Talk:Shah Wali Kot Offensive

Military history: South Pacific / North America / United States C‑class

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Australia: Military history Low‑importance

	Australia portal Shah Wali Kot Offensive 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Rename?

Should this article be renamed to the "Battle of Shah Wali Kot"? Instead of "offensive", the Australian government and media have both described it as a battle not as a offensive. What do you guys think?--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither really work for me. SOTG have conducted numerous operations in this area over a number of years according to open sources, many of which have resulted in fairly heavy combat (by modern Australian standards). The issue I see is that the Shah Wali Kot is not a small area so it is probably not descriptive enough. In reality there have been quite a number of actions that could all be called the "Battle of Shah Wali Kot" or "Shaw Wali Kot Offensive", although given the VC and battle honour awarded for this action it is obviously the most documented. Perhaps Eastern Shah Wali Kot Offensive (2010) or even Battle of Tizak would be more precise? Anotherclown (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shah Wali Kot Offensive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]