Talk:Battle of the Mediterranean

Proposed merger
(This proposes a merger with Mediterranean Theatre of World War II. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

Opposed. Keep this one as a subsidiary of the Mediterranean Theatre of World War II article. There's a risk of obscuring the overview with too much detail on one aspect. Folks at 137 23:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am also opposed since this article deals with Naval warfare rather than the whole strategic campaign - maybe we could rename this artice Naval Battle of the Mediterranean?


 * I would agree to renaming it. Right now, there seems to be ambiguity between the naval portion (which is what this article should be about) and all action which took place on the Mediterranean.  Reminds me a bit about the Soviet-German War and the Eastern Front situation. Oberiko 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

TOTALLY OPPOSED. The article deals with other topics (like land operations and countries occupied by Italy), while the Battle of Mediterranean is related ONLY to naval control of the Mediterranean sea.--Brunodam (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSED. It is a nonsense to compare the article "Battle of the Mediterranean" with the article "Italian Mare Nostrum", because the first deals exclusively with naval topic, while the second is centered on the Italian occupied seashores and nearby territories. Furthermore, the Italian Mare Nostrum deals with the "Regia Aeronautica" (Italian Airforce) and the "Regio Esercito" (Italian Army) in order to explain the Italian control of the area. An area that includes most od southern Europe and northern Africa facing the central Mediterranean sea. It is like compare the naval battles for the control of the Pacific ocean with the territorial control of the Japanese Empire on areas of Asia (China, IndoChina, etc...).--Pannonicus (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(I've struck these comments out; they are 13 months late, and about a different merger; they are also repeated below. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

Proposed merger of Italian Mare Nostrum
I just noticed the Italian Mare Nostrum article. Given that there is a significant overlap between the two and "Italian Mare Nostrum" is a one-sided fascist propaganda term, similar to (say) "Greater East Asia War", I suggest that it should be merged into this article. Or otherwise it should be re-written as an article about the term " Italian Mare Nostrum" rather than a conflict/campaign article. Grant |  Talk  01:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am TOTALLY OPPOSED to the proposed merger. The article deals with other topics (like land operations and countries occupied by Italy), while the Battle of Mediterranean is related ONLY to naval control of the Mediterranean sea. Furthermore it is NOT one sided fscist propaganda...it states EVEN the point of view of the Italians.--Brunodam (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSED. It is a nonsense to compare the article "Battle of the Mediterranean" with the article "Italian Mare Nostrum", because the first deals exclusively with naval topic, while the second is centered on the Italian occupied seashores and nearby territories. Furthermore, the Italian Mare Nostrum deals with the "Regia Aeronautica" (Italian Airforce) and the "Regio Esercito" (Italian Army) in order to explain the Italian control of the area. An area that includes most od southern Europe and northern Africa facing the central Mediterranean sea. It is like compare the naval battles for the control of the Pacific ocean with the territorial control of the Japanese Empire on areas of Asia (China, IndoChina, etc...).--Pannonicus (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose again. For the same reasons of Pannonicus. Battle of the Mediterranean is related to a naval topic, but Italian Mare Nostrum deals with territorial topics (lands and seashores occupied by Italy in the Mediterranean). --Brunodam (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunodam (talk • contribs) 22:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I too am OPPOSED tp the possible merger, because of the same reasons of Brunodam & Pannonicus. Mary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.49.14 (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits, Oct 08
I've re-arranged the sections a bit, to make a "protagonists" and a "history" section, and I've re-written the history to improve the narrative. i hope that's OK with everyone. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

WP Note
I've reviewed this for WP:POLAND and I don't believe it is important enough to be included under that project. Milhist Polish task force is enough.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)