Military history: Asian / Chinese / Korean / North America / United States / Cold War Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
I think this campaignbox should be rearranged, so that instead of listing the various battles, it instead reflects the various stages of the war, UN Defensive (27 June-15 September 1950), The UN Offensive (16 September-2 November 1950), The Chinese Intervention (3 November 1950-24 January 1951), First UN Counteroffensive-Chinese Spring Offensive (25 January- 8 July 1951), and the Outpost Battles (July 1951- July 1953). To do so will entail abit of work though, with many pages to change. This 'breakout' will enable sub campaign boxes to be more detailed, and similar to the example given on the campaignbox page under Military History. wbfergus 19:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
This template is massive and should be collapsed IMO as it is too invasive in many articles (the box is bigger than a lot of the articles themselves). Most similar campaign templates are collapsed also. Anotherclown ( talk) 09:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Discussion regarding the end of the Korean War is in the article. Recent change to template (which was not a minor change)implies that post Armistice Agreement events are part of the Korean War rather than aftermath.-- S. Rich ( talk) 20:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The inclusion of many post Armistice incidents serves to expand the timeline of the Korean War far beyond the officially and commonly accepted end date. Such inclusion is not historical and the various up-to-the-minute edits which accompany the "post Armistice" war events smacks of WP:RECENTISM. Moreover, some editors make the argument that "An Armistice is a (type of) ceasefire, a ceasefire is not (necessarily) the end of a war, therefore the Korean War has not ended." POV is the driving force behind the inclusion of such events and their accompanying edits. The arguments for and against assigning an actual end date for the war are in the Korean War article and in some of the related post Armistice articles. Still, this tag is added in order to bring the issue of the war's end to light. Discussion should take place on the appropriate page(s). -- S. Rich ( talk) 22:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
While media sources like to talk about the continuing "Korean War" (especially when writing up a hot new story), WP:SOURCES says "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, . . .." and " Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." With this guidance in mind, these books: Google search books Korean War much more often than not give us a 1953 end date.-- S. Rich ( talk) 19:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
IP 71.251.35.202 keeps on removing important battles of the Korean War that has no articles...can't we talk about this before systematically erasing history here? Jim101 ( talk) 21:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Could Jim101 ( talk · contribs) just increase "font-size" rather than blame the proposal for " [not] legible fashion"? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
font.size
?
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 20:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
No, they aren't italicked because there's a WP that says so (somewhere). Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 18:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Military history: Asian / Chinese / Korean / North America / United States / Cold War Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
I think this campaignbox should be rearranged, so that instead of listing the various battles, it instead reflects the various stages of the war, UN Defensive (27 June-15 September 1950), The UN Offensive (16 September-2 November 1950), The Chinese Intervention (3 November 1950-24 January 1951), First UN Counteroffensive-Chinese Spring Offensive (25 January- 8 July 1951), and the Outpost Battles (July 1951- July 1953). To do so will entail abit of work though, with many pages to change. This 'breakout' will enable sub campaign boxes to be more detailed, and similar to the example given on the campaignbox page under Military History. wbfergus 19:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
This template is massive and should be collapsed IMO as it is too invasive in many articles (the box is bigger than a lot of the articles themselves). Most similar campaign templates are collapsed also. Anotherclown ( talk) 09:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Discussion regarding the end of the Korean War is in the article. Recent change to template (which was not a minor change)implies that post Armistice Agreement events are part of the Korean War rather than aftermath.-- S. Rich ( talk) 20:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The inclusion of many post Armistice incidents serves to expand the timeline of the Korean War far beyond the officially and commonly accepted end date. Such inclusion is not historical and the various up-to-the-minute edits which accompany the "post Armistice" war events smacks of WP:RECENTISM. Moreover, some editors make the argument that "An Armistice is a (type of) ceasefire, a ceasefire is not (necessarily) the end of a war, therefore the Korean War has not ended." POV is the driving force behind the inclusion of such events and their accompanying edits. The arguments for and against assigning an actual end date for the war are in the Korean War article and in some of the related post Armistice articles. Still, this tag is added in order to bring the issue of the war's end to light. Discussion should take place on the appropriate page(s). -- S. Rich ( talk) 22:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
While media sources like to talk about the continuing "Korean War" (especially when writing up a hot new story), WP:SOURCES says "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, . . .." and " Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." With this guidance in mind, these books: Google search books Korean War much more often than not give us a 1953 end date.-- S. Rich ( talk) 19:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
IP 71.251.35.202 keeps on removing important battles of the Korean War that has no articles...can't we talk about this before systematically erasing history here? Jim101 ( talk) 21:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Could Jim101 ( talk · contribs) just increase "font-size" rather than blame the proposal for " [not] legible fashion"? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
font.size
?
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 20:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
No, they aren't italicked because there's a WP that says so (somewhere). Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 18:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)