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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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.MelanesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MelanesiaTemplate:WikiProject MelanesiaMelanesia articles
This article is within the scope of 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, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 08:02, December 3, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
Battle of the Tenaru 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
@JuanRiley and N0n3up: please stop the cycle of reversions and discuss the issue. Nothing is resolved by edit warring. As such, I have fully protected the article for a short period. I encourage you both to discuss the general merits of your relative positions and then see where consensus is. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AustralianRupert and N0n3up:These comments are very similar if not identical to those I posted on the talk page of Battle of Edson's Ridge. I guess there are two main issues with my edits of this article. (1) The article is explicitly about a specific land battle on Guadalcanal. Thus I posit that land forces alone be included in the infobox. Note that absolutely no one (least of all me) could belittle the importance of the Australian navy to the Guadalcanal campaign and their sacrifices especially early in that campaign (e.g., see HMAS Canberra and USS Canberra). However no Australian land forces were present in this battle (at least as far as is referenced). (2) The perhaps more contentious question is whether the contribution of the British Solomon Islands Protectorate Defence Force entails subordinating them to a UK flag in the infobox when (at least by my take) no literally 'UK' forces were present. I obviously don't think so. Have I stated the issues clearly? Juan Riley (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JuanRiley and AustralianRupert: Since the Solomon islands were under UK subordination, they technically count as UK forces thus a detail that should be placed in the infobox, otherwise giving a misconcepted view that the Solomon islands were wholly independent in battle, which was not the case. (N0n3up (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
@JuanRiley and AustralianRupert: Thus a higher reason to include the UK in the infobox since disregarding the amount of autonomy the Solomon islands might have had, the de-facto truth was that the Solomon islands were under the British flag at the time and under UK subordination, and such detail should be placed in the infobox. (N0n3up (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Perhaps the best way to solve this would be a WP:RFC? As you both appear to have a firm opinion either way, it seems unlikely that a consensus will form while there are just a few people taking part in the discussion. If you requested an RFC, potentially it could cover all of these articles, so that the discussions could be centralised. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good idea, but until then the page should be neutral/original version. And besides, Juan's last comment was a mere personal expression rather than a solid argument. (N0n3up (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
What is the distinction between the appendices "Further reading" and "External links" here?
MOS:DONTHIDE onnavigational template taking over the lead, which could be converted to horizontal templates at the bottom of the article.
Vouza being tortured and left for dead is in the image caption, but not cited or mentioned anywhere in the article. (I copied the citation from Jacob C. Vouza.)
916 or 917 needs to be verified with sources: [1] The version written by Cla had 917 in the infobox and 916 in the text, but it appears clear that the 917 = Ichiki PLUS troops = 1 + 916, so I am rewording.
I found it strange that the article uses mdy rather than dmy (military convention?); should that be switched?
This article has been scheduled to be the featured article on the main page on 22 August. Cla68 wrote the article, and it is part of his 18-article Featured Topic on the Guadalcanal Campaign. He has not edited it for over seven years, and has not edited anywhere on Wikipedia since 2016. Others interested in the subject should watchlist it for that day. (I have assisted in some of his articles on naval battles, but have neither sources nor knowledge on land battles such as this.) Kablammo (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.svg){kind=logo}
