The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I wanted community input on changing the name of this article from “16 January 2024 missile strikes against Houthi” to “2024 missile strikes against Houthi”. In all actuality, I’d prefer this to be merged into a bigger article, as this is the result of the entire Israel vs. Gaza or Gaza vs. Israel war. I will post to WP:Simple Talk for greater visibility. Please share your thoughts. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 16:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted on ST, I see articles are being created for everyday. I feel they should all be rolled into the bigger article or just one article or else we will have a lot of stubs with no where to go on them as a day is only 24 hours long. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 16:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i was thinking the same about it (that all these day to day strikes should be merged in one page) -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a result of the war (as I stated) and the fact that the Houthi attacked ships at sea that were not war ships so NATO countries stepped in to help protect them then they decided to put us (the US) in their direct line and fire missles at our ships and others, so I am not in agreement with the title period as it’s not attacking them, it’s protecting those without the ability to protect themselves who are involved in travel to keep the economy from sinking around the world and it turned into protecting ourselves (NATO countries as a whole). So I ultimately think it should be a part of the war article all together and not have it’s own article. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 17:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's your POV -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha46 I’m aware. I gave two options but I also look at the facts of what has happened. But my pov is not the course here. It’s about the article being renamed to be more generalized and include all of the smaller ones to avoid stubs that will never be nothing more or to put them into the article of the war. That is the question. I am allowed to express why I feel one may be better than the other just as anyone else is, but I’m not making the decision alone it’s community input and consensus that decides. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 18:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah fine but I would suggest not to include in Israel–Hamas war and instead 1 single article should be created or edited (if it's already present) that'll have all these Houthi – USA related events instead of numerous others which as you mentioned will help in avoiding more stubs.

Let's see what others say

-- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayesha46 Problem with that is it’s not Houthi-USA as it is a NATO event so other warships besides the US are there such as Canada, the UK, France and I believe Germany. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 19:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

umm but strikes on Yemen are done mainly by US and UK other countries have may have secret or supportive role

-- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They do not. It is out there in the news. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 20:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, this has turned into a forum, by my part in stating the reason I felt it better to put it into one article of the war itself. So I need to stop it, as it is counter productive to the task of renaming. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 20:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh yes👍🏻 -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note, I wouldn't be opposed to merging this into Operation Poseidon Archer, which is the coalition strikes against Yemen. That said, a "2024 missile strikes against Houthi" article would be a duplication of that operation article, as that is the actual operation name for the strikes against Houthi. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @WeatherWriter Good call. Thanks. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 23:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of these stubs for each and every daily attach this way and that should be merged into Red Sea Crisis. That is more neutral and makes everything more accessible to the reader rather than jumping from stub to stub and losing context. --Gotanda (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have repeated boilerplate like this across entries:

Notes[change | change source]

1. ↑ Both Iran and the Houthi movement deny that Iran is involved or is backing the Houthis.

If that needs to be repeated everywhere, then the "articles" are just stubs of one larger conflict. --Gotanda (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotanda I am lost as to what you are saying here. I pull up the page you link and it takes me to just a ref section; I look at the article and it has content. So what are you saying is being done with this? If it is being repeated, then we may need to look at all the articles and get them in order. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 10:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This search points out the repeated boilerplate. And, then many of those do not even link to Red Sea Crisis.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=Both+Iran+and+the+Houthi+movement+deny+that+Iran+is+involved+or+is+backing+the+Houthis&title=Special:Search&ns0=1&searchToken=dx7imtkfg97gf0q8z2nm0kd4h

