there aren't any sources for a more precise location, as "Otley Road" in Headingley covers quite a long stretch of road! But, if the sources aren't there, so be it. PamD 15:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 8 August 2026

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: Procedural close. A previous discussion with the same rationale and based on the same arguments was closed as no consensus just three weeks ago. There is no indication that there have been any changes in either Wikipedia policies and guidelines or related to the subject of the article (e.g. it is no more or less ambiguous that it was last month, no other common name has arisen for the event) that would suggest the outcome would be any different this time.
A no consensus close does allow for the question to be asked again, but doing so this quickly can be disruptive even if the request is made in good faith (as it was here). Waiting several months from today before asking again, ideally at least three to six, stands a much greater chance of consensus being reached. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

---

Otley Run pub crawl attack → 2025 Otley Run pub crawl attack – Not notable enough to have a WP:NOYEAR title Militant.Insurgency (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

This was discussed just a couple of weeks ago - see above. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close, even though by a different nom it was closed just over 3 weeks ago. 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 attack in a different year. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

@BD2412 As the closer of the previous request on 17 July can I ask that you close this as I suspect consensus is very unlikely to change in three weeks. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

While I tend to agree that a new discussion should not have been initiated this quickly, my concern is that if I close this, it could be interpreted as a reflexive defense of my own previous close. I will refer this to WP:AN for another opinion. BD2412 T 21:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Support fails WP:NOYEAR PlainWikiUser1 (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom and the naming guidelines, WP:NCE, which establishes that for an event with a descriptive title, the year is included by default for WP:RECOGNIZABILITY reasons, and only excluded for especially well known and historical events. This is not, and the year provides needed context. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

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.