Talk:Gloucester Valley Battle Monument

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Battle of Gloster Hill)
Jump to: navigation, search


Shouldn't this not be spelt with the UK spelling for Gloucester, seeing as it is named after 'the Gloucester's'? Sheep21 05.19am 19th March, 2007

Changed spelling to UK English. Sheep21 05.31am 19th March, 2007

Er, no, the nickname of the regiment is "The Glorious Glosters". Reverted spelling in the article to the correct version. Haven't undone the redirect. Zooterkin 10:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the name is "Gloster Hill", after the regiment, not "Gloucester Hill" after the town. It's still here though, so I'm going to try and move it. Xyl 54 15:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, done. Xyl 54 15:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hill 235 Reference[edit]

Every other Hill number in the conflict seems to link to the modern name, but there is no redirect for "Hill 235". Should this be done? Leaveitwithya 10:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No story[edit]

Lots of pictures, but no story behind them? Looks more like a photo album.

Merge tag[edit]

This page has acquired a merge tag, with the edit summary
This page merely duplicates what is written on the page covering the battle of the Imjin river”;
I would oppose such a merger, because it actually doesn’t.
This page started life as a stub about the location, entitled “Gloster Hill” and was linked from Battle of the Imjin River to have more information about the location of the Glosters last stand. It seems somewhere along the line someone has .a) moved it to “Battle of Gloster Hill” (which is an un-historical name; the battle the Glosters were in was always called “Imjin River”) and .b) added an conflict infobox.
Rather than a merge, it would make more sense to restore it to the original title, and change the infobox to one suitable for a locality.Xyl 54 (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read the discussion about the naming of Battle of the Imjin River on the other talk page. The basic problem with associating the action of the 29th Brigade with the name of Battle of the Imjin River is that it limits the scope of Chinese offensive while excluding all the actions of the American and the South Koreans units that was fighting besides British along the Imjin River. Although the association of the Gloster Hill battle with the Battle of the Imjin River is widely accepted in UK, my research concluded that it is not universally accepted by US, South Korean or Chinese sources, in which the Imjin River Battle had a much wider context than Gloster Hill. During the last discussion on naming, it was agreed that the battles on Gloster Hill needs a separate article due to their notability in UK, but the name Battle of the Imjin River should not be attached to it because it only favors the British point of view. Jim101 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The discussion here is about a proposed merger; are you in favour of it, or not?
It seems more appropriate to reply to your comments on the other page, so that’s what I have done. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
If you want to article into a description of the memorial, then move this article into the full proper memorial name and rewrite the entire article from scratch. I was going to make this article into an account of 29th Brigades' action during the Chinese Spring Offensive, but if you really want a solution today, I would rather like to delete the entire page and recreate the page at a later time. Jim101 (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This page doesn't contain any information which is not already in the Battle of the Imjin River page - even the photos are on the other page. If someone wants to write a detailed description of the actual fighting on Gloster Hill, let them do it, but this page does not do that. I see that Jim101 above supports deleting the page, and that Xyl 54 supports reverting the article back to being a piece on the memorial. How to go forward? FOARP (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Currently I cannot work on the article within the next few month, thus I propose deletion or a page blanking. My opinion is that if Xyl 54 does not rewrite this article into a proper description of the Gloster Hill Memorial within a reasonable amount of time, then it does no harm by blanking the entire page and redirect it back to Battle of the Imjin River. Jim101 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
And I would propose, again, to restore it to the original title, and change the infobox to one suitable for a locality. That way FOARP gets rid of the page, Jim gets his blank canvas, and I’d be content to see that page back where it started.
If there are no objections, I’m quite prepared to do it. Xyl 54 (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Move it to the proper memorial/museum name, Gloster Hill refers more to an event than a memorial name. Jim101 (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep on mocking rather than solving the problem...I requested that the Gloster Hill to be renamed into the full name of the memorial complex because Gloster Hill title is somewhat ambiguous (a British name for a Korean Hill or the name of the entire memorial complex?). So far you did not respond to this request nor refute my concerns. Jim101 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't mockery; I was aiming for sarcasm, but I appreciate it’s a subtle distinction. I hadn't been aware you’d made a request (they looked like orders to me) or that there was anything to refute. And I had thought it was obvious that "Gloster Hill" was the english name for a hill in Korea; that if we were to have a page on on the memorial it’d be entitled "Gloucester Regiment memorial" or something (I’m trying for irony, here).
But, there you go...Xyl 54 (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


(new argument, new section...Xyl 54 (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC))
It took me a while but I finally found the full name of the memorial. It's called the "Gloucester Valley Battle Monument". If there is no object I would propose the rename the entire article to that name and rewrite the entire article into that name. Jim101 (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the move the article. Jim101 (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, there is an objection to this, which you'd have known about had you waited more than a couple of hours for a reply.
It's a bloody cheek to hijack an existing page, delete most of the content, re-write it into a new article, then move it to a new title. What the hell was the point of that? If you had wanted an article on the memorial site, why on earth didn't you just write it as a new page?
Ridiculous! Xyl 54 (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, just a simple "I don't like" it is not valid consensus making. After a week of foot dragging, what exactly are your objections? Any RS supporting your objections? I moved the article believing that since the hill is part of the memorial site and that it is the memorial site that received notable attentions, not the hill itself, then the article Gloster Hill is the same as Gloucester Valley Battle Monument, per the sign on the front door. After keeping me on need-to-know basis, you still did not produce any arguments or evidences that the hill is notable by itself instead of association with the monument or the Imjin River battle. Furthermore, I deleted the image gallery because the memorial site can be better described in text and individual images, as per guideline WP:Galleries. Jim101 (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I've told you my objection; doing it your way has made a pigs ear of the edit history. I've no objection to having a page on the memorial; that's quite a good thing. But I reckon Gloster Hill is as notable as Kamak-san, anyway. Still, it's done now, so I can live with it.Xyl 54 (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I can't see what the fuss is about, the edit is quite reasonable given the above discussion. Problem solved say I. FOARP (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)