Talk:List of naval battles

Formatted (2004)
As an experiment, I've copied over entries from the main list more-or-less verbatim, but left most of the existing ones as-is. They can be made consistent once we decide which format we like better (the main list format is objectively more informative but verges on the verbose). Stan 15:26, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm changing the format to be in sections so as to facilitate easier editing. DJ Clayworth 05:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Too long (2006)
This page is very long. I was going to remove some of the smaller fleet battles and reclassify them as single ship if they have fewer than 6 participating ships. Several famous "single ship" battles had up to 2 or 3 ships per side. Is this acceptable to everyone? It will make the page shorter, by spreading the entries out to the other single ship page also. currently that page is quite short. SpookyMulder 10:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is that as articles on significant battle are written that they be linked to from here. I think another long barren list like list of battles is undesirable. Might also do some Further Reading on naval fiction such as O'Brians books and the Horatio Hornblower series. User:Fredbauder

The list of battles, if not properly sorted, will eventually become increadibly lengthy and unreadable owing to countless battles have ever taken place in history. Instead of sorting the hugh list of battles, battles that can be grouped under a common nature (as Battle of Trafalgar under Napoleonic Wars) could be sorted on the subpages. Say Battle of Trafalgar, all pages of list of battles and Naval battles link to Napoleonic Wars which then links to the battle. Napoleonic Wars provides sorted lists by alphabetical and chronological order and nature of all battles belonging to it. user:Ktsquare

Battles versus other actions
Someone added this:
 * Battles are in bold; single-ship and other actions in plain

to the top of the list. I have three comments. (1) If this is going to be done at all then it should be done consistently. (2) The change broke a number of links; please restore them. (3) The distinction between battles and "other actions" seems bogus to me: it just creates needless trouble as we start arguing about which is which.

I will change the article back to the old scheme but I am willing to be persuaded that this is a good idea. Gdr 15:56, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)


 * I don't care for it either - the annotations on list entries should be sufficient to make big vs small obvious. There aren't very many single-ship actions famous enough for anybody to bother listing them here, so the net effect would be bold almost everything, so it loses any value it might have had. Stan 17:52, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Too long (2004)
It's true that this list might get extremely long. How about using a table, with 3 columns... 1-land battles, 2-naval fleet battles, 3-naval battles with fewer than 3 ships on either side.

Battles would be listed chronologically under the war in which they happened. Wars listed chronologically also, with a line betwene each for clarity. Each battle would have its own page, which would link to ships/forces involved, and back to the main battle list. I think a table would greatly reduce clutter. currently only part of the page is used.

so you'd have

first section of table:

War

(land battle 1) I (naval battle 1) I (single ship battle 1)

(land battle 2) I etc.

etc.

second section of table for next war:

I also might mention that the independence wars of Brazil, Argentina etc. are usually ignored in books on naval battles. There were several fleet battles involving frigates and battleships from 1821-29 in the River Plate area.

Someone asked about edit summaries. I don't usually write them because the edits are:

just typos and grammatical errors

occassional additional information

frequent, as if i take a long time on an edit, I sometimes find someone else has edited it in the meantime and I have to start over. It's a pain to write notes for each edit. Mostly they're minor. I also, generally, find linking every second word to be annoying. If you're not likely to want to link to say "Britain" in a particular page, why link it? I hope it cdoesn't get to the stage where every word is a link!

There are many single ship actions. You could also include lists of ships involved in things which weren't technically battles, such as "danish ships captured at Copenhagen, 1807" or "British ships destroyed in Finland to stop the Germans capturing them, 1918" or "Scapa Flow wrecks" or "French ships scuttle at Toulon 1942" or "ansons around the world fleet 1762" etc. they'd be plain text. Fleet battles would be the only bold ones. (Unsigned comment by User:SpookyMulder)


 * Your fellow editors appreciate the edit summaries, because then we know whether a change is minor (grammar fix) or major (a sweeping change to the format, as you've done in several cases). People who make major changes without edit summaries, notes on talk pages, or anything, are generally not considered good team players, the consequence being that other editors have less compunction about undoing their changes. So think of edit summaries and talk pages as an insurance policy to ensure that your time isn't going to waste.


