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. Jenks24 ( talk) 07:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC) reply

13 May incident (Malaysia) → 13 May Incident – Unnecessary disambiguation, also the word "incident" should be capitalized in my opinion as it is part of the phrase. Timmyshin ( talk) 06:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. There is only one 13 May Incident called such. —  AjaxSmack  14:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Oppose "13 May Incident" should redirect to May 13, were many incidents occurring on that date are listed -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 04:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • There are no other events at the May 13 article called "13 May Incident". Why should it direct there? —  AjaxSmack  00:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Support - unnecessary disambiguation.-- Staberinde ( talk) 17:32, 30 September 2015 (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.

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 13 May incident, clear consensus that this title should be lowercase; though some preferred other titles, there was no consensus for a move to another title. ( non-admin closure) Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC) reply

13 May Incident → 13 May incident – Downcase "incident" as in most book sources. The rationale given to cap it in an earlier RM discussion was lame and contrary to guidelines. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Brad v 15:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Oppose The article title has been moved so many times it is getting ridiculous, and although I don't mind it being changed again to a more widely used title, we'd need to establish first what that title should be. Google Trends shows that the upper case is more common – [1]. Google Books yields different results, but if we are using the Google Books argument, you'd find that it gives more hits for "may 13 incident" (2960) [2] than "13 may incident" (1860). Choosing only those where Google Books highlighted the words, then you'd find the following –

• 13 May Incident – 1
• 13 May incident – 11
• May 13 Incident – 10
• May 13 incident – 17
• May 13th Incident – 11 – [3]
• May 13th incident – 7
• 13 May riots – 10 [4]
• May 13 Riots – 2 [5]
• May 13 riots – 16
• 13 May racial riots – 14 [6]
• May 13 racial riots – 20 [7]
• May 13 Racial Riots – 2
• May 13 race riots – 14 [8]
• May 13th riots – 20 [9] (I stopped searching for variants after this, but you'd get the idea).

It's just a quick count, and a different person may find different numbers, but it does show that there is no clear preference for any particular single title. If you want to play around further with the title search, try Google Scholar – [10] [11] [12] [13], JSTOR – [14] [15], etc. (all of which again show that May 13 is more common than 13 May). Trying to change the title without establishing which is the more common one will only lead to endless change. Hzh ( talk) 07:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Move to something meaningful such as 13 May 1969 Malaysia riots In ictu oculi ( talk) 07:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

It is commonly used without the year added (such as September 11 attacks or May Fourth Movement), seems like it would makes the title unnecessary wordy. Hzh ( talk) 08:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree with these observations. It's clear that there's no "proper name" for this event, so let's fix the caps and use any one of these common names. I agree the year is not typically used. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Alt support by nom: May 13 racial riots, which is more common and more precise according to reports above. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Still seem a bit arbitrary though. Perhaps first go through the different sources in Google Books and Google Scholar thoroughly and see. Hzh ( talk) 11:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm OK with any reasonably common descriptive phrase for the incident. The objection is to the current pretense that it has a proper name. If you have a preferred alternative, propose it. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support downcasing per WP:MOSCAP. Yeah, I'm OK too with that suggestion by Hzh. Tony (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support downcasing per WP:MOSCAPS {{u| Checkingfax}} { Talk} 06:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support moving to May 13 racial riots May 13 riots (which is precise enough) per suggestions above and common usage, despite the Malaysian date format following DMY rather than MDY. The editor whose username is Z0 07:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC) The editor whose username is Z0 11:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom, per the MOS, but note what a terrible title it is. It completely fails to describe the topic. The current title does not feature as title for the event in the first references of the current article. "13 May" is no more than an in-context, close-perspective shorthand reference. A better title would be " Malaysia race riots of 13 May 1969. The main incoming link, from Malaysian general election, 1969, is sourced to reference 3, which is titled "The tragedy of May 13, 1969 (part 2)". Whether it is "Tragedy" or "Race riots" is not the point, just that some actual descriptive word for the event is necessary. "Malaysia" was already firmly in context for the reference, the publisher being the newspaper "Malaysia Today". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for the support. I say let's go ahead and close this case-fix discussion, and then entertain a proposal from whoever has a better title to propose based on all this discussion. I agree that almost any somewhat more precise title would be a good idea, though I know there are those who would prefer to stick to the more concise ambiguous title, too. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  On first sight of the title, "13 May Incident", I thought: either a quite inept title decision probably by a one-time contributor, or it is a composition title, a poem or a song or a play, where the author deliberately intended to have a peculiar title, possibly obliquely named after something real. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC) reply

