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: not moved. Favonian (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Port Arthur massacre (Australia) → Port Arthur massacre (Tasmania) – per WP:NCAUST – as this is an Australian article, this article should use the relevant jurisdiction as its disambiguator. SHB2000 (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is a global encyclopaedia, with a global audience. There are two articles in Wikipedia about Port Arthur massacres, this one and Port Arthur massacre (China). They are disambiguated by use of their country names. That works fine, and would be clear to the vast majority of our readers. Changing Australia to Tasmania would actually be slightly less clear to our global audience, some of whom I know from experience sadly don't understand Tasmania's geopolitical relationship with the rest of Australia. The proposed change would be equivalent to changing the title of the other article to Port Arthur massacre (Liaoning), obviously not as useful a title to most readers. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What you and Acebulf are claiming contradict the MoS page I linked. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  SHB2000 The policy you have linked clearly applies to disambiguation of geographic place names, not for disambiguation of events (who happen to have a location chosen as a distinguishing feature). It is clearly meant for articles like Madison, Wisconsin. Applying WP:NCAUST here is inappropriate, and if you are claiming that it should apply here, perhaps it would be a good idea to show that there is a consensus for treating such cases with the broader, geography-only policy that you have linked. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Using the country rather that a subdivision for the parenthetical disambiguation is preferable. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is no need to disambiguate further than country-level distinction. HiLo48 also raises some strong arguments about discoverability, which favor keeping the title as-is. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. Almost, but oppose for two reasons: (1) WP:TITLECHANGES. The difference is to small to be worth the costs, had’ve it been Tasmanian on creation I’d support leaving it, but it is not important enough to change title. (2) The significant impacts, consequences, legally and culturally, were nationwide, not statewide. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The usual practice for labelling incidents whose monikers don't qualify for WP:NOYEAR is to use the year in the title, no? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 08:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]