 * As for this list, I think it should limit itself to named battles, and a very small number of well-known single-ship actions, or maybe not have them at all. Multi-column is highly undesirable, because list entries should be annotated, so a non-expert knows that "battle of the Kentish Knock" involved English and Dutch without having to click on the link, and on a machine with a smaller screen, tables get scrambled or require horizontal viewing. A list like this can't be all things to all people; its primary value is as a quick way for readers to find articles when they don't know the name accurately enough for a keyword search to work ("I know it's sometime around the turn of the century, and near Korea, and Russians or Soviets were involved I think"). A list recording every time a ship was in combat would be a different (and very long) list; we can have multiple lists here, although I wouldn't work on such a list because it would be impossible to complete, and inherently-incomplete lists are not that useful (did you not find something because it doesn't exist, or because the list is unfinished?).


 * In any case, let's come to an agreement on scope and content, so that we're standing on each other's shoulders instead of each other's toes. Stan 16:19, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are many issues raised here; I'm still minded to remove the bold formatting for the reasons I gave above. Gdr 23:12, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
 * 1) Include events other than battles? No. Wikipedia would benefit from a detailed history of naval warfare, but not in this list.
 * 2) Include land battles? No. There are the lists of battles for that.
 * 3) Subdivide by wars? Maybe for the most recent few centuries. But in some cases it's not so clear. (Eighty Years War or Thirty Years War? Fourth Anglo-Dutch War or American Revolutionary War? etc)
 * 4) Format as table? No. The value of this list, compared to Category:Naval battles is in the short annotations. The table proposal would also waste a lot more space than the list.
 * 5) South American Wars of Independence? Yes, please write articles on those wars, then list them here.
 * 6) Edit summaries? Please add them. They are very useful when reviewing the history of an article to see who has done what. If you're just correcting typos etc, write "typo" or "copyedit" in the edit summary.
 * 7) Too many links? Links are what makes Wikipedia better than a paper encyclopedia.

Yes, OK, one list for fleet battles and a second page listing single-ship actions and other naval events. I will have to look for my stuff on the 1820s wars i mentioned before I can really attempt anything on those. I know there were a lot of wars. Grouping them sounds like a good plan, specially since a lot of land wars didn't have much/any naval component anyway. The Anglo-dutch wars could be grouped, with perhaps subheadings just in italics for the individual wars, such as

Anglo-Dutch Wars (1652-73)
First - 1652-54: (Date) Kentish Knock (Details) (Date) ... (Details) Second - 1665-67: etc.

Is there any way to remove the line after "Anglo-Dutch Wars" above?

I'll try to remember to include edit comments! :)

SpookyMulder 07:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's better if the battle names themselves are in bold. Put all single-ship actions on a separate page, linked to at the top of this page. The bold helps distinguish the name of the battle from other linked words "Nelson" etc. in the descritpion. - is better than : after names, too. It's not a list of items, it's a description of the battle, so requires a hyphen :) SpookyMulder 11:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * While you might personally prefer the bolding, others don't, and it's nonstandard; uniformity across the encyclopedia is important. It's quick and easy to remove (with editor macros) what takes you a bunch of time to add, and every editor will do just that, so you might as well go along. :-) Stan 22:41, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How about we divide this list up more into wars? for instance "Anglo-Dutch Wars" could all go together, "cretan wars" "swedish danish wars" etc. several wars overlapped, so it's probably better to not intermingle all the battles. we could then ignore "century" devisions altogether (this would save much space) and just have war headings, or just a space after each war to divide it from "non war" battles. ? SpookyMulder 07:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

as I understand, calibre refers to the length of the gun barrel in terms of bore widths. 12-inch 30 calibre would mean the gun is 12 x 30 inches long. Is that right?

NAVAL BATTLE OF  GENOA  (1747).
On June 21, 1747, in front of Genoa, 4 Genoese galleys (under Francesco Doria) attacked 6 British vessels.

THE NAVAL BATTLE  IN  THE  CHANNEL  OF  SICILY (1800).
In September 1800 the Neapolitan vessel "Archimede" (Cap. Bartolomeo Forteguerri) rejected the attack of 2 Algerian frigates supported by 5 small ships.

Other forgotten naval battles.
1435: battle near Ponza (the Genoese defeated the Aragonese). 1684: battle in front of Genoa; the Genoese admiral Ippolito Centurione defended the town by 5 galleys against the French Navy (admiral Duquesne)(14 vessels, 3 frigates, 20 galleys). 1912: battle of Kunfuda Bay (Red Sea); 1 Italian cruiser ("Piemonte"), with 2 destroyers, sunk 7 Turkish gunboats.

