Talk:Battle of Route Bismarck

Propose name change
I propose that the name of the article be changed to Battle of Route Bismarck. Seems more accurate. Anotherclown (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. As it stands it is likely to get confused with Battle of Bismarck Sea. My only concern is whether the name 'Battle of Bismarck' is an official Army name or just a colloquial one. If it is an official name it probably should stay as is. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A google search of 'Battle of Bismarck' only yields results for 'Battle of the Bismarck Sea'. As such I don't think this is an issue. Cheers again. Anotherclown (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Route_Bismarck&action=edit&section=1

The Battle of Route Bismarck is not a recognised Australian Battle. The term originated within the battle group and is a colloquial expression used to describe a series of possibly interlinked actions. OBG(W)-2 was not awarded this as a battle honour and neither were the 2nd Cavalry Regiment or the 5th Battalion the Royal Australian Regiment. The title should be removed and this should be a heading of OBG(W)-2 contacts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelVonMilky (talk • contribs) 02:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was not aware that the Australian Army had awarded any battle honours for Iraq or Afghanistan (I could be wrong, of course, though), which would mean, by your logic, all the Iraq and Afghanistan battles involving Australia would be misnamed. They have to be named something and OBG(W)-2 Contacts is hardly a very likely search term. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You are 100% correct. But if its not a recognised battle honour how can it be called "The Battle of Route Bismarck". Otherwise we could call everything a battle and then the terms looses any relevance.

Expansion and assessment
Good work expanding this article so far, good to see the article be expanded so greatly as it was largely missing text before. I have updated the assessment from stub to start to reflect this work. However, there are a number of issues with the article that need to be improved to follow Wikipedia guidelines. These issues are:


 * Referencing: each paragraph requires a citation to a reliable source, the html mark up to include citations can be copied from the sections where they have already been included;
 * Neutrality: currently there is a lack of neutral point of view in this article. What this means is that it seems like wikipedia is taking sides in the matter. I myself am in the Australian Army as I believe a number of the contributors to this article are, however, the language that we use in telling the details of this battle need to be neutral in their point of view. In this case, the language in the article needs to be cleaned up. This can be achieved by removing words like "bravely", "fortunately" etc. While I greatly respect the actions of the individuals involved, it is against the encyclopedia's guidelines to be seen to take sides and as such if we want this information to stay, it needs to conform. For more information, please see WP:NPOV.
 * Accuracy: currently there is some discrepancy between the infobox and the text in relation to the number of wounded;

These are the main issues, although I feel that the article could be included in the following other ways:


 * addition of a relevant image or images;
 * wikifying the text more, that is add relevant internal links (but being careful not to overlink - a good rule of thumb is to link on first mention, but not to link subsequent mentions).

Please do not take this as a harsh criticism of the work. It is interesting, but just needs a few tweaks to keep it within guidelines. Hope this helps. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)