talk:List of ships attacked by Somali pirates

Should we really be listing US, UK, etc... naval vessels that were attacked as "capture failed"? Considering these ships were never going to be captured and were attacked mistakenly by the pirates wouldn't a better more accurate listing such as "mistaken identity" or the like be more appropriate?

: While I agree that "capture failed" is a bit awkward in these situations, I think saying "mistaken identity" is speculation unless you have a verifiable source that proves the pirates or alleged pirated actually mistook the warships, which I personally doubt they would do. Does anyone have a better phrase? —Diiscool (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

::With respect, think it those contending it is not mistaken identity need to provide verifiable sources that it is not. Perhaps sources showing Somali pirate intent to commit suicide attacks, which I do not see. One does not need to prove they mistook the warship for a cargo vessel, one would need to prove they did not. Especially given the fact they have never attempted to board a military vessel. What is going on is they come up abaft and do not discern it is a military and not cargo before being fired upon. Skiffs, AKs and RPGs are not what you would board a military vessel with in a contested boarding attempt.Explainador (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is 176k long, and is well overdue for splitting. I therefore suggest that it is split into four articles - List of ships attacked by Somali pirates 1992-2007, List of ships attacked by Somali pirates in 2008, List of ships attacked by Somali pirates in 2009 and List of ships attacked by Somali pirates in 2010. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:Agreed. My last edits seemed to take an eternity to preview, presumably that was due to article length. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:Support. Please do this. It has been needed for a very long time. The article is impossibly unwieldy as it stands now. — Diiscool (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:Support - Makes things easier, and making things more easy is something I like to see on wiki. However I feel the first article should be named List of ships attacked by Somali pirates 2005-2007 as there is no way of knowing how many ships were attacked prior to the events comming into the media spotlight. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I chose 1992 as that is the date the Somali Government collapsed. Earlier activity has been mentioned above on this talk page. Will give it a while longer, and split off the three single years first - after which the size of the article can then be reviewed and maybe a decision made as to what happens then. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:Support. Metabaronic (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

::I've copied the 2010 info into its own list. If there's anyone who understands {{tl|copied}} could they sort out required attribution. If there's comments or suggestions for further improvement please say so. Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:::I think I got it working, except that the template isn't built to handle a new article created solely with copied text. The diff link in the template doesn't actually link to a diff, but I think it satisfies legal requirements. --Banana (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

To merge List of ships attacked by Somali pirates in 2010 into this article.

Support: Reenem (talk)

Oppose:

:Definitely oppose right now. Why is this being discussed before the Split Proposal is wrapped up? SEE ABOVE. —Diiscool (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Consensus is for the list to be broken down due to size considerations. Mjroots (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - too large to merge into parent article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of ships attacked by Somali pirates. 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/20081206083436/http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=2137 to http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=2137
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130729141738/http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?id=17645239&ps=926&srce=news_class&action=1&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_NKNWU00L1_UNEWS to http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?id=17645239&ps=926&srce=news_class&action=1&lang=en&_LT=UNLC_NKNWU00L1_UNEWS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080930222907/http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,6119,2-11-1447_1821590,00.html to http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,6119,2-11-1447_1821590,00.html
• Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.dma.dk/sw20988.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214102619/http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL12187866.html to http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL12187866.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091219232949/http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=136&Itemid=229 to http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=136&Itemid=229

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)