All 11 of those should be merged into Red Sea Crisis for ease of access and keeping things in context. We do not have an article for every cruise missile attack in the Malvinas-Falklands War or every sortie in the US Invasion of Iraq. Individual attacks or strikes which are special in some significant way such as new belligerents, diplomatic fall-out, massive casualties, or a change in the course of the war get individual articles. That would be a simple way of doing this. Rather than scattering it across many articles which then do not get maintained well. --Gotanda (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotanda Great idea as I do see they are keeping a list in there of the actions on a daily basis. Since this article is about the main conflict and lists each month day and year out, I see no reason why this cannot be completed and all the stubs marked for QD as existing on another article. It appears someone stopped in January from updating the list. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 09:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support merging these into Operation Poseidon Archer. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merges complete. I merged most of the articles, including this one, which editors believed should have been merged. I left a couple, which I did not feel had justification for a merge from this discussion & if editors feel the articles still need merged, a discussion for those should take place. The List of military operations during 2024 contains the list of military attacks/battles/operations that have articles. Courtesy pings: PotsdamLamb, Ayesha46, Gotanda. Just a note, I did not redirect this talk page due to this discussion. WeatherWriter (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @WeatherWriter We did not have consensus for it yet. This is something we need consensus for which is why it was not yet done. Please revert your changes until consensus is reached. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 03:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @PotsdamLamb — The merge for this article has been reverted due to your objection. As there was not other discussions for the other articles (except 1 actually proposed for a merge in January 2024), I will not revert the other merges. I will note, that myself and you are the only editors to the article, so should we assume your !vote is actually to keep this article? Or actually, who is currently considering keeping this specific article, because I am not seeing anyone supporting a keep for this. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @WeatherWriter as all of the articles mentioned are covered under this discussion they all need to be un-merged (see my second statement at the top). Secondly - consensus has nothing to do with who has edited the article, it has to do with what is considered good for the wiki. This is done by a wide variety of comments. So please revert all of your changes to the articles you merged. This article was picked for discussion as it was the one I was on at the time. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 03:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @PotsdamLamb — Respectfully, I will say this. If I must revert all the merges, I will not remerge the articles, even if consensus agrees on a merge as this would be a waste of time. I would like to request that others comment about the merges prior to an undo on all the merges (since the merges involved merging into 2 parent articles & deletion from the military operation list). Aka, reverting a whole lot of edits that seem unproductive. My personal take: If there is a specific article where any editor feels a merge is not warranted, then that article specifically is undone. But, like I said, if you still feel that every article merge be undone, I will not be responsible for any re-merges if consensus agrees and that will be the responsibility of someone else. Thoughts on this proposal: Keep this article unmerged due to discussion and wait for someone to challenge the merge to a specific article. WeatherWriter (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @WeatherWriter I will say this. No one asked you to merge them in the first place. I will undo the merges for you. Don’t worry about that. It’s pretty simple. Read the link I posted earlier on Wikipedia:Consensus as it is a policy, not a guideline and you went against the policy. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 04:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @WeatherWriter I have completed the reversal of the merges from what I can see. If you see any others, please revert them. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 04:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I dropped my formal !votes below, which includes a few keep !votes for articles previously merged. This whole thing feels entirely unnecessary, but whatever. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As this discussion is about all the sub-articles for the Red Sea crisis, here is my (WeatherWriter's) !votes:

• Attack on the CMA CGM TAGE - Merge
• 6 January 2024 attack on the USS Laboon - Merge
• 9 January 2024 Houthi attacks - Merge
• Seizure of the St Nikolas - Keep
• 11 January 2024 Houthi attack - Merge
• 2024 Iranian dhow seizure - Strong Keep
• 12 January 2024 missile strikes against Yemen - Strong Keep
• 2024 attack on the Khalissa - Keep
• Operation Poseidon Archer - A Must Keep (no question here)
• 13 January 2024 al-Dailami Air Base missile strike - Merge
• 14 January 2024 attack on the USS Laboon - Keep
• Attack on the Gibraltar Eagle - Merge
• Attack on the Zografia - Keep
• Attack on the Genco Picardy - Merge [Was proposed to be merged in January and the merge was reversed]
• 17 January 2024 missile strikes against Houthi - Merge