Via WP:RFC/STYLE
Suggest something like a three/four-column table using smaller font-size:

...and so on. For battles lasting more than one day, date shows beginning and notes mention duration (e.g. Jutland above). Regards, David Kernow (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that looks nice. If you wan tto change the page over to that, I'd help with it. We could almost get rid of the "century" headings and just have the name of each war instead.SpookyMulder 10:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I seem to be busy during my Wikipedia time at present, but will try to contribute. I've tried simplifying the code for the above and have added it to the list; I've also tabulated the first section ("Ancient"), which needs some attention to its wikilinks. The basic format, therefore, for battles featuring a year, date, name and notes, would be:

{| width="100%" class="wikitable" style="font-size:95%; text-align:center;" !width="5%"| Year !!width="5%"| Date !!width="24%"| Battle !!
 * (Year)
 * (Date) ||      (Name)
 * align="left"|   (Notes)
 * align="left"|   (Notes)

...etc. Re removing the century headings, I'm not sure; I guess it depends on how many folk might prefer to use them. Yours, David (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Form over substance
30-January-2007: The article seems to have had good information, but has been reformatted and seriously over-linked, meaning: there are now broken links to articles that have dates in titles. Serious overlinking, seriously. Don't ya just hate it when plain text is a million times better than wickified? In any aging bureaucracy, beware "form over substance" where formatting of information overwhelms the usability of that information. Formatting of all dates is called "obsessive compulsive disorder" and is yet another danger of becoming a wackopedia. If new changes seriously break an article, they should be reverted, and re-thought: remember, this is a live encyclopedia, as a source of information, above being a showcase for formatting. Links to specific articles are more important than links to dates. What a total mess. -Wikid77 10:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed: I fixed & checked all the broken links to date-named articles (there were about 95). Luckily, they followed a simple text-pattern: I exported the entire article to NOTEPAD and ran 3 global edits to correct date-named article links.  Most of the dates had a unique year-pattern using "]] Wikid77 11:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Text-list form
The article "Listing of naval battles" is in a text-list form, intended for use as text, sections of which can be copied, or annotated for adding information into other articles. For the table-form, the article "List of naval battles" (should be "Table...") is being doubled in size as tables, where the battles are coded in complex, rigid Wiki-tables, with each battle split across multiple lines/boxes of the table. Both forms of the information are maintained to support different groups of users in their needs for working on data formatting.

To avoid ongoing formatting, please see: Listing of naval battles. -Wikid77 18:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is good. Can whoever is doing the tables not remove the date (month and day) from some of the battles? Also I think it might be better if either the name of the battle or "action of..." are used, rather than having "battle of..." each time too. We know they're battles, we preobably don't need "battle of..." each time too. Just saves space etc. Other than that, the table looks good.SpookyMulder 11:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is preferable, in my mind, to give the full battle name because then it is clear at first reading if the link is to a description of the event or just a link to the location. compare Sluys with Sluys. First one is the battle link. GraemeLeggett 11:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ancient gap
Currently, there is a gap of about 150 years (after the Pax Romana), but wars were happening in other cultures, and more sea-battles could probably be added outside Europe, depending on source references not hindered by the Dark Ages when recording battle information. -Wikid77 18:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of description of USS Liberty incident
An editor has removed the following description as "non-neutral" and "one opinion among many":
 * - Israeli forces prevent American technical research ship from observing the Six-Day War

While many individuals express decidedly non-neutral opinions about this battle, I haven't found "many" differing accounts of the battle results. I'd like to explore the alleged non-neutrality of the removed text. There seems widespread agreement that USS Liberty was an American ship, the attacking forces were Israeli, and the attack occurred during the Six-Day War. It also seems the attack effectively prevented USS Liberty from performing whatever mission she was engaged in, unless that mission was to provoke an Israeli attack. The removed statement avoided non-neutral adverbs like "intentionally" or "accidentally" prevented mission accomplishment; so perhaps the mission statement was perceived as non-neutral. USS Liberty may have been perceived as spying on Israel as Israel was later perceived as having Jonathan Pollard spy on the United States; although some perceive USS Liberty utilizing electronics in international waters as different than Israeli agents obtaining classified documents within United States territory. Perhaps some believe USS Liberty was providing military aid to Egypt in the Six-Day War. So I've changed the description to remove mission statement:
 * - Israeli forces pioneer anti-ship use of napalm to disable American technical research ship during the Six-Day War

