Talk:Missile strike on the Black Sea Fleet headquarters

casualty count and other details
a source of unknown credibility reports 34 dead, over half officers
 * - https://twitter.com/splendid_pete/status/1705683943368888652

Johnfreez (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * another source is saying 34 officers dead, 105 members of RAF wounded
 * - https://twitter.com/AleksandrX13/status/1706287712896962661
 * Johnfreez (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

name
is there a reason this article is named this way? has it been called this by, e.g., ukrainian sources, or is there a different reason? BWludXM4 (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Because that was the name of the operation? You wouldn't call Operation Barbarossa the "22 June 1941 German Offensive" or Operation Overlord the "6 June 1944 Allied Offensive" Scu ba (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not mentioned in the article, though. Can we get a source for that name? HappyWith (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * BBC titles its article as: '"Crab trap". What is known about the consequences of the strike on the Black Sea Fleet headquarters in Sevastopol?' &#160;☆☆☆— PietadèTalk 17:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It has been called operation crab trap throughout Ukrainian media
 * pravda Euromaidan ukrinform
 * Kyrylo Budanov told VoA, which was then circulated in the AP, RFE, NBC, and CNN that the operations name was crab trap
 * NBC CNN republic
 * Nearly every source I've seen talking about the strike has referred to it by the name crab trap
 * Scu ba (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Than that should be added to the article - then we could presumably move it back. HappyWith (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅. Professor Penguino (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 September 2023

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Stale discussion appears to have a consensus to move as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

2023 missile strike on the Sevastopol Naval Base → missile strike on the Black Sea Fleet headquarters – WP:Criterion of specificity. The current title describes, e.g., the September 13 strike that hit dry-docked submarine and ship. —Michael Z. 14:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412  T 21:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support maybe the language could be more natural but it's an improvement nonetheless. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Soft Oppose Eh... we could do better, I still think naming the article after the operation name, Operation Crab Trap would probably be the best, although, I understand that it breaks all convention on airstrike article names. regardless, Missile strike on the Black Sea Fleet headquarters I feel would be a bit of a step back and become too vague. Technically the dry docks are part of the black sea fleet headquarters, and there have been several strikes on those, so this name just wouldn't work. Scu ba (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Operation Crab Trap is the best way to title this. TheBoy112 (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The headquarters is the building. The dry-docks are part of the larger BSF base is my understanding. Anyway, I am absolutely fine with Operation Crab Trap or any other variation that’s an improvement on the current title. —Michael Z. 04:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My dictionary says a headquarters is “the premises occupied by a military commander and the commander’s staff.” Even if the Sevastopol naval base is sometimes referred to casually as the location of the BSF’s headquarters, a plain-English interpretation of the term should be understood as where the command is located (a building or maybe campus), not the naval docks, entire harbour, or city. And I don’t believe this contradicts the recent usage in news sources about related military actions. —Michael Z. 16:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Operation Crab Trap is not a name many readers will recognize and be familiarised with. I would rather use either the current or the proposed title. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is why we have redirects, but understandable problem. Scu ba (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support move to Missile strike on the Black Sea Fleet headquarters, or even 2023 missile strike on the Black Sea Fleet headquarters, on technical grounds of specificity. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment we cannot use "Operation Crab Trap." Violates WP:NPOVNAME. Neutral on the proposal leaning towards current name because "2023" is useful. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How does that violate WP:NPOVNAME? It's the official name. HappyWith (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: a more specific name is probably advisable, because there have been other missiles strikes on the Sevastopol Naval Base in 2023 – for example September 25,, September 23, September 13 – but not strictly necessary because they are covered in Crimea attacks (2022–present) and don’t have their own articles. —Michael Z. 23:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Proposal. I would support if it were "2023 missile strike on the Black Sea Fleet headquarters." Professor Penguino (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support move to Operation Crab Trap per @Scu ba. @Buckshot06, how does Operation Crab Trap violate NPOVNAME? 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 11:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a preferred Ukrainian operational name. Like calling Gulf War I "Desert Shield" or the U.S. intervention in Somalia in the early 1990s Operation Restore Hope, or the infringement of Iraqi sovereignty in the north c1991-92 as Operation Provide Comfort. We are in danger of at least looking like we support one or the other side's preferred narrative. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand what guideline is being violated here. WP:Operational names? Wikipedia has more than 500 articles with “operation” in the title, many of them being operational names, so I don’t think that in itself automatically violates anything. Please explain exactly how this relates to actual guidelines in this context. —Michael Z. 02:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have already linked WP:NPOVNAME. Trying to avoid POV is my aim here. I was under the impression that there was some kind of guideline stating that WP preferred avoiding things like the U.S. official term Global War on Terrorism in favour of our actual article title, War on terrorism. But yes this is much more important the bigger the event, and sometimes one of the belligerents' operation names does become the COMMONNAME. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What’s the non-neutral POV of this name? That it denigrates the Russian BSF staff officers as crabs?
 * How is the example POV? The redirect isn’t tagged as a POV name, or a redirect after a move. As far as I can tell, it’s just a name that’s used but not the most COMMONNAME of that subject and not satisfying the CRITERIA as well.
 * If your claim is just that it’s POV because it’s the Ukrainian side’s name for the op, I don’t buy it. There appear to be many, many examples of such names (even only “sometimes” is still times, but is it?), which is evidence that this is not a guiding principle. —Michael Z. 03:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no need to be aggressive here. My understanding when I made my first post was that there was a rule somewhere. If there is not, and no-body else is concerned about the appearance of non-neutrality, I'm happy to go with the majority. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There’s no need to perceive nonexistent aggression here. I’m just trying to identify why you perceive something as non-neutral. You’ve not been forthcoming. If you won’t or can’t even explain your opinion . . . —Michael Z. 14:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Operation Crab Trap. Clear way of disambiguation. HappyWith (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support on the proposed name per nom. Oppose Operation Crab Trap per WP:CODENAME for now. Many of the sources used in the article do not refer to the strike by the operation name. Even if it does, it is in the style of UKR army dubbed as "Operation X". We can revisit whether the codename is a better name for this article in a historical context sometime in the future. – robertsky (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

