I propose merging Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou into Maersk Hangzhou. As the ship is only notable for the current attacks, I see no need to have a separate article for the attacks and for the ship. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Propose merging Maersk Hangzhou into Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opposed the battle between the US Navy and the Houthis is extremely notable. It was the first actual surface combat the US Navy has seen (other than against pirates) since the Gulf War. If anything the ship's article should be merged into that of the battle, since the battle is way more notable than the ship.XavierGreen (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So do you support Maersk Hangzhou being merged into Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opposed, this attack is not insignificant and led to the Yemeni retaliation on warships in the Red Sea a week later which escalated into joint U.S.-U.K. airstrikes throughout Yemen. This is a major engagement which led to a dozen casualties. RamHez (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never claimed the attack was insignificant just that we shouldn't have two articles for the ship and the attack. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Oppose. I agree that two articles are not required, as the ship's notability at present derives primarily from the Red Sea events. However the combined article is better at this current title because Although "Maersk Hangzhou" is consistent with WP:CONCISE, and is a more likely search term than "Attacks on the MV...." (which, if used, will still succeed via the redirect), taking WP:TITLE as a whole, as well as WP:ONEEVENT, the proposal is not justified. Favour reverse merge. - Davidships (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree, the overwhelming majority of articles that even mention the ship at all are mostly about the attack. In fact, there is nothing notable about the ship at all other than the attack.XavierGreen (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Agree with Davidships. In 30 years this will make more sense if covered similarly to MV Sea Isle City and Tanker War. The attack will be part of the ship's history and part of whatever the larger crisis article is. Every news event doesn't need its own article. There are several articles already trying to cover this topic. Houthi involvement in the Israel–Hamas war, Operation Prosperity Guardian, United States–Houthi conflict (2023–present), 2024 missile strikes in Yemen. The ship article should exist and contain a summary of the Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou content. Anything else should go in one of the other articles. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

updating... I don't support redirecting from the ship article or deleting the ship article. The ship will be around long after the attack is forgotten. With everything else happening, the press hasn't even published account of the ship's damage. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your example is factually wrong, the Sea Isle city incident and the American response does have its own article at Operation Nimble Archer. The Attack on the MV Maersk Hangzhou article also encompasses a naval battle in which direct combat occurred between the US Navy and the Houthis. The US Navy hasn't engaged in such an action since the Gulf War, and the Battle of Bubiyan and Battle of Ad-Dawrah are actions of a similar magnitude that occured during the Gulf War and have their own articles. And as for your example of the Tanker War, that conflict has articles for separate engagements that occurred such as the Bridgeton incident and the USS Stark incident.XavierGreen (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose & Support – I believe this is a non-person case of WP:ONEEVENT. As of this !vote, the ship article (Maersk Hangzhou) has only information (excluding ship specs in infobox) related with the attacks (Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou). Comparing the two articles, the ship article is 1/3 the size of the attacks article. So, now I need to explain my oddly-bolded !vote. I basically support a reverse merge of the proposed merge. Given WP:ONEEVENT, I actually support a merge (i.e. redirecting) the ship article (Maersk Hangzhou) into the attacks article (Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou), as the specs alone do not make the ship any more notable than it was from the two-days of attacks (i.e. "single" event notability - WP:1E: "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person.") I am a strong opposed to merging the attacks article into the ship article though, given the CTOPS nature of the attacks article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge Maersk Hangzhou into Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou – As per the arguments made by XavierGreen and The Weather Event Writer. I no longer support the attack article being merged into the ship article but the ship article being merged into the attack article.

GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that I have changed my !Vote above, partly from consideration of WP:ONEEVENT, and also from thinking about another, quite unrelated, case. - Davidships (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support but to merge Maersk Hangzhou into Attacks on the MV Maersk Hangzhou. Maersk Hangzhou is non notable and only notable for the attacks on it. Article should be talking about the attacks on the vessel. If the attacks did not happen, Maersk Hangzhou would not be an article anytime soon. ~ JASWE (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge We get a clearer article as a result. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - passes WP:NOTABLE and WP:NOTNEWS, with several references outside of the current event reports (30-31 December): i.e. Al-Jazeera January 5th, France24, January 5th, WSJ January 17th.GreyShark (dibra) 14:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Those articles mostly talk about the shipping company with mention of the attack on Maersk Hangzhou:

  On Tuesday, Maersk said it would pause all vessels that would cross through the Red Sea following an attack on one of its ships, the Singapore-flagged Maersk Hangzhou, by Houthis, and has since begun redirecting ships.

  They don't mention the ship in detail and when they do it is in regards to the attack. Also please note that I no longer support the attack article being merged into the ship article but the other way around, the ship article being merged into the attack article. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Observation. This is now a complete mess (perhaps the rot set in with my own change of vote earlier). But now the OP has changed to an opposite proposal and many of the responses above will be invalid or uncertain. Can we treat the proposal discussed hitherto as withdrawn, and start afresh with the revised proposal please? - Davidships (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Good call, I will close the nomination. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 09:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]