Thewellman (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You're obviously spoiling for a fight. You've come to the wrong place. Poliocretes (talk) 05:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Japan defeated Korean navy
PeanutbutterjellyTaco is continuing to falsification of sources of information in the article Japan. For example, Sources of information in List of naval battles is written like this "『(朝鮮王朝實錄(Annals of the Joseon Dynasty))』（宣祖二十五年八月戊子条） "李舜臣等攻釜山賊屯、不克"』李舜臣(Yi-sunsin)等(and others)攻(attacking)釜山(Busan)賊屯(Japanese forces)、不克(and did not win.) 「Yi-sunsin and others attacking the Japanese forces of Busan, and did not win」　This fight is defeat of Korea. However, PeanutbutterjellyTaco renews this fight with victory of Korea.　I asked him. However, he speaks only a word called vandalism. I will rest for a while. Please suppressed his excitement.　--115.65.37.217 (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, thanks for starting a discussion before you revert my editing. My edit summary only shows "Vandalism" because I did not undid your edits. I am by no means an expert on history, let alone Korean or Japan-Korea related history. Thus, I admit that you could be far more knowledgeable on the topic than I am and I could be mistaken. I have no interest in who won a specific battle in year xxxx, and I didn't edit this article before I found your editing is a POV.


 * If you're referring to the Battle of Busan (1592), and I believe you does since you cited 宣祖二十五年八月戊子条(King Seonjong's year 25 (1592), August according to the lunar calendar), the battle took place on 1 September 1592, not 1 November 1592. Thus, we might be referring to another battle, not battle of Busan.


 * General Yi(李舜臣) might had lost some battles, but the general consensus is the he was victorious in major battles during the war. And your second sentence is also POV: "1598 December 16 Battle of Noryang - Chinese General Chen Lin with the help of the Korean navy, gave the damage to the Japanese fleet, however, the Japanese army succeeds in retreating.", since you removed general Yi's name who was a prominent commander of the battle.


 * Last but not least, this article does not belong to Japan or Japanese history. It should be the last place to start a editing war based on nationalism. Best, --- PBJT (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My opinion is well-grounded, but your claim is not well-grounded. Perhaps you can not read Korean history books. 宣祖二十五年八月戊子条 is August 29.  According to the History of Ming and Japan daimyo's memoir, Li was one of the members supporting the Chinese General Chen Lin. And himself records the service to Chinese generals . According to the South Korean soap drama "Immortal Admiral Yi Sun-sin", he is a perfect admiral, but According to the history books in China, Korea, and Japan, he is a Cancer helped the Lernaean Hydra in the Labours of Hercules. PeanutbutterjellyTaco, Do you not realize that your own is not neutral? --115.65.37.217 (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for adding your input and for notifying me at my talk page. I appreciate for that. I guess this is one of your pet topics, and like I said before I really do not care who won the battle. I have a number of my own pet articles and this isn't one of them. What I care about is whether your contributions are WP:POV or not. From my perspective, I have reasons to believe that you violated the Wikipeia's policy:
 * 1) You tried to reversed the conclusion of the Battle of Busan (1592)(not just number of casualties of either sides) without notifying other users, which makes me skeptical.
 * 2) * I have not edited Battle of Busan (1592)
 * 3) You removed the admiral Yi's name from the Battle of Noryang without explanation. Repeated attempts to remove contents is WP:Vandalism.
 * 4) * I have not edited Battle of Noryang
 * 5) Your contributions at Naval history of Japan had been reverted twice by another user: first revert and second revert.
 * 6) * What is written there?
 * 7) You included non-neutral words at Gyōki like this one.
 * 8) * What is written there?

