Talk:Action in the Strait of Otranto

Rename
Suggest moving page and renaming "Battle of the Strait of Otranto (1940)" to remove confusion with "Battle of the Strait of Otranto (1917)", although have seen references to "Battle of the Strait of Otranto 5". Any comments? --Newm30 (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, moving moving and renaming to "Battle of the Strait of Otranto (1940)" makes sense. Anotherclown (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As there's a clear consensus I just made this move. Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless we have an article for some other "Battle of the Strait of Otranto" (like Battle of the Strait of Otranto (1917)), there is no justification for disambiguating this name. If both are notable, then the other should have an article, and there needs to be a hat note from the one that has primary usage to the other, or Battle of the Strait of Otranto needs to be a dab page. See also WP:D and WP:PRECISION. Since this is the one and only ""Battle of the Strait of Otranto" currently covered in Wikipedia, I'm going to revert this move.  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that Battle of the Strait of Otranto was redirecting automatically to the new article, I don't see the point of what you just did. If you Google 'Battle of the Strait of Otranto' you get a number of references to a significant-looking battle of the same name in 1917 which should have its own article. Given that this move was discussed and a consensus developed here, it would have been nice if you had discussed this before over-riding the results of this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Born2cycle appears to be using this move as a "test case" for this user's "bold, revert, discuss" proposal on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves. Nick-D, you might formally request the move on WP:RM and as the REASON state something like "repeat move that was made after discussion, then reverted".  Born2cycle has done the same elsewhere;  see for example Talk:Lepidogalaxias salamandroides.  --Una Smith (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'll probably just create an article on the 1917 battle and then move this article. I don't want to humor such uncivil behavior or request permission to make an uncontroversial move just because one editor sees fit to ignore WP:GUIDE and bunch of other policies, guidelines and common sense practices. Nick-D (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That should work. --Una Smith (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the time to dab this article is after the one on the 1917 battle exists. I, for one, certainly wouldn't object to that.  But moving this article before that is adding "unnecessary precision" to the article title.


 * Also, one of the reasons we have the WP:RM process is to give notice to a broader range of editors about a given proposed move, rather than limit the notice to only those who currently watch the article in question. That's why the process requires giving notice at all affected talk pages as well as the "broadcast" at WP:RM. A consensus for a move formed from such a necessarily limited audience (I'm sure many articles aren't watched by anyone) cannot carry the same weight as one formed through the WP:RM process. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement to list uncontroversial moves at WP:RM or dicuss such moves anywhere other than on the article's talk page - the text of WP:RM explicitly states that "there is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry." Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I know there is no requirement to list at WP:RM - I just mentioned one of the reasons we have that process. My objection to the move, and the basis for the revert, was not because it was not listed at WP:RM, but because it was unnecessary disambiguation.  A revert to a stable state, even after three people all agree to the change, is not the same as an arbitrary change against consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is - the preferred option is to re-open the discussion. Disruptive and uncivil editing like this can lead to you being blocked or otherwise restricted, so I would suggest that you not do it again. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is now a Battle of the Strait of Otranto (1917). Dab this page as necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Revision and expansion
Have added more material but need to add gleanings from O'Hara and Bragadin and finish citing paragraphs. Moved the title to Action in.... since battle seemed too grand and O'Hara, not usually sympathetic to Anglocentric bias uses it. Regards