Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
Latest comment: 7 years ago18 comments10 people in discussion
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.
@Dicklyon and WWGB: I prefer that this is handled as a page move discussion.
Oppose. First, as there is more than one "Sandy" in the US. Second, "Sandy attack" sounds like Sandy is an adjective, like gritty attack or earthy attack. Silly I know, but that's how it sounds. WWGB (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Just as there was no ambiguity in the Aurora shooting until one happened in another Aurora, and just as so many other articles with just city name, there's no actual ambiguity unless there an article on another notable attack in another Sandy. Anything would be better than leaving the mismatched comma grammatical error. Dicklyon (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Oppose all alternatives - There is nothing grammatically wrong with the commas in the current name. This article has WP:TIES to the U.S. and this handling is acceptable, easily understandable, and often preferable in American English and should be retained per WP:ENGVAR. I am very open to a title that doesn't call this simply an "attack", and especially if that alternate title avoids the use of the city's name - but I can't read in the sources any particular WP:COMMONNAME for this event. Perhaps Rackley-Patterson murder-suicide? -- Netoholic@13:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Disagree with you about grammar. The title implies that Sandy is a type of Utah attack. Agree with everything else you say. Place (and time) uniquely define events, but they fail as relevant descriptions. It was an attack, but was much more, murder-suicide is right. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'd be interested in knowing if there's any support in sources (grammar or usage guides) for the idea that this mismatched comma is acceptable in American English. I think Netoholic just made that up. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. Nothing wrong with the current title. As long as "City, State" is a commonly accepted form of place name, nobody would be confused by a title like this. feminist (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Please show any source that says such construction is commonly accepted. All the grammar and usages guides I've looked at say explicitly not. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. It's a weak oppose because it's true that most guides do indeed call for the second comma, but still an oppose because the objections seem rooted in an overly zealous interpretation of the style guidelines (see below). If we believe our readers are the sort of people likely to misinterpret "Sandy, Utah attack" as "a type of Utah attack", then it's similarly reasonable to think they'd misinterpret "Sandy attack" as an attack that has the quality of sandiness. The current title, if not following the letter of the style-guide law, is at least clear.
As for style guides, I think the problem is that what's necessary (or desirable) punctuation in American English varies based on context. The style guides I've checked discuss the use of enclosing commas around geographical identifiers in sentences: e.g., "Birmingham, Alabama, gets its name from Birmingham, England." However, a title does not follow the punctuation rules of a sentence; for instance, they don't end in terminal punctuation marks, which American English sentences must. Enclosing commas also don't follow the same termination rules as (say) parentheses; if they did, then the article on the city would have to be Sandy, Utah, (with a terminal comma), which of course is silly. ╠╣uw[talk]18:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Well, yes, it would be silly to add that comma if the text doesn't continue. The guides are not silent or ambiguous on this. It's unclear to me why so many people here are asserting without evidence that it's "OK" to just do it wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
My guess is that it's mostly due to context: something that's wrong in a sentence isn't necessarily wrong when you're dealing with three words by themselves in a title. Faithfully following the style guidelines gives us the technically correct form "Sandy, Utah, attack"... and while I'm not strongly opposed to that form, my guess is that most editors — even those like me who would be happy to use that construction in a sentence — recognize that separating every word in the title with commas looks a little fussy. (Based on what I see in forums like this, it could also just be a gradual shift in common usage.) ╠╣uw[talk]09:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
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.
Latest comment: 10 months ago11 comments6 people in discussion
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 reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support move to 2017 Sandy, Utah attack as proposed. I note five previous moves (I think) but this one makes sense to me and fits conventions as stated above, and extra commas are unnecessary IMO. Hopefully this RM will lead to stability. Andrewa (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2025 (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.