Talk:Battle of Dogger Bank (1915)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Requested move
Using Battle of Dogger Bank for the 1915 battle of the name causes confusion with the 1781 battle. Would be clearer to use the Battle of Dogger Bank page as a disambiguation page -- just as Battle of Lepanto, Battle of Ushant and Battle of Cape St. Vincent are disambiguation pages. JimmyTheOne 20:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
- Support JimmyTheOne 20:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- I presume that you also want the current Battle of Dogger Bank (disambiguation) moved here. Philip Baird Shearer
*Oppose convince me that this is not the major battle and that the first line of the current article is not sufficient as a disambiguation and I'll reconsider Philip Baird Shearer 13:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
Add any additional comments
Copied from User talk:JimmyTheOne:
I should explain my thinking. I changed the Battle of Dogger Bank page into a disambiguation page for several reasons:
- The use of the Battle of Dogger Bank page for the 1915 battle was causing confusion for people seeking the 1781 battle. (See some of the talk pages leading to it, for examples, or check some of the old links).
- Using the ambiguous name as the disambiguation page seems to be the convention in naval history articles on Wikipedia. Several other battles, such as the Battle of Cape St. Vincent, Battle of Lepanto, Battle of Cape Finisterre and Battle of Ushant are set up in this way, as are most ships (with HMS Victory as a good example of an exception to the rule).
- The two battles of Dogger Bank are of similar historical significance. Both involved squadrons detached from the main British fleet, were of little consequence in themselves but contained important tactical lessons. So neither battle is obviously more important or the most common meaning of the term.
- I was aware that the 1915 battle would lose its edit history, but I hoped that the fact that the history would still be available on the Battle of Dogger Bank page for anyone who really wanted it and that I had more than doubled the length of the article from 500 words to 1,200 by adding more details of the battle and the aftermath, as well as the order of battle and sources and making a couple of corrections, would compensate for that loss of convenience.
- I wasn't aware of the move option, which I now realize was my main error.
I have taken your suggestion of submitting a request to the administrators. JimmyTheOne 21:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- OK you have convinced me I'll withdraw my objection. Philip Baird Shearer 13:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)