Talk:August 2010 Mogadishu attacks

Discussing Merger with Battle of Mogadishu (2010) Out of Phase User (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

oppose. Something is wrong with your request. You did a move, not merge request. The term battle is good enough, as are all other Battle of Mogadishu pages--DAI (Δ) 18:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It is "move" request, but because the other page already exists it might technically be called a "merge" request. The term battle is NOT good enough, if you can show multiple sources calling this a battle... perhaps, but preemptively calling attacks a "battle" is premature. If this goes on for months and you can find sources referring this to a battle then a move back, in the future, may be in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Out of Phase User (talk • contribs) 18:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Can this discussion please be copied over to the other article? That's the one that actually has the content at the moment and is the one that people will be looking at. This talk page discussion is far harder to find here. Silverseren^C 19:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of an easy way to do it and this is the place where the discussion is "supposed" to go. If you know how to easily do it, please do.Out of Phase User (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a clarifying link from Talk:Battle of Mogadishu (2010). It should be easier to find now.Out of Phase User (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That works. Silverseren^C 19:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• My opinion is the same as it was in the ANI discussion. I think that the title should be kept as Battle of Mogadishu (2010) because it follows the format of the other related articles, which also shows that this isn't an isolated event. Furthermore, it is highly likely that the attacks are going to last longer than just August, and it would be highly redundant to end up making a September 2010 Mogadishu Attacks article. Thus, I believe that it should stay at it's current position, which reflects past consensus and is more reliable for the subject matter. Silverseren^C 19:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Just listen to the way you're talking about. "Highly likely"... "end up making a September 2010 Mogadishu Attacks"... It like you're predicting the future. By describing these types of events as actions in a "battle" you're actually giving a kind legitimacy to them and by proxy lending support to one side or the other (usually the side NOT in power.) I'm not on a mission here, but if I was I would go take a close look at all the links in the format. For instance, with Battle of South Mogadishu, none of the references call it that name and only one of them calls it a "battle" at all. We're inventing names here and wiki is not the appropriate place for it.Out of Phase User (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that the other, related articles should be renamed, then instead of a move/merge request, you should probably open an RfC that deals with all of them, so that a proper naming system can be decided for all of them at once. Silverseren^C 20:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, my need for pushing an agenda is not nearly as strong as I imagine other's are. I'm not willing to get into a protracted fight about things I really only kind of care about. Let's just focus on this article and if any one else feels more strongly about pushing the neutrality of wiki the suggestion is out there.Out of Phase User (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, alright, but I still feel that, if the others are going to stay the way they are, then this article should not be renamed. If the Battle does indeed only last through August or maybe another month or so, I would be entirely open to renaming it Battle of Mogadishu (August 2010) or something similar, following established format. But, otherwise, I don't feel that we should be deviating from the norm for this article unless a change for all of them is decided by the community. Silverseren^C 21:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Mogadishu seems to be a wikipedia creation, not used anywhere. by not taking sides the attacks are of its own and independent thsu the convention per attacks anywhere to list it as such.Lihaas (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Then an RfC should be opened to have them all be renamed properly, not just this one. I just don't want this article to sit here, named differently from the others for no real reason. If we're going to do one, then we should do all of them. Silverseren^C 19:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion one way or the other about the merits of the request. But in terms of the process that needs to be followed, De Administrando Imperio is correct that this is a move request, not a "merge" request. The "merge" template is meant for cases where two articles which both contain actual content might be more appropriately combined into one article — it's not meant for cases that essentially boil down to changing an article's title. The fact that the proposed title already exists as a redirect to this one doesn't change the fact that it's a move rather than a merge, because administrators do have the ability to move an article overtop an existing redirect. Accordingly, this needs to be formatted and discussed as a move request, not as a merge. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This has already been pointed out. It is fine as a "merge" request. It's affects nothing to discuss it as such.Out of Phase User (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Technicality aside, where do we stand to discuss the issue itself.Lihaas (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we already have. There seems to be some agreement that the naming is offbase, but no one (including myself) feels the need to bang their head up against the wall to try and fix it for all the articles needed (which someone put as a criteria... I guess... hell if we're not going to save all the baby seals, let's just let this one go ahead and die.) I mean, just look at the pointless bickering about a "move"/"merge" convention. I still feel that people are/will push an agenda (cynical, I know) with respect to this issue so... doubtlessly this is all just die a quiet death.Out of Phase User (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep this format, it's useful. Besides, the battle is going to prolong in September. --Againme (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This battle is going into September. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge tags on a move request.

This is a move request, not a merge request. Move requests do not have a tag for the target page. Until/unless such a move is approved, replacing this page with an inappropriate merge tag is becoming disruptive. The redirect needs to remain in place and functional until/unless there is consensus to do the move. I personally do not care if the page is moved or not. But the inappropriate use of the merge tag, in effect WP:BLANKing the redirect before a discussion can be had as to whether or not it should exist, is getting to be disruptive. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I noticed it, but the redirect now is fine... it was originally redirecting to Muna Hotel attack which I believe was an unfair means of dodging the issue at hand. The way it is now isn't really a problem.Out of Phase User (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggest Close

It's quite clear that, other than the nominator (and possibly Lihaas), there is no support for this merge/move request and I suggest that it is closed. Silverseren^C 16:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this, there is no need for this to drag on for months and this is not a proper merge as was most likely intended. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)