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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Pocheon bombing → 2025 Pocheon accidental bombing – This accident is an accidental bombing. Family27390 (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support as the 2023 Belgorod accidental bombing has accidental in the title. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support per @Bloxzge 025. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 19:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Waleed (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Lucthedog2 (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support the bombing was accidental, so it should be moved to 2025 Pocheon accidental bombing so that is makes more sense Polandball Gaming (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for same reasons as listed already. Follows WP:CONSISTENT with 2023 Belgorod accidental bombing. Also follows WP:PRECISE by adding clarity that this was an accidental bombing and not a deliberate bombing, such as the article 2025 Bat Yam bus bombings. Aswed123123123 (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support over the current title, which implies that this was deliberate (like an act of war or terrorism). Glades12 (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support No doubt that it was an accident. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The unintentional nature of this bombing should be reflected in the title. The current title is misleading (makes it seem that the bombing was a deliberate act). GalacticOrbits (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose (not for now): I think we should wait for the full investigation report language, before renaming. The interim investigation strongly suggests negligence. I cannot find any WP guidance on the use of the word "accident", but googling around suggests "accident" is not appropriate for an incident caused by negligence; a common definition of "accident" I found from googling is incompatible with this incident: "An accident is simply an incident which no-one could have reasonably foreseen and for which no-one should be held responsible." Rwendland (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support, the bombing was a negligent act, not a deliberate one, and thus is an accidental bombing. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 08:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support per @Bloxzge 025. 125.227.26.172 (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a copy of my opinion. I will add a bullet point to mark that my comment is the authentic one. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk · contribs) 16:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CX Zoom I think a relisting probably wasn't strongly necessary; this has gone on for a month now and almost all but one votes are in support. Fwiw I vote support as well. I think the oppose argument relies on an unusual definition of the term "accident" and there's little risk of any reader being confused by the use of "accidental" for this. seefooddiet (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rwendland has a point, and all support votes, even though numerous, rely on WP:OSE. So, I relisted to get another round of opinions. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]