Talk:2012 Benghazi attack

Archives

No archives yet.

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Requested move

2012 Benghazi attack → 2012 Attack on U.S. Embassy in Benghazi – Seems to be more descriptive but might be a reason its here. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. No need for the excess verbiage pending need to disambig & current space is more common English name. Also, proper grammar & formatting would be 2012 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. — LlywelynII 14:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, the name could be more descriptive, especially given that there were other attacks on diplomatic presence in Benghazi in 2012, including an attack on the British presence, and on a red cross facility. That being said there are grammar issues with the name proposed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

What's your preferred format? TomPointTwo (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps something like United States Benghazi Consulate attack?

Ultimatly whatever the common name of the consulate is, followed by attack.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, FYI, it has also been referend to as the Battle of Benghazi.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "Benghazi attack" is the common name. The year is there for consistency with other articles. Unless there was another notable Benghazi attack this could get confused with, it should not change. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title is common name, and doesn’t get bogged down in descriptors. One might want to add that the proposed title is incorrect. An embassy was not attacked. It was a consulate. Furthermore, it wasn’t just an attack on that consulate, but also, a CIA annex was attacked. The current title is best and avoids any such problems. There was not another notable event called “Benghazi attack” in 2012. RGloucester (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Simplicity is best. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

what the hell happened to the archives for this TP ?

everything's goneHammerFilmFan (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

archival

I suggest we change the archival on this page, now that activity has died down. Since ClueBotIII only supports hours to archival, I think we should use MiszaBot instead which supports days to archival. The current ClueBot archives should be consolidated into new MiszaBot style archives, since we don't need to make an archive per month anymore, there's not enough activity.

• Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archives/2012/October -> Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archive 1
• Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archives/2012/November -> Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archive 2
• Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archives/2012/December -> merge to Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archive 2
• Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archives/2013/January -> merge to Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archive 2
• new MiszaBot archivals -> Talk:2012 Benghazi attack/Archive 3

-- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

Why is this article listed under Wikiproject California and Wikiproject San Diego? I was tempted to just delete those two templates but I thought I would ask first and see if there's some reason not apparent to me. --MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I'd say the template for Wikiproject Military History is also dubious - based on the "What topics do we cover?" section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right about the first two. They're almost certainly tagged because one of the victims was from San Diego. But you're a bit of an expert on the area, so if you're confused by this, it's very unlikely this is big enough there to merit the tags. The California tag could also be because another victim was buried there, but this really seems like a stretch. I'll remove them both. I think Military History is appropriate, however, as military personnel were killed. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)