User blog comment:Thurgood42/Event Pages/@comment-5145876-20140607085131

This might be a personal concern of mine, but I'd rather we shy away from relying on "Battle of X" for some of these. I know * of * is a small word, but doesn't it make some of these names sound...over dramatic. More so, in most historical accounts I've seen a title like "Battle of X" is usually only used when the location in question is a direct target of the event itself, such as when the location is captured as a strategic point in a war, or when one party intends to destroy the location and another protect it from destruction, which some of these aren't.

The title "Battle of New York" works because the Chitauri were attempting to take over or destroy New York and the Avengers were working to protect it. However, in events like "Duel of Los Angeles" or "Duel of Monaco", the location itself is much more inconsequential to the core conflict.

At least Abomination intended to destroy most of Harlem for fun (Duel of Harlem) and Loki planned to level an entire town looking for Thor (Battle of Puente Antiguo), so those work as they are.

Some of my suggestions would be:

Battle of Rio ---> Ambush at Rio

Battle of Rose Hill ---> Battle at Rose Hill

Heinze Kruger's attack ---> Assassination of Abraham Erskine

"Battle of Gulmira" or "Attack at Gulmira"     (more of a 50/50 choice)