All add up to the conclusion that you look like contributing based on your agenda. Based on your editing history, it seems like that you do not have a problem with a defeat by the Chinese navy, but thinks that a defeat by the Korean one is a dent on your national pride,
 * You cannot understand the Japan, Chinese. Record of this war is written in only Chinese and Japanese. Because you do not understand Chinese, Even the document was written by Yi Sun-sin. PeanutbutterjellyTaco information defines a "Vandalism" to deny the "Yi Sun-sin whom PeanutbutterjellyTaco imagined". I write the facts is simply. If If you are abusive me nationalist, I write 「독도는 우리땅 ！」「독도는 우리땅 ！！」 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.65.37.217 (talk • contribs)

Let me add my own opinion on your comment:
 * In my previous comment, I stated that "King Seonjong's year 25 (1592), August according to the lunar calendar". I cited "September 1" from the Battle of Busan (1592) article. (by the way, I understand that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source WP:RS) And the lunar calendar date is different from Gregorian calendar date.
 * If you accuse me of being illiterate of Chinese text, then you'd better to provide a source in English. But I understood the Chinese sentence in your previous comment.
 * Battle of Busan (1592): I don't know in what context the sentence "李舜臣等攻釜山賊屯、不克" was recorded. As far as I understand, however, the battle was a naval skirmish and the Japanese naval fleet near Busan lost several ships. Indeed, the Koreans failed to capture the castle of Busan and I assume this was the reason why they said "不克" (didn't win). Nevertheless, since Japanese navy had lost more ships and personnel than Korean counterpart, Koreans argue it was their victory.
 * If you think the result of Battle of Busan is a Korean POV, then by the same token "Japanese defeated Korean" is also your POV.
 * Battle of Busan (1592) might not be a decisive victory since it did not end the war. But it was a strategic victory on Korean side, and they did not intend to carry out Amphibious warfare.
 * As for the Battle of Noryang and admiral Yi Sun-sin, admiral Yi commanded Korean navy in the battle however you may put it. Removing his name from the battle commander is vandalism.
 * Korean soap drama/novel might have exaggerated Yi Sun-sin's role. That is why they are not reliable sources WP:RS. And keep in mind that I did not cite those drama/novels, and mentioning those drama is irrelevant in this discussion.

Let me add my own opinion on your comment:
 * In my previous comment, I stated that "King Seonjong's year 25 (1592), August according to the lunar calendar". I cited "September 1" from the Battle of Busan (1592) article. (by the way, I understand that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source WP:RS) And the lunar calendar date is different from Gregorian calendar date.
 * My writing is based on the 朝鮮王朝實錄(Annals of the Joseon Dynasty). Which record is your claim based on ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.65.37.217 (talk • contribs)
 * If you accuse me of being illiterate of Chinese text, then you'd better to provide a source in English. But I understood the Chinese sentence in your previous comment.
 * I do not blame you. Official record of this battle is Chinese and Japanese only. And you denied the official records of the Japanese and Chinese. It is your editorial policy is this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.65.37.217 (talk • contribs)
 * Battle of Busan (1592): I don't know in what context the sentence "李舜臣等攻釜山賊屯、不克" was recorded. As far as I understand, however, the battle was a naval skirmish and the Japanese naval fleet near Busan lost several ships. Indeed, the Koreans failed to capture the castle of Busan and I assume this was the reason why they said "不克" (didn't win). Nevertheless, since Japanese navy had lost more ships and personnel than Korean counterpart, Koreans argue it was their victory.
 * ”Japanese navy had lost more ships and personnel than Korean counterpart”which record is it written ? The history books in Japan, China and Korea, there is no record that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.65.37.217 (talk • contribs)
 * If you think the result of Battle of Busan is a Korean POV, then by the same token "Japanese defeated Korean" is also your POV.
 * "Japanese defeated Korean" is POV of Korean history book 朝鮮王朝實錄(Annals of the Joseon Dynasty).　"Korean defeated Japanese" is PeanutbutterjellyTaco's national pride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.65.37.217 (talk • contribs)
 * Battle of Busan (1592) might not be a decisive victory since it did not end the war. But it was a strategic victory on Korean side, and they did not intend to carry out Amphibious warfare.
 * Lee was laid siege to Busan. However, the Japanese troops were ousted him. After that, Lee was not close to Busan again. And the Japanese army was safely continue to use the Busan. Is this strategic victory of Korea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.65.37.217 (talk • contribs)
 * As for the Battle of Noryang and admiral Yi Sun-sin, admiral Yi commanded Korean navy in the battle however you may put it. Removing his name from the battle commander is vandalism.
 * According to the History of Ming, his name is written only two lines.
 * "璘遣子龍偕朝鮮統制使李舜臣督水軍千人" - General Chen Lin was dispatched to General Deng Zilong. Deng Zilong was to manage the 1,000 soldiers along with the Yi Sun-sin.
 * "他舟誤擲火器入子龍舟、舟中火、賊乘之、子龍戰死. 舜臣赴救、亦死. " 　Deng Zilong was killed by the guns of the Japan army. Yi Sun-sin went to help the Deng, Yi Sun-sin also was killed.
 * Yi Sun-sin is not written to the record in Japan. Yi Sun-sin fought against Japanese low-class commanders. Therefore famous daimyos did not know him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.65.37.217 (talk • contribs)
 * Korean soap drama/novel might have exaggerated Yi Sun-sin's role. That is why they are not reliable sources WP:RS. And keep in mind that I did not cite those drama/novels, and mentioning those drama is irrelevant in this discussion.
 * ”Your claim （”Japanese navy had lost more ships and personnel than Korean counterpart）is not recorded with any history book. But, Episode 77 of Immortal Admiral Yi Sun-sin, which is consistent with your claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.65.37.217 (talk • contribs)