As discussed earlier, some of these were originally BOLDLY merged, which was challenged and reversed. I will note, some of these which I now have !voted to keep, I had previously boldly merged, got challenged, and have now reversed my !vote discussion on. I do not feel like giving reasons for my !votes for every single one of these. I had anticipated a discussion for each. However, this discussion apparently, is for all of them. So, there is my !votes. Also, I am strongly opposed to the creation of a "2024 missile strikes against Houthi" article, as that would duplicate the Operation Poseidon Archer article (which is the equivalent article). I am also opposed to renaming Operation Poseidon Archer to "2024 missile strikes against Houthi". WeatherWriter (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter Is it ok to name a article based on the name given by one party of the conflict that's inside article like Operation this or that? (When both parties play a role, i wouldn't have objected if it was just USA doing attacks and calling it with Poseidon... But Houthis are attacking as well and so is UK) If so, won't Hamas attack be titled 'Operation Al Aqsa Flood'? Or Israel's response be 'Operation Iron Swords'? -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayesha46 I think we are looking at either merging these into either Operation Poseidon Archer or Red Sea crisis. For the ones you described they would be put into one of the two overarching articles (listed here) and if there is significant coverage about it, then a standalone article would be ok. However, since the two you mentioned are what they are calling it. You also have to remember Houthis is a militia backed organization and (if I remember right) has been declared a global terrorist organization by the US since at least 2021, then it was removed and then re-added again with their attacks on the commercial ships that had nothing to do with what was going on. Since these are based on what is being dubbed an “operation” it would go inside the main article. Otherwise it would be repetitive and create another set of articles that are stubs and would have to be merged. Hope that make sense. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 05:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also to note that the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel article was originally called "Operation Al-Aqsa flood" on EN Wiki. Community consensus eventually was to rename it (after 171 comments from 70+ editors), but even the closer directly noted there was strong opposition to a renaming of the article ["significant opposition to any rename"]. Operation names are sometimes used for articles as well: Operation Overlord and Operation Barbarossa are two examples. Operations are part of a conflict, not the actual conflict. That is why I am opposed to a renaming of it. It also wouldn't create a bunch of stub articles. More like actually a true regional split (i.e. Red Sea & Yemen), with very little cross-over between the two for their timelines. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thanks for the explanation @PotsdamLamb and @WeatherWriter so now what about the merging of those articles into Operation Poseidon Archer or Red Sea Crisis? -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did that, but PotsdamLamb challenged the merges, including an article that was under a proposed merge (with still unanimous talk page discussion consensus) to merge it. Honestly, I am not going to be the one to say when we have consensus. Apparently we do not have consensus yet to merge and I have no idea when that consensus will come. So, any future merges of these articles will not come from me merging them. WeatherWriter (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PotsdamLamb what's your take on this? -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayesha46 When we have consensus is when we go through and decide which article everything will be merged into. It is also not just about creating a redirect, but to ensure what is currently on the articles to be merged is present on the article that they are being merged into. When building consensus, WP:BOLD does not apply as @WeatherWriter stated they did it under and it doesn’t not matter how many editors edited an article and allow it to only be up to them. It is for the community to decide and if you both read WP:Consensus you will see what it entails. Prior to declaring consensus it will be posted on ST again for any objections prior to the content being moved into the decided article and redirects being created. This is not something that gets rushed and to imply that I objected to the merge is untrue, as I objected to it being done without consensus. So what WeatherWriter wrote is completely false. The attitude being displayed is borderline being uncivil with the accusations and stating they won’t participate anymore because they didn’t get their way. All unacceptable and can lead to a block if it continues in this direction or gets worse. There are still other people to weigh in and while there is no time frame set for this, it is common practice for discussions to happen and allow time for responses as we are all editors with different time zones. Trying to force close this is another unacceptable practice. Going forward we need to focus on what to do with the articles and stop being accusatory and focus on the task at hand and doing it the proper way. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 08:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, right, but should we move this discussion on simple talk so that it's visible to more editors and we can get to a consensus? -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayesha46 No. Discussions for merging stay on the article talk page and a notice is posted on simple talk pointing back to the discussion. That was already done here. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 14:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine👍🏻 -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayesha46 This explains the policy and process on it Proposing a merge. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 14:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was very helpful

-- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add my piece to the forming consensus, all of these should be merged into Red Sea Crisis:

• Attack on the CMA CGM TAGE
• 6 January 2024 attack on the USS Laboon
• 9 January 2024 Houthi attacks
• Seizure of the St Nikolas
• 11 January 2024 Houthi attack
• 2024 Iranian dhow seizure
• 12 January 2024 missile strikes against Yemen
• 2024 attack on the Khalissa
• Operation Poseidon Archer
• 13 January 2024 al-Dailami Air Base missile strike
• 14 January 2024 attack on the USS Laboon
• Attack on the Gibraltar Eagle
• Attack on the Zografia
• Attack on the Genco Picardy

None of them should be separate articles at this point. Keep it simple by keeping everything in one place. Makes maintenance easier. Also, makes it easier for readers to find information. Individual attacks and operations are part of the conflict, not separate. --Gotanda (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note Gotanda, Operation Poseidon Archer is a separate article on En-wiki and 20+ other language Wikis. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Operation Poseidon Archer directly and entirely correlates to the En-Wiki en:2024 missile strikes in Yemen article as discussed below. So, a merge would be actually undoing En-Wiki format and layout. Also, that article, the directly correlation article, is in 20+ languages. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Noted. THis is simple. Simple in language, but also simple in organization. When the consensus is arrived at, I hope my list of suggestions is considered. I tried to head this off earlier with the Merge suggestion for Genco Picardy and comments about unnecessary proliferation of pages and redirects but here we are instead with a complex nest of pages. --Gotanda (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @WeatherWriter It is not. You redirected the page to en:2024 missile strikes in Yemen on January 22, 2024. There is also only one language link to it (here on simple and the redirect). So please correct or strike out your statement. en:Operation Poseidon Archer. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 22:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @PotsdamLamb — I honestly do not understand how you are confusing what I said. Operation Poseidon Archer IS the 2024 missile strikes in Yemen. That is the code name for it. The literal same way Operation Overlord IS the allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France. So no, I will not “correct” my statement as it is factually correct. The next part I say isn’t meant to be taken in a smart-elec way. If my statement is not correct, then Simple English Wikipedia does not have an article for the D-Day. Simple has an article for the Normandy landings, but not D-Day. Why? Because the Normandy landings IS D-Day. This is legitimately the same thing. This military operation codename is the airstrikes. Read this article from CNN. “The United States has named the ongoing operation to target Houthi assets in Yemen “Operation Poseidon Archer… The US has struck Houthi targets in Yemen seven times since carrying out its first set of attacks together with the UK military on January 11. The first wave of strikes, in which the two countries hit approximately 30 sites across Houthi-controlled Yemen, marked the beginning of Operation Poseidon Archer. If the correlation cannot be seen, then you must agree that there is no article on D-Day on Simple English Wikipedia either. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @WeatherWriter I am commenting on your statement as you wrote it, not any interpretation of how you see it. You stated it the article exists on en wiki - this article name does not, as pointed out and linked to. You stated it is in 20+ languages, it is not and I pointed that out. As far as other articles that are or are not on simple is not the issue. The issue at hand is your comment that is unfounded and has been proven so. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 23:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah no, you are trying to do a nick-pick on the comment, which is uncalled for. Yes, "Operation Poseidon Archer" as an article title itself, does not exist on English Wikipedia. Since you are nit-picking my comment, I shall also nit-pick yours. In your proposal for a merge, you suggest merging this into a "Gaza vs. Israel war" article, which also does not exist. There is no article that exists on any project for Gaza vs Israel war. So, where do you actually propose a possible merge? Just asking. My interpretation would be the Israel–Hamas war article, but that is not directly what you stated, so I must propose a similar (albeit dumb-sounding) question. I think my point is clear though; your purposely nit-picked my comment just to say I was wrong, despite knowing what I was implying. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And now your reply is in between what you struck out and what I commented, so the discussion is out of order. This endless wrangling and creation of many, many stubs without context or often even links back to the main article is complex, not simple. Merge everything above, please, and stop adding to the confusion and mess. --Gotanda (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gotanda – I did that, however, ALL the merges were undone by PotsdamLamb and we have been forced back into this chaos discussion. Like I kid you not, I merged 7-9 articles, but the merges were undone due to "lack of consensus". I am now being warned and such. The discussion is absolutely pointless now. Honestly, PotsdamLamb, please figure something out. Do you support the merges I did or not? If yes, REDO them. If not, say you don't. Don't dance around the topic. That is what frustrates me right now. I'm trying to support merges, but I am being told not to merge but the person proposing the merges. I am at the point of just nearly dropping the stick and walking away. Let PotsdamLamb figure it out by themselves, since clearly we still do not have consensus (according to them) for merges. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  At the time you did it we did not have consensus and per WP:Consensus the discussion has to run a minimum of five days (as has been pointed out numerous times the requirements). You have constantly changed your view on what to do especially since your error was pointed out and your “attitude” laden response. At this juncture, we are only three days in and you have constantly derailed all topics and failed to stay on topic. There is no bold as we had editors debating and asking questions, which is what these are about. I will also point out that when I warned you of project disruption on your talk page you immediately made the comment of “What the hell did I do?”diff and then going as far as to accuse me of being incompetent by stating “If you cannot see that, then there is a chance you shouldn't be editing topics surrounding the Red Sea crisis.”diff. Now, we need to resume the discussion and remain on the topic. So stop disrupting the talks please. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 23:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts: I am reading through Operation Poseidon Archer and one major discrepancy I am seeing is in the opening sentence it lists all only two of the countries participating but in the first section it correctly lists all of the countries involved (i.e. NATO countries). I think we need to get those two sections plus the infobox matching. That would put us at a good start. We should also list towards the top a link to the overarching topic of Red Sea Crisis but then this also falls under the entire Israel–Hamas war, it goes even higher, but I believe we could end where we should go there as it covers the overall constant battle between Israel and Gaza. Once we get those fixed we can put the information from the stubs covered in the beginning onto the article and go through a good CE and wikify. We can probably even get this to a good article status if we work together and not against each other and make sure to follow policy. What is everyone’s thought on this? Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 03:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PotsdamLamb I agree to what you said, but isn't US and UK the only 2 countries doing the strikes? And rest of NATO just support them in the decision, isn't it? I would like it if you add up that info with a source coz that would be really helpful in understanding the way the article would go ahead.. . 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayesha46 I am talking about what is in the article if you read it. There are other operations involved as well. I am actually looking at the en wiki and they redirected Operation Poseidon to Red Sea Crisis (I also will note someone included a link to the simple version of which I am surprised they have not removed since their version contains much more information and they generally frown upon). There are numerous countries involved in the protection of the commercial ships. While the US and UK are physically involved, they still have received support from other countries. So while the other countries are not currently supplying physical equipment (more than likely because they don’t have that amount of equipment (like The Netherlands which is very small and if they use their Air Force and navy they leave their country unprotected) they support and thus are actors in the operation and should be named in the article. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 07:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayesha46 To clarify it’s not “the rest of NATO” as you mentioned. It’s members of NATO. If the entire NATO community was involved that would be 31 countries. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 08:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh yes, and on research I found out their are other supporting countries in the operation like Bahrain and New Zealand which are not a member of NATO. -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: @WeatherWriter Since you have now cast your vote, please refrain from making any other comments in the discussion as your vote makes your position clear to all editors. If you change your vote, please follow the policy of striking out your current vote and place your new vote in a small bullet point with a small one sentence reasoning so vote section does not get mucked up and confusing. For all editors the discussion must run a minimum of five days before any action can be taken. See WP:Consensus

This vote is strictly about if this article should be merged (including copying the information) to another article. Many different merges were discussed, all related to the ongoing conflict with Israel vs. Gaza (or Gaza vs. Israel). Other possible article merges were brought up and discussed, however, are not applicable on this discussion and should be carried over to the correct talk page of those articles (for ease of following, one article can be selected for the discussion with all merge notices pointing to that discussion).

