Talk:Parsons Green train bombing

Requested move 17 May 2018

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 Parsons Green train bombing. No such user (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Parsons Green bombing → Parsons Green train bombing – It would be better named "Parsons Green train bombing". Calling it just Parsons Green sounds more like a street attack, or in the area of Parsons Green. Putting the "train" in there makes the title exactly clear that it is a train bombing. It also places it with other articles like 2004 Madrid train bombings, 1961 Vitry-Le-François train bombing or Cannon Street train bombing, which all have that "train" in it and is a good standard. Gateshead001 (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 05:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support there's no benefit in misleading article titles, this bombing was not at Parsons Green, nor even the train station, but in a tunnel between two stations. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • In fact the bomb was in the train while the doors were open at the station (video) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment You know there's a problem when no one has even created the redirect. The problem as I see it is that not many in the UK would call that thing a train, even though it was overground and technically is a train, it's an underground train, or tube (which would still make the title a bit awkward). The examples you provide are all train attacks, not tube attacks (see instead Category:Terrorist incidents on underground rapid transit systems). Though various descriptions are used here and there, 'Parsons Green bomb' seems to be the most widely used description in reliable sources. 'Parsons Green tube bomb' also appears more commonly than 'train bomb'. I'm not flat-out opposing, I'm just not convinced. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to admit you've got a good point there. I do still believe it should be renamed from the current name (it's too misleading), but perhaps 'Parsons Green tube bombing' might be better suited than 'train bombing'. Will that fit with an international audience though? It's people in this country who know it as 'tube', other English-speakers probably wouldn't know since tube is a unique name to London's metro system. --Gateshead001 (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I'll leave that for an international audience to confirm, but I think you're right that 'tube' is a bit too local. It's also a bit too close to 'pipe', IMO. On the other hand it's worth some serious consideration. This leaves two obvious alternatives: 'Parsons Green underground bombing' - this is complicated by the fact it was overground, and that it was really a London Underground thing. It's also not very common, so '(2017) London Underground bombing' is a bit too vague, and also not a common description of the event. Honestly, I've not liked the title of this page since it was started, but satisfactory alternatives continue to elude me. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Yeah I definitely agree with your last sentence. At this stage 'Parsons Green train bombing' would probably still fit best. --Gateshead001 (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Tube" will be unfamiliar to general readers; conversely, "train" will be well-understood even if your average Londoner wouldn't call it that. (It's still a train). That said, I don't see a need to move the article. The current title is natural and unambiguous. Similar articles for attacks against subway infrastructure don't specify further. I'd leave it where it is. Mackensen (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the current name is clear enough, and doesn't get us into a debate over what exactly the "tube" is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• Reopened and relisted per request. Dekimasuよ! 05:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Exclusionists can go too far in removing allegedly unnecessary explaining-type words. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support its still a train even if you call it the tube it runs on tracks that's a train even if it's underground עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • A very good statement. Even if it's "tube" or whatever, at the end of the day it's still a "train". It's the generic name for that type of carriage. --Gateshead001 (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support - although technically there is no other Parsons Green bombing to disambiguate against, it does nonetheless seem a valid move to me, per WP:CONSISTENCY with the other train bombings mentioned and also helps readers to WP:RECOGNIZE the subject.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2018 (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.

Evidence

The article fails to mention the evidence, which is especially noteworthy considering his pleading not guilty. So far, the only evidence mentioned in the article seems to pertain to the fact he had lied about his age. Was he seen at the scene of the crime? Were his fingerprints identified? Did he order particular chemicals? --2003:EF:1709:2942:CDF7:39C7:66CD:40A5 (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The perp along with two other Islamists attacked a prison officeredit]

I feel like that could be mentioned in the article see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56984568. Phil of rel (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)