We shouldn't really be inventing title ourselves. It is commonly referred to as "May 13 [something]" (sometimes just "May 13"), and everyone in Malaysia would know what it refers to. There isn't really any other significant riots on May 13 around the world, therefore per WP:CRITERIA for title, a concise recognisable name is preferred. Previous discussion moved the title 13 May incident (Malaysia) to 13 May Incident (see above), it's just going to go back and forth endlessly. Hzh ( talk) 11:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The mere "May 13" is a common shorthand frequently used within close sources, such as newspapers of the time. It was repeated a lot that year and in the following years that no source from the period gave a true introduction, the context was of common knowledge of the event. These 1969-1970 newspaper sources are not quality sources. Look to quality sources, reliable sources taking a distant perspective, and how these sources introduce the topic. They use "Malayasia" (if not a Malaysian document), "riots" and "1969". Often "race" is used. Trawling the current references, many of them are not so good sources as they are sourcing very specific things. Ref 10 "May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969" is a good example of a whole-topic reference from many years later. I am not seeing any two general references of quality and distant perspective using the same construction to title the event, so it does make a descriptive title more challenging. The current title is quite inadequate for introduction to an international audience. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• I would say most of these books are quality sources: [16] But I have nothing against a more descriptive title like 1969 Kuala Lumpur riots. Timmyshin ( talk) 05:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Sure, I agree. "Thirteen May 1969" by Graham Brash, 2001, included. This "incident", a funny word for deadly riots that changed Malaysia forever, is so deeply entrenched in the national psyche that it lives by the familiar shorthand. I don't think a viable title can leave out a variation "13 May". I think a longer more descriptive title is needed. 13 May 1955 was also a day of riots in Singapore. At Hock_Lee_bus_riots#Student_Movement we have the prose "This eventually led to the May 13 incident in 1954", in reference to an unrelated 13 May incident, the 1954_National_Service_riots. The current title fails WP:PRECISE. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply

This is like arguing that September 11 attacks should be renamed because there were other attacks on September 11, e.g. 2012 Benghazi attack. Only one event is important for which the date is known by. The idea that someone who haven't heard of the May 13 event would be confused by the lack of precision simply does not make sense, they would not be looking for it in the first place. I would agree however that the word "incident" obscures what the event is about (the majority of sources would have the word "riots" in there), although I believe that is close to the official title in Malay. Hzh ( talk) 09:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Nonsense. The Malaysian May 13 1969 race riots do not compare at all with the international significance of the September 11 2001 attacks. There is basically nothing about this “May 13 incident” that is not already couched in a Malaysian context. There are other May 13 incidents in other years in other countries. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Seems like you are ignoring the point made. Being internationally significant has got nothing to with title. Only specialists would known about May 4 Movement or February 28 incident (or indeed hundreds of other events) outside of the countries where they happened, that does not they need to have the countries specified. Give other May 13 incidents you are claiming to have happened that are known by that name. Hzh ( talk) 22:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Seems like you do not appreciate the purpose of a title, for the reader, to recognizably and precisely define the content of the article, and are thinking that a title need only be technically unique among existing article? The are many people like that in RM discussions, and none have ever yet given a reader-based reason for not using a meaningful title. Just across the straight, the neighbors have a different May 13 incident in their collective memory. Readers should not be expect to know, when selecting a title of an article for downloading, whether it is possible that similar incidents are under the same name or some other name. Why should a Malaysian have to know that the Singaporeans call their May 13 incident a "bus riot"? And similarly for every other "incident" listed at May 13. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply

The purpose of the title is very clear, as already given in the link above (giving reader a recognisable title that is precise, concise, natural and consistent). The Hock Lee bus riots happened on May 12, why you bring that up I don't know, I don't think you read the article properly, and that riot is not called the May 13 incident in Singapore (and the other event on May 13 is titled 1954 National Service riots). It is irrelevant anyway, google "May 13 incident", and it's mostly about the Malaysian event, that is before you google "May 13 riots" (which is the more common choice), and I don't see any links to other events until the seventh page, therefore that is the primary topic per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Hzh ( talk) 08:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply

The Hock Lee bus riots were a series of riots that ran for days, and there were several specific riots, or "incidents", on May 13. Sure, google "mostly" returns Malaysian 1969 hits, but note the proportion of the hits that are embedded in the context of Malaysia or under a heading containing "Malaysia" or "Malaysian". "Malaysia" or "Malaysian" is part of the introduction to the topic, which means it belongs in the title. In contrast, "September 11 Attacks" do not pre-establish a context of the United States. There are too many incidents listed at May 13. September 11 attacks is not unique, others are listed at September 11 attacks (disambiguation), but one has international long term significance dominating all others. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply

The Hock Lee bus riots already ended by the early hours of May 13, see [17], it is hardly a May 13 riot or anything to do with May 13. What other incident on May 13 is called by that date? Hzh ( talk) 09:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC) reply

• User:Dicklyon will you also create RMs to downcase January 28 Incident, February 28 Incident, February 26 Incident, 31 March Incident, May 15 Incident, and May 24 Incident? There needs to be some consistency for these articles. Timmyshin ( talk) 05:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for pointing these out. Yes, I'd be happy to take the lead on fixing those, too. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC) reply

  A couple of those appear to be uniformly capped in sources; I move the ones that are not. I believe these are now pretty consistent with the guidance of WP:MOS. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:14, 1 September 2018 (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.