Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Olongapo
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Allen3 talk 16:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues
Battle of Olongapo
[edit]- ... that the Battle of Olongapo was fought during the Philippine-American War from September 18 to 23, 1899?
- Reviewed: Kelly Heath
Created/expanded by Arius1998 (talk). Self nom at 03:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Nominator is required to submit a quid pro quo (QPQ) review within a week's time, and is reminded that QPQ's are always required when submitting a DYK nomination after the first five. This is the sixth active nomination I've had to tag in this fashion tonight. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- The submitted QPQ was a re-review of an article that had already been passed by another reviewer. The quid pro quo review requirement was created so that unreviewed articles would get reviewed. Therefore, they must generally be of articles that have not already been reviewed, and virtually never when that review was an approval or rejection. If in doubt, feel free to ask before undertaking such a review, but this cannot be counted. QPQ is still needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Article is over 3000 characters and hook is just over 100. Article created the same day as its nomination. Official US Navy website and Gerald R. Anderson's Subic Bay from Magellan to Pinatubo support the hook. On a sidenote I don't find the hook exceptionally interesting. I'd suggest adding an alternate hook as there are plenty of other facts in the article to get embedded within a DYK. Also I would format the Anderson reference by removing the search string from the URL. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 19:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- The hook is problematic in a couple of ways. First, the sentence with the September 18 date is footnoted to ref 1, which is the only source cited for the date, but it is not in there. (I did find the date in the third source, but the whole point behind citations is that the average reader can find it in the source(s) given near the info in the article.) Second, I see nothing called the Battle of Olongapo in any of the sources, and wonder at combining the two incidents—the shots on the 18th and the attack on the 23rd—into a unified six-day event. I would think, to avoid both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, there would need to be such a "Battle of Olongapo"' description from a reliable secondary source, even well after the fact, and I don't see that. (Note: the QPQ has been taken care of; the problematic one I mentioned above has been replaced.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- You are probably right with your remarks. I didn't even think about the possibility of a "made-up battle" until you came up with it. Although I'd allow editors (including myself) to have some elbowroom to edit titles freely (by "good faith"). Of course we are not historians to call day-by-day skirmishes battles but sometimes things just are what they are. Also the problematic thing come with the inline citation for a DYK here, in which you are absoulety correct - if there's no source for it to be a battle the nomination rules are against it (As a matter of fact the infobox title should be changed from "Second Battle of Caloocan" at least). Apart from the DYK If the nominating editor fails to prove it to be a battle then what is next for this article? Should it be moved to "Capture attempt of Olongapo"? I'm asking this because I've created a similar article recently whereas the same events happened: a shipcrew stormed a city just to silence its batteries for securing a sailing route. It is called the Battle of Acapulco but in this case I had the help of the Spanish Wikipedia, which already called that a battle. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I did my background search and the dates and its six-day span can be verified with the help of Sweetman, Jack :American Naval History: An Illustrated Chronology of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, 1775-Present; pp.101 (if included within the article). Although I still do not know what to do with it to pass the "battle criteria". Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the name is a concern here. Do any available sources use this name? Do any sources call this a "battle" at all? Without any, this article will need to be renamed (not sure to what yet), and potentially could be merged. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I did my background search and the dates and its six-day span can be verified with the help of Sweetman, Jack :American Naval History: An Illustrated Chronology of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, 1775-Present; pp.101 (if included within the article). Although I still do not know what to do with it to pass the "battle criteria". Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- You are probably right with your remarks. I didn't even think about the possibility of a "made-up battle" until you came up with it. Although I'd allow editors (including myself) to have some elbowroom to edit titles freely (by "good faith"). Of course we are not historians to call day-by-day skirmishes battles but sometimes things just are what they are. Also the problematic thing come with the inline citation for a DYK here, in which you are absoulety correct - if there's no source for it to be a battle the nomination rules are against it (As a matter of fact the infobox title should be changed from "Second Battle of Caloocan" at least). Apart from the DYK If the nominating editor fails to prove it to be a battle then what is next for this article? Should it be moved to "Capture attempt of Olongapo"? I'm asking this because I've created a similar article recently whereas the same events happened: a shipcrew stormed a city just to silence its batteries for securing a sailing route. It is called the Battle of Acapulco but in this case I had the help of the Spanish Wikipedia, which already called that a battle. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, none of the three sources cited in the article call it a battle, and the Sweetman source Lajbi found only gives the date range on Olongapo without any name, though it does call other unrelated items in its chronology "Actions" or the like. The phrase "Battle of Olongapo" is quite sparse in Google searches, but one page that turns up is Asiatic Squadron, and the phrase is used in the Philippine-American War section, though uncited. (The entire section has not a single citation, and the article only has one reference.) The Philippine–American War article, however, doesn't mention Olongapo at all. I notice that this appears on a template of battles from the War; do any of the others have similar issues? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is certain without a doubt that the Philippine–American War happened and is an existing event. The other problems don't concern this nomination (although it would be wise to come up with the problem at the appropriate talk pages/Wikiprojects). As for the battle problem, I think any renaming would result in the same issue. If we name it "raid", then where's the citation for raid. If we call it "armed conflict" then where's the ref for it? Although we have the knowledge that it's a planned naval shelling and field encounter of some sort, that lasted six days. In my book that qualifies for a battle, and if we can agree in that not everything needs to be cited in wikipedia (like the meaning of common words), and that battle means "a general encounter between armies, ships of war, or aircraft" by the definition of Webster, than this DYK can get a green light. I'm already supporting to let it pass by good faith. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- No one disputes that the Philippine-American War happened. What is unclear is whether secondary sources consider the subject of this article to be a distinct engagement within that conflict. If they do not, the contents of this article would likely have to be merged into a more general topic, which would in all likelihood preclude it achieving DYK. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- If these books enlist it in their timelines as a distinct event or dedicate a paragraph to it and it isn't embedded into a major scale operation (like in Anderson pp. 39-40) than the matter is anwered. Despite merging is out of the scope of this DYK, in my opinion a combat involving three battleships deserve to have its own article within Wikipedia as there are several other instances where such 'minor' naval battles are kept separate (e.g. Action of 12 July 1564, Battle of Cape Espartel, Battle of the River Plate). But I've already cast my vote it's up to you what the outcome of this DYK will be. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 20:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- If the books treat it as a separate engagement, then that's fine. How do they speak of it - as a battle, or something else? The examples you give meet that criterion, and under those titles AFAIK. Merging is in the scope of this discussion insofar as the article's eligibility for DYK. And this really isn't a vote. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- No they don't call it a battle. As far as my research goes these minor naval clashes are called "Actions" by default (like the one I've linked or e.g. this one: Action of 13 January 1797 (also only just between 3 ships), or just tpye "Action of..." into the search box, there's plenty of results). What about calling it action like naval terms do? Oh yes the merging question; I looked through the related articles and the closest one to be merged into is the Philippine–American War, which in my opinion is not a good call. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- -The hook is just not interesting in my opinion. It says a battle I've never heard of and when it was fought. Can the nominator come up with a more interesting fact about the battle?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Boring hook, minor unnamed clash, no action by author on nomination or article, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues: this article doesn't pass muster. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
