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 Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
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
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
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.
Some logic for both, but I would go for ..IN.. — the bombings were not specifically attacking the entire city itself. I would then extract the city-wide WW1 and WW2 attacks to a See also section. Not sure about the 1066 event! — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me11:27, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given most of the entries on this list are terrorist attacks, would it be better to just merge both lists? That would allow for unambiguous inclusion of events where a terrorist motive is unclear/disputed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we do decide to merge, then the best way to accomplish this from a practical perspective would likely be to merge the contents of this list into the longer list of terrorist attacks and then move that to the in/on London. I've left a note at talk:List of terrorist incidents in London about my suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unless I am misunderstanding what the point of this article is. This is a disamb/SIA, no? It is not anything other than a navigation aid for other topics which may be called this. It is not a topic itself. It shouldn't be merged anywhere else or have its name changed because that is not what it is for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally a simple proposal to rename the list from "London attack" to "List of attacks on/in London" to match the actual content of the page (which is not just things named "London attack"). I later wondered whether there is value in having separate lists for terrorist attacks and non-terrorist attacks - being entirely open to the possibility of the answer being either "yes" or "no" to that question. I don't understand how your comment actually relates to either question. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a list of things that have been called "London attack". They might not be at that title, but they have been called it, yes. Alternative names are within the purview of disambs as far as I know. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm not necessarily sure what the "right" name/title is, but I am sure that the title "London Attack" is definitely wrong. I mean, "London Attack" is just stupid, no? Like, what does that even mean? If someone showed me that term in isolation, and asked me what I thought it meant, I think I'd guess a band or somekind of medical condition or something. The current title is obviously wrong. NickCT (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True--apologies for missing that. However, the page for set index articles does say "Notably, a SIA is not necessarily titled a "List", it can be titled as a partial disambiguation, e.g., Star (newspaper)." SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, as others have said, it's a dab/SIA, the current title may not make sense but it's likely to be what readers search for. That being said, if this were moved then "London Attack" would become a redirect and this'd still come up in reader's searches. The proposed title is probably more recognisableKowal2701 (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as mentioned by other opposers this is a disambiguation page and therefore there is no need to rename as the current name works for the purpose of the page. GothicGolem29 (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a set index, not a disambiguation page. I have explained above why the current name does not match the contents of the page. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's tagged as a set index, formatted as a set index and has the contents of a set index. I don't know what makes you think it's something other than a set index? Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fair enough however from looking at the set index guideline page it looks like this sort of name can be used for these so I retain my vote for the status quo as there is no need for the change. GothicGolem29 (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I stated above there is no need for change. The guideline allows the current name and I can see no reason to deviate from the status quo. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the question - why is "London attack" better than either of the proposed alternatives? The current title being allowed is not a reason to keep the title if alternatives are better, and I've explained why I think they are above. Thryduulf (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I did answer the question you asked why is the status quo preferable and no reason to change is a reason why it is preferable. My answer is more the proposed alternative is not better. London attack is accurate I don't see attacks on London as being an improvement and so I favour the status quo. I read through some of your arguments and I am still unconvinced the proposal is better than this. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per NickCT. "London attack" can mean far too many things like a band name or the name of some product. A more specific name like what the nominator suggests is better.
SUGGESTION given how little redirects here, and the lack of consensus on whether this is a redirect, a disambiguation page, or an index, then why not simply delete it? It doesn't really add any value. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatlinkshere is a terrible indicator of value, especially as disambiguation pages and set indexes shouldn't be linked to in most instances. This received over 3,400 views between 1 January and 31 August [1] strongly indicating that a redlink would not benefit the project. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 14 October 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.
.svg?lang=en)
