Talk:Action of 11 November 2008

Deletion

Why is this article nominated for deletion? It certaintly is notable, as its the first naval battle fought by Britan in at least 50 years.XavierGreen (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sinking of Belgrano by UK sub is not a naval battle?--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, even that was over 25 years ago.Jellyfish dave (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I ment to say fatal surface action.198.138.209.3 (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 2008

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus on move destination, if any. JPG-GR (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

November 11, 2008 incident off Somalia → ? — During the discussion that was raised over whether this article should be deleted-[1], a number of people posted the idea that the name of the article should be changed, with one person stating "The article name does not clearly identify the subject", and another saying "I suggest the title should include "naval", "Somalia" and "piracy" or "pirates", as these are the likeliest search terms". I agree that the title should be changed, so as to make the article easier to find for those who are looking for information on the engagement is covers. I don't know what to change the title to, though, and the engagement has not been referred to by any name that I can find in reliable sources. — BlueVine (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• how about Anglo-Russian anti-Somali piracy battle (11 November 2008)? 76.66.195.63 (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Before we can sensibly consider renaming we need some alternative names. I was the one who mentioned the search terms. IIRC in another discussion an editor with US Navy experience said US sailors use UK date formats to log events, and anyway the Royal Navy played the leading tole. I therefore suggest

Naval action against pirates off Somalia, 11 November 2008 --Philcha (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

One usually does not simply throw together likely search terms; naming conventions exist which ought to be respected in the absence of overriding imperatives to the contrary. To prevent future controversy I suggested the article adhere to the "[Date] incident off [location]" formula rather than "Action of [date]." So, no change. Albrecht (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For the moment I'll go with the "[Date] incident off [location]" vote, but as this incident becomes more spoken about I'd rather have what it is commonly referred to in the British media or how British politicians refer to in Hansard. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard really about that incident in particular (especially in comparative with the super petrolier (spelling?) hijacking), but a common name used by the media would be one possibility or somewhere near what Philcha mentionned, like November 2008 or simply 2008 Gulf of Aden Navy (al) intervention/action/incident/intercept against pirates (or put the Gulf at the end).

Here's some possibilities

Maybe with month if necessary

• 2008 Gulf of Aden pirate incident
• 2008 Gulf of Aden Navy/naval action against pirates
• 2008 Navy and pirate incident off Somalia
• 2008 Naval action against pirates off Somalia/or in the Gulf of Aden
• 2008 Naval and pirate incident off Somalia
• 2008 Gulf of Aden Navy intervention against pirates

...etc. JForget 03:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Albrecht, it seems I'm not the only person who finds "November 11, 2008 incident off Somalia" rather uninformative. If you could provide a link to the discussion that established that convention, it might save going over the same old ground. --Philcha (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

All of those suggested are to vague because there have been several naval actions fought against pirates in 200867.84.178.0 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Albrecht, the current title agrees with the WP naming conventions and seems perfectly fine. Nsk92 (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

First time this, first time that...

All the "first times" in the first paragraph... do they really need to be there? It reads terrible. Maybe the firsts can be limited to one or generalized and the rest moved down a little? Just a thought. Jbarta (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He's got a point there... Ryan4314 (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Atalanta

According to the Op Atalanta article HMS Cumberland was one of two British ships assigned to the operation in 2008. Just though I'd leave some sort of message before I make changes.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind Cumberland was operating as part of Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 at the time, (In support of Op EF-HOA)--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Action of 11 November 2008

Why not Action of 11 November 2008, since navies around the world have been using this type of title to name their small sea engagements for centuries. There are several other Action of... articles in this encyclopedia. For example, the Royal Navy considers the Battle of Jutland to be the official name of the 1916 engagement, as do the public around the world. Why should we have a double standard for smaller engagements, our navies, You know the ones actually out there involved in these engagements, considers the names of the battles Action of... rather than ...Incident off Somali Coast, why should we rename the event? Shouldn't we entitle them the same way the navies of the world do, we do larger engagements, whats so different about smaller ones? Usually if anybody was going to read these incident off the Somali coast articles, they would get to them via the Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa campaignbox. Obviously every Somalia/Yemeni pirate incidents in the said campaign box took place in Somalian or Yemeni waters, around the Horn of Africa, so I dont think it is neccessary to have the location in the title, not when your reader already knows the engagements took place in the Gulf of Aden and surrounding waters of the region. 90% of the time the actions do not take place within site of land, so in other words, alot of the engagements did not occur off the Somalian coast. Which is another reason why the Action of.... way is more suitable. Usually when a battle happens at sea with no surrounding landmarks, they are entitled Action of...--Aj4444 (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

---

November 11, 2008 incident off Somalia → Action of 11 November 2008 –

• consistency sought with other anti-piracy actions involving the US military. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:16, 19 May 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Action of 11 November 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209194528/http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/33184 to http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/33184

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)