Talk:New Britain campaign

Requested move 21 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

---

New Britain campaign → New Britain Campaign – Per MOS:MILTERMS, "Accepted full names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, risings, campaigns, fronts, raids, actions, operations and so forth are capitalized" Chris the speller ^yack 17:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – MILTERMS is intended to help, not to overturn MOS:CAPS. This one is uniformly lowercase campaign in books. Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: from what I can see, many articles use this style of caps, forex Kokoda Track campaign, Huon Peninsula campaign, Solomon Islands campaign, New Guinea campaign, etc. There is some inconsistency, though, forex Bougainville Campaign and Gallipoli Campaign. Category:Campaigns of World War II has several examples of both styles. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, there's still a lot of over-capitalization, due to well-meaning efforts like this one. See [1] and [2]. Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose—A considerable portion of the literature does not capitalise? MOSCAPS requires almost all of the lit to cap before we'd consider doing that. May I ask what purpose is served in terms of readability and recognisability? Tony (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Concede – MOS:MILTERMS should perhaps soften or qualify "Accepted full names ... are capitalized" to illustrate that such accepted full names also have to be generally capitalized in books. Thanks to all who voted. Chris the speller ^yack 20:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible edits

Hello gentlemen, was just about to do these edits but noticed article was in review so will just park them here.

• "by large number of bays" - insert 'a'
• "forces in New Guinea and Solomon Islands" - insert 'the' before Solomon for consistency
• "which lead to a successful" - led
• "that this would be was unnecessary" - remove 'would be' or 'was'
• "and provide support for" - and 'to' provide
• "and to severe the" - sever
• should operation dexterity be in the infobox?

Thanks for this article, JennyOz (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, Jenny. I've made these changes, except the last one as I wasn't quite sure where to put it. Also, as far as I'm aware, only the first part of the campaign came under Dexterity, so potentially it might be confusing to add it to the infobox in that regard. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope, no thoughts:) I just saw others in there (in the collapsed campaign areas) and wondered. I have no idea how such things work. Thanks and best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

CE

Another cheeky little drive-by, converted to isbn 13s, added a few missing biblio details, auto ed, sfns go in 20em, checked for dupe wikilinks, rv as desired.Keith-264 (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Too easy, thanks, Keith. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)