Per WP:MERGE, the discussion must run at a minimum for five (5) days. We must have consensus of all participating parties in the discussion to take any action. Consensus is done in a voting fashion and the number that has the higher amount will dictate the outcome of this discussion. In the voting section, all suggestions will be posted in a section and all editors are allowed to vote. It is asked that you only vote in one section. This is to not confuse the readers. There will also be a section for any opposition to any type of merge. Please follow the rules of voting that if you change your vote, strike out just that vote, add your new vote next to it and, if you like, add a one-two sentence explanation of why you changed your vote. Do not change any one else’s vote. IP addresses who vote will not have their vote tallied if they have not edited the article prior to this discussion.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since the above discussion is fairly long with paragraphs of discussion, I am making this section for the specific !votes to help sort out what is what. This discussion was started for renaming this article from "16 January 2024 missile strikes against Houthi" to "2024 missile strikes against Houthi". Further discussion happened about potential merges, which will be delt with pending the !vote on the renaming/original reason for discussion. Please only !vote without discussion so consensus will be clear.

This voting is strictly on the renaming of this topic. Discussions were had on merging other articles into certain articles, however, this is not the vote for them. It is below in a separate section.

* Move to 2024 missile strikes in Yemen --💌Ayesha46 (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Merge Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 07:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•  Merge This is not as important as the larger operation. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Merge Having all the related info at 1 place would be better to expand and easier for audience to read, afterall this Operation is part of Red Sea crisis -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Renaming – Renaming this article would be redundant since the EN-wiki "2024 missile strikes against Houthi article directly correlates with Operation Poseidon Archer, which also should serve (currently does not) as a redirect to Operation Poseidon Archer on Simple-wiki. For that reason, I must oppose a renaming of this article and I would support 2024 missile strikes against Houthi being set as a redirect to Operation Poseidon Archer, pending further discussion, which will occur after renaming is discussed. WeatherWriter (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Ayesha46 That is not one of the options. If I missed it, please point it out. Are you saying you support the merge into the 2024 missile strikes against Houthi? Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 12:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean we should keep Operation Poseidon Archer but move it to "2024 missile strikes against Houthi" or the same as EN wiki "2024 missile strikes in Yemen" -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayesha46 It was never discussed about merging it into "2024 missile strikes in Yemen". We discussed two possible moves. If it is moved the Operation title would be a redirect and the content may need to be moved over. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 14:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if that's the case, then I would like to change my vote to merge it in the Red Sea crisis... -- 💌Ayesha46 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayesha46 That’s fine. Insert <s> in front of your first vote and at the end of it before your signature add </s>. Then vote in that section please. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 14:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And apologies for not having Red Sea Crisis as I missed it in all of the reading but I’ve added the section now. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If you want to vote to include all the articles below, you can do so here. However, if you even have one you oppose, please vote individually on each article.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support WeatherWriter (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 07:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support WeatherWriter (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 07:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Oppose WeatherWriter (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Oppose WeatherWriter (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Oppose — Article is preferred to be kept with no merge. WeatherWriter (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 07:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support WeatherWriter (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 07:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support WeatherWriter (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 07:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support WeatherWriter (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 07:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support WeatherWriter (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 07:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support WeatherWriter (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 07:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@WeatherWriter, @Ayesha46, @Gotanda, @QuicoleJR - I have created the voting tables. Please feel free to vote as they are listed (i.e. merge, oppose, etc.). WeatherWriter, due to numerous switching of your opinions on yes and no, I did not move any of your article votes to the voting tables, as I feel this is something you should do. If anyone has any questions or concerns, please feel free to ping me in the discussion section. I did not include some articles in the article merging section such as Operation Poseidon and any attacks on ships, as these are valuable compared to the 10 I listed that are a template only on the article. Those will not go anywhere out of a stub. I will also post this on simple talk for others to vote that are in good standing. As stated, IP editors votes will not count, so please feel free to only strike them out, do not revert the changes. Thanks - PDL^{Talk to me!}_{Please don't eat da 🐑!} 08:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.