French/english submited missiles
Probably a detail, however the article currently says that the missile are UK furnished storm shadow. I don't deny it's the storm shadow family, consensus is OK on that, however I'd like to point that France also send a lot of said missile (under the name SCALP) and I'm wondering if the "UK furnished" info is well, factual enough. 178.23.152.132 (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The difference is pedantic, they are the same missiles, just produced in different countries. There is no separate article for "SCALP", instead it is just noted in the Storm Shadow article. Scu ba (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing that the "UK furnished" part might be wrong.
 * I've seen that line a few time and it all seems to come from a BBC news article.
 * I'm totally fine if it's called "Storm Shadow" even if it's french, I'm just skeptical of the "UK-furnished" part that seems patriotism with source. A petty one, I agree, however just important enough that it feels wrong blindly copy pasting it in the wiki. 178.23.152.132 (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant "without" in the first line.... 178.23.152.132 (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Several reliable sources say that the missile was supplied by the UK, just fyi:  . The UK and US helped plan the attack too: . Hope this helps! Professor Penguino (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair, that's kinda what "I wanted", ie a non UK source that says it's a UK missile.
 * Because, I seriously had the impression UK sources shortcut Storm shadow familiy = Only furnished by UK.
 * Could you add that in the article ? 178.23.152.132 (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What should I add to the article? Professor Penguino (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The non-UK source that missiles where UK furnished, on the first line of "Attack" section.
 * I kinda wanted one (that you gave) and I know a few persons that wanted one too, and I feel it's worth mentionning it.
 * No ? 178.23.152.132 (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, I’ll add that. No prob. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 178.23.152.132 (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)