Now, here are some of practical suggestions to you if you're determined to change the article. Best, --- PBJT (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Please be a registered user. You might be a registered user already, and decided to contribute anonymously. But, please contribute as an logged-in user, instead of contributing with your IP.
 * 2) Please open a new discussion at each battle articles, namely Battle of Busan (1592) and Battle of Noryang. Notify relevant WikiProject portals of new discussion, so that interested users takes part in. WikiProject Japan and WikiProject Military history is a good place to start.
 * 3) Please read previous discussions before you raise an issue. The same topic might have been discussed already and people had moved on. Unless you do have a new supporting evidence, it would be difficult to convince others to update a previously-made consensus.
 * 4) This article, List of naval battles, is not the right place to discuss each listed battles. Moreover, you are talking to a wrong person.: I'm not an expert and my opinion, bias, POV or whatever doesn't matter to those battles.
 * 5) Please be civil WP:Civil and respect other users. This is not a requirement, but if you be polite to other wikipedians they will recognize your manner. You'd have a better chance to convince others by being polite and refraining yourself from being emotional.


 * Your suggestion is that yourself keep it in mind. I have to respect the feelings you are proud of Korea. --115.65.37.217 (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder you even read my suggestions: Start a new discussion at each battle pages (not this talk page) and let other wikipedians at each WikiProject portals know about new discussion. I'm starting to think you derided my good intentions when you said like "「독도는 우리땅 ！」「독도는 우리땅 ！！」", which is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. I asked you for being civil, and please do not attack others personally (WP:NPA). What you are practically doing is accusing me of being nationalistic. So far, I explained why I reverted your editing. Plus, I asked you to discuss at each battle pages. That's it. I wouldn't respond to your comment sentence by sentence, since many of your claims are absurd. You really don't need to vent your anger here. --- PBJT (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not angry. You could not present evidence at all. However, I presented all the evidence. So if you argue, I will be able to add document. If you do not have the evidence to refute, I will allow the exit of this discussion.　--115.65.37.217 (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is some kind of "threatening": "If you do not have the evidence to refute, I will allow the exit of this discussion.". I asked for Third opinion (WP:3O) now. PBJT (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Abkhazia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_the_coast_of_Abkhazia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrant (talk • contribs) 21:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Tourville
I've removed this entry: as it is highly suspect. It was added nearly nine years ago, with this edit, and has sat here ever since, which may indicate how often this page is read. AFAIK there was no battle at "Tourville" (wherever that is) in May 1702, and a google search for it only throws up the WP entry and some mirrors. Nor is there a book by PhM Bosscher (nl) called Oorlogsvaart that I can find. There was a battle of Barfleur in May 1692 (which is already listed) and Tourville was one of the commanders, so "Tourville's battle" is a possible name, and "battle of Tourville" a possible (mis-)translation, but without a reliable source there doesn't seem much point in mentioning it. It's also possible someone is having us on... Xyl 54 (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1702 May 29, Battle of Tourville (a.k.a. Battle of Barfleur) next to Cape de la Hague, north of Cherbourg. French battle fleet attacked by the Anglo-Dutch fleet. French fleet flees to Saint-Malo. See: Bosscher, (PH. M.) Oorlogsvaart. In: MGN, deel III, p. 367-368.