Talk:Battle off Zuwarah

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Italian / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Italian military history task force (c. 500–present)
	World War II task force

Italy Mid‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name changed per MILMOS[edit]

The former name "Battle of the Tripoli convoy" was too generic, since there were hundreds of Axis convoys bounded for Tripoli during the Libyan campaign. On the other hand, when a common name is not found in sources, "the name should be a descriptive geographic term such as "battle of X" or "siege of Y", where X and Y are the locations of the operations." (see MILMOS). Tomblin and Playfair (the latter not cited in the article) specifically mention the Gulf of Gabes as the area of engagement.--Darius (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need large edit[edit]

This page is completely wrong - there was no Italian convoy with merchants but only the Tripoli minesweeping flotilla being evacuated to Tunisia (and then to Italy) and made of the four "RD" plus seven smal auxiliary minesweepers and patrol vessels. Additionally, Sportivo - a steamer and not a tanker, sunk by submarine -, Ennio (scuttled in Zuwarah) and Fianona (a tugboat and not a tanker, probably lost on a mine) were lost in the same days but in different occasions. This was one of the several minor engagements which took place in the second half of January 1943 between Italian ships fleeing from Tripoli before the city was captured by the Allies (sinking of the D'Annunzio, of the Tanaro, of the Edda and Eso etc.) and British ships (sometimes planes or submarines) sent to destroy them. See for example: http://www.trentoincina.it/mostrapost.php?id=329. And finally, the battle did not take place in the gulf of Gabes, but near Zuwarah, Libya (Source: "Navi Mercantili Perdute", Historical Office of the Italian Navy)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.65.14.206 (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically agree, there was not such thing as a "convoy". First of all, the minesweeper's flotilla was not part of the Regia Marina, but belonged to the Guardia di Finanza or Italian Coast Guard. They were indeed small 200 ton vessels armed with a single 76mm gun and two 6.5mm machine guns, thus incapable of give any effective protection to large merchant ships. Their goal was just to reach Sicily, where the boats were to be relocated after the fall of Tripoli, but the British destroyers intercepted and sunk them off Zuara. For more detail see the page Dragamine 36 della Guardia di Finanza (in Italian) on the official Italian Navy website. As for the cargo ships, the Sportivo was sunk by the submarine HMS Unseen in the same area, but 24 hs before; the Fianona sank to a mine on 21 January and the Ennio ran aground and was eventually scuttled at Zuara on 23 January.--Darius (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 December 2018[edit]

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 section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus: NPASR if alternative proposal requires further discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle off Zuwarah → Battle of Zwara – Seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME. Flooded with them hundreds 17:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 01:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now I have restored the article to its previous location "Battle off Zuwarah" before sock move. Further move can be made based on this discussion. --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment.~~ Oppose. Two small observations: to be WP:CONSISTENT, the Zuwara spelling should probably be used, and since this "naval" battle took place on the sea "off" the coast of Zuwara, editors might want to consider Battle off Zuwara as the title of this article. That way, readers will not be misled by the title to think that the battle actually took place in Zuwara. Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there ~~02:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)~~ 21:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all options. Zuwara was created at Zuwarah in 2005 and moved to Zuwara without discussion in 2011. It was moved back to Zuwarah without discussion in 2013 ("better transliteration"). Then it was moved back to Zuwara in November 2018 by an editor subsequently blocked/locked as a sock with the edit summary "revert undiscussed move." True, there had been undiscussed moves in both directions in the past, but the page title had been stable for five years. I am reverting that page to the stable title, Zuwarah, and suggest determining which title to use for the location there rather than here, since this discussion was more about consistency than which title for the location is more appropriate. Dekimasuよ! 15:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paine Ellsworth, what do you think of this solution for now? Dekimasuよ! 15:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Response[edit]

To editor Dekimasu: your solution appears to be the most correct, which makes this page title in its present form consistently follow the main article's title. Thank you for your excellent research! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 21:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

@Llammakey: Can you recommend sources for these smallish actions? I'm gleaning what I can but it's a thin gruel. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]