This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Referring to the tag to merge Organization of Japanese fortifications in New Guinea area into New Guinea campaign, the premise seems like a good idea as there is some harvestable content. A couple of issues/reservations though:
Dick G 04:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
NO-- LtWinters 13:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you really know what the Japanese names for the battles are? In my experience it can be hard to find that information. It's ok to name the articles after the most common western name for the battle since this is the English Wikipedia, but the intro should mention, if possible the Japanese name (see Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands for an example of what I'm talking about.). Cla68 17:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This article appears to amalgamate two different campaigns as defined by the United States, the Papuan campaign, and the New Guinea campaign. Is this correct? If it is, perhaps a brief terminology section should be added.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Can someone look up the quote from the Morison book (in the text box on the left side of the page in the article) that allegedly says this: 'The Boeing [B-25] is most terrifying,' wrote one survivor in his diary. 'We are repeating the failure of Guadalcanal. Most regrettable!!'
If the diarist wrote "the Boeing," he surely meant the B-17, since the B-25 was manufactured by Boeing's competitor North American. I'm not anywhere near a copy of the Morison book, but the quote is supposedly on page 60. If he simply said "the Boeing," then the reference to B-25s in brackets should be deleted. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoruku ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, it can't be "correct" for the reason I mentioned. Must be an error in the original Morison book. Isoruku ( talk) 23:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, good points from everyone, many thanks. The quote just jumped out at me, probably because my father flew B-25s! Isoruku ( talk) 02:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The second WW2 in PNG 2405:9F40:BC:B36B:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 00:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
What is Propagandists 2405:9F40:BC:B36B:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 00:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key points of the article - ie information in the infobox is to be supported by the body of the article and should evidence which commanders were key or significant. Also, the template doc would limit commanders to about seven aside. Flags are used in the infobox as a key to convey information related to the particular belligerents, such as the allegiance of commanders. As such, the flags used in other sections must be consistent with the flags used for the belligerents.
This edit, with the edit summary, Rm commanders not supported by body of article per
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Use consistent flags per
MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS
, was a result of reviewing commanders listed in the infobox and whether their inclusion was supported by the body of the article. It also addressed a mismatch in the Japanese flags used.
The edit was reverted
here with the edit summary, Why were Australian commanders removed?
. The answer was evident in the initial edit summary. Unfortunately, the article has been written in a way that omits to tell us how and why any particular Australian commanders were key and significant in the campaign. The remedy is to edit the article so that it does evidence that Australian commanders (and others) were key and significant before adding them to the infobox. There is also the limitation of the number commanders to be reported such that only the most key and significant commanders are reported - based on evidence from the article.
Cinderella157 (
talk) 10:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Referring to the tag to merge Organization of Japanese fortifications in New Guinea area into New Guinea campaign, the premise seems like a good idea as there is some harvestable content. A couple of issues/reservations though:
Dick G 04:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
NO-- LtWinters 13:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you really know what the Japanese names for the battles are? In my experience it can be hard to find that information. It's ok to name the articles after the most common western name for the battle since this is the English Wikipedia, but the intro should mention, if possible the Japanese name (see Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands for an example of what I'm talking about.). Cla68 17:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This article appears to amalgamate two different campaigns as defined by the United States, the Papuan campaign, and the New Guinea campaign. Is this correct? If it is, perhaps a brief terminology section should be added.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Can someone look up the quote from the Morison book (in the text box on the left side of the page in the article) that allegedly says this: 'The Boeing [B-25] is most terrifying,' wrote one survivor in his diary. 'We are repeating the failure of Guadalcanal. Most regrettable!!'
If the diarist wrote "the Boeing," he surely meant the B-17, since the B-25 was manufactured by Boeing's competitor North American. I'm not anywhere near a copy of the Morison book, but the quote is supposedly on page 60. If he simply said "the Boeing," then the reference to B-25s in brackets should be deleted. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoruku ( talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, it can't be "correct" for the reason I mentioned. Must be an error in the original Morison book. Isoruku ( talk) 23:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, good points from everyone, many thanks. The quote just jumped out at me, probably because my father flew B-25s! Isoruku ( talk) 02:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
The second WW2 in PNG 2405:9F40:BC:B36B:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 00:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
What is Propagandists 2405:9F40:BC:B36B:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 00:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key points of the article - ie information in the infobox is to be supported by the body of the article and should evidence which commanders were key or significant. Also, the template doc would limit commanders to about seven aside. Flags are used in the infobox as a key to convey information related to the particular belligerents, such as the allegiance of commanders. As such, the flags used in other sections must be consistent with the flags used for the belligerents.
This edit, with the edit summary, Rm commanders not supported by body of article per
WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Use consistent flags per
MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS
, was a result of reviewing commanders listed in the infobox and whether their inclusion was supported by the body of the article. It also addressed a mismatch in the Japanese flags used.
The edit was reverted
here with the edit summary, Why were Australian commanders removed?
. The answer was evident in the initial edit summary. Unfortunately, the article has been written in a way that omits to tell us how and why any particular Australian commanders were key and significant in the campaign. The remedy is to edit the article so that it does evidence that Australian commanders (and others) were key and significant before adding them to the infobox. There is also the limitation of the number commanders to be reported such that only the most key and significant commanders are reported - based on evidence from the article.
Cinderella157 (
talk) 10:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)