Talk:Blockade of Wonsan

A fact from Blockade of Wonsan appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 April 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Blockade of Wonsan in the Korean War was the longest naval blockade in modern history, lasting 861 days? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/April.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Asian / Korean / Operation Majestic Titan 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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Korean military history task force Operation Majestic Titan (Phase III)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blockade of Wonsan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216110615/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq82-4.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq82-4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this article be renamed Action of 12 October 1950 (Korean War). The current title leaves in doubt what conflict it involves (A keen student of military history could guess by the date, but the casual reader would not). The Interior(Talk) 01:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point but there has already been a large discussion about articles with titles similar to this. Ultimately it has been decided that because most naval battles were not named that there is no alternative that isn't in the form of a long sentence. There are dozens and dozens of pages named like this so I cannot agree to any rename. Though if you have a good suggestion I might be interested, I am not a big fan of naming articles like this but it's whats accepted by the military history users on wiki. I was origionally going to name it "Sinking of USS Pirate and USS Pledge" but that is too long for my taste and I figured it would be renamed anyway.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why it couldn't be called Battle of Wonsan Harbour, or First battle of Wonsan Harbour, or would that be establishing a name after the fact? It wouldn't solve the problem stated above, but would at least connect it to a physical place. It would also work consistency-wise with the articles at Category:Naval battles of the Korean War. The Interior(Talk) 01:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it cannot be called Battle of Wonsan Harbour is that there is no scholarly source for that name. As $1LENCE D00600D stated above, the convention used by wiki for unnamed naval battles is to title them Action of (insert date here). There are several featured articles and good articles that are titled as such, for example Action of 13 January 1797. If you can find a source for a particular name for this action, by all means show us and im sure it would be accepted as the new title. But i have researched this action in the past (it is one of only a few instances since world war two when a us ship was sunk in action) and i have never seen an actual name for it so convention dictates that the title should stay as it is.XavierGreen (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the other battles listed in the category, several have titles cited in various scholarly works or have been titled as such by the Korean government (as is the case with many of the more recent naval actions that have occured).XavierGreen (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my suggestion, and defer to existing naming conventions. The Interior(Talk) 04:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited the talk page of "Action of 12 October 1950" as a consequence of AfD listing for the aforementioned article. Keith H99 (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]