Talk:Markham and Ramu Valley – Finisterre Range campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Finisterre Range campaign)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Australia / Military history (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Markham and Ramu Valley – Finisterre Range campaign is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject Japan / Military history (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:45, July 30, 2016 (JST, Heisei 28) (Refresh)
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.
 
WikiProject Melanesia (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Melanesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Melanesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Propose changes in structure of children articles of this campaign[edit]

G'day, I am currently doing a bit of work to expand this article and hope to take it back up to B class over the next month or so. One thing I would like to discuss is the current structure of child/parent articles. The parent article is this one, which is fine, but currently the campaign box lists the following child articles: Battle of Kaiapit; Battle of Dumpu; Battle of John's Knoll–Trevor's Ridge; Battle of The Pimple; Battle of Cam's Saddle; Battle of Faria Ridge; Battle of Prothero I & II; Battle of McCaughey's Knoll; Battle of Kankiryo Saddle and Battle of Crater Hill.

There are a couple of issues that I see with this structure. Firstly, I believe that it is missing an article for the events after Crater Hill, i.e. the pursuit towards Madang. Secondly, I believe that it conflates several minor actions and turns them into battles. For instance, The Pimple, Cam's Saddle, Faria Ridge, Protheroe, McCaughey's Knoll, Kankiryo, and Crater Hill, are arguably one single battle together. Coulthard-Clark in his Encyclopaedia of Australia's Battles calls this battle "Shaggy Ridge". (Additionally, I think it would be virtually impossible to write a proper B class article on The Pimple, Cam's Saddle, Faria Ridge, etc. by themselves).

As such, I propose combining these minor actions into a single article called the "Battle of Shaggy Ridge". The slight issue with this is that that article currently exists as a redirect to this article (i.e. "Finisterre Range campaign"). However, it wouldn't be hard to remove the redirect, and create the article. The minor links in the campaign box could then be created as redirects to the "Battle of Shaggy Ridge" article.

The structure of the campaign parent/child articles would then look something like this:

Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Anotherclown, Hawkeye7, Nick-D, Ian Rose, and Peacemaker67: Could I trouble you gentlemen for an opinion? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
That sounds fine. I am not sure what all of them are about. Is the Battle of Dumpu about the advance from Kaiapit to Dumpu? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
G'day, Hawkeye, yes I think so. Do you think it would be best to cover that it some other way? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I might have a go at writing it up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
That would be great. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree, and the lack of a Battle of Shaggy Ridge article is a glaring deficit IMHO. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I also think this is a good idea, especially in regards to combining the articles on Shaggy Ridge Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes the proposal re Shaggy Ridge seems the correct approach to me. Anotherclown (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all for sharing your thoughts. I have implemented this and have scratched together a new Battle of Shaggy Ridge article. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks good. I was going to suggest The Nakai Contingency Unit and the Battles of Kankirei Range as an additional source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I will try to work it in somewhere. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Further ideas for improvement[edit]

G'day, I've done a bit of work to expand this now, but I still have plans to take it a bit further. I have a few more ideas:

  • add a few more citations to Bradley (I'm waiting for this book from the library)
  • consolidated casualties (if they exist)
  • check Tanaka for more Japanese info
  • add something from Maitland about battle honours
  • work in some more refs from Johnston 2007, and add Johnston's book on the 7th Div (unfortunately I don't have either of these sources)
  • expand lead?
  • expand the aftermath?

If anyone is able/willing to help, please feel free! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The new title is quite unwieldly. I think the old one was fine, even if some of the action wasn't technically in the Finisterre Range. Srnec (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Whilst I agree the new name is long, to me it seems to more accurately describe the location that the events took place than the old one. That said the AWM seems to use the more truncated "Ramu Valley-Finisterres Operations" [1] to describe this event so I'd not be opposed to something along the lines of Ramu Valley – Finisterre Range campaign either. "Finisterre Range campaign" on its own though seems to only be part of the story, and a reader looking for information on the 7th Division's actions in the Markham and Ramu Valleys wouldn't necessary know to look there. Anotherclown (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I agree it's long, but went with the current title due to the way it appears to be dealt with in the main sources. Bradley uses various constructions... "campaign in the Markham and Ramu Valley" (p. 242) ,"Markham-Ramu Valley campaign" and "Ramu Valley campaign..." (p. 243) "...in the Finisterres" (p. 243) etc. Happy to revert back if consensus is against this, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)