Template talk:Campaignbox Korean War

Rearranging
I think this campaignbox should be rearranged, so that instead of listing the various battles, it instead reflects the various stages of the war, UN Defensive (27 June-15 September 1950), The UN Offensive (16 September-2 November 1950), The Chinese Intervention (3 November 1950-24 January 1951), First UN Counteroffensive-Chinese Spring Offensive (25 January- 8 July 1951), and the Outpost Battles (July 1951- July 1953). To do so will entail abit of work though, with many pages to change. This 'breakout' will enable sub campaign boxes to be more detailed, and similar to the example given on the campaignbox page under Military History. wbfergus 19:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Collapsing template
This template is massive and should be collapsed IMO as it is too invasive in many articles (the box is bigger than a lot of the articles themselves). Most similar campaign templates are collapsed also. Anotherclown (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Post Armistice Agreement
Discussion regarding the end of the Korean War is in the article. Recent change to template (which was not a minor change)implies that post Armistice Agreement events are part of the Korean War rather than aftermath.--S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Improper synthesis
The inclusion of many post Armistice incidents serves to expand the timeline of the Korean War far beyond the officially and commonly accepted end date. Such inclusion is not historical and the various up-to-the-minute edits which accompany the "post Armistice" war events smacks of WP:RECENTISM. Moreover, some editors make the argument that "An Armistice is a (type of) ceasefire, a ceasefire is not (necessarily) the end of a war, therefore the Korean War has not ended." POV is the driving force behind the inclusion of such events and their accompanying edits. The arguments for and against assigning an actual end date for the war are in the Korean War article and in some of the related post Armistice articles. Still, this tag is added in order to bring the issue of the war's end to light. Discussion should take place on the appropriate page(s). --S. Rich (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, legally speaking, the war is still going on. - Schrandit (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite so. Some editors contend a peace treaty is required to end a war "legally".  Not so.  See discussion in Korean War.--S. Rich (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that pretty much every media account of recent violence on the Korean Peninsula notes that the Koreas are still technically at war.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One other note, although I agree that a peace treaty is not required to end a war, I would also like to point out that clashes have occurred on a semi-regular basis along the Korean border for the last 57 years, and thousands of people have died in them (around 1,500 according to National Geographic). So the situation is not exactly peace.WDW Megaraptor (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

While media sources like to talk about the continuing "Korean War" (especially when writing up a hot new story), WP:SOURCES says "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, . . .." and " Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." With this guidance in mind, these books: Google search books Korean War much more often than not give us a 1953 end date.--S. Rich (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow me to quote from "The Korean War: Years of Stalemate" published by the U.S. Army Military History Institute.


 * For while the armistice of 27 July 1953 ended the fighting in Korea, it had not truly ended the war. The armistice was just that-a temporary cease-fire-and not a treaty of peace. It reflected the realization by all parties that neither side had either the will or the means to compel the other to bow to its political agenda. Hence the warring parties had agreed to disagree-to :stop the shooting and to transfer the war from the battlefield to the diplomatic field. There the conflict has remained, despite :sporadic incidents and border clashes, for half a century.


 * The inability of the two sides to resolve their differences has meant that the two Koreas and their allies have had to remain on a war footing along the inter-Korean border ever since. Fifty years after the North Korean invasion, Communist and United Nations soldiers still glare at each other across the demilitarized zone established in July 1953. Together with the South Koreans, U.S. Army troops continue to make up the bulk of the UN contingent in Korea.


 * The third book on your search list, The Korean War, vol 3 by the Korean Institute of Military History states on p. 773-774 that "In short, the armistice is not the termination of a war. It is nothing but a temporary bridge between war and peace." — Preceding unsigned comment added by WDW Megaraptor (talk • contribs) 13:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Korea v.s. Korea war and UN v.s. Communist war are two distinct concepts. Jim101 (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * United Nations Command (Korea) maintained its wartime role in Korea as a unified command structure over South Korean and allied troops stationed in South Korea until 1978, when it was replaced with the joint ROK-USA Combined Forces Command. WDW Megaraptor (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See General Sharp note he wears three hats: UNC, CFC, USFK. The UNC continues on. It was not replaced.--S. Rich (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Systematically erase red links is hardly productive editing....
IP 71.251.35.202 keeps on removing important battles of the Korean War that has no articles...can't we talk about this before systematically erasing history here? Jim101 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Headlines' design
Could just increase "font-size" rather than blame the proposal for "[ [not&#93; legible fashion]"? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, it is done...Is there an actual proposal for changing the heading syntax in such complex manner which renders poorly on monitors with high resolutions? Jim101 (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Poorly on high-resolution, you said? I tried my original version on 1920×1080 with Firefox, and it looked better than on 1280×1024. Did you try to increase ? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I increase it from 80% to 110% for it to be readable, but it is still a strain to the eyes. The problem is the font change...the character strokes are just too thin to make out the details when compared with the original style with much smaller character. I still could not figure out how to change font in this case since this is purely CSS/html programming problem (which I am not an expert), thus I wonder is it really necessary to make the editing process this complex without relevant MOS guideline/tutorial to back it up. If there is a MOS requirement for such thing, then I would advise an competent editor to bold the characters so that it is easier to make out the character details. Jim101 (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bold is not bad. It is exactly the same style of headlines and degenerate links that is bad. Make headlines bold, if different in something else from articles' entries. P.S. I spoke about a browser setup (Firefox or so). Base font sizes are adjustable in a browser. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Operations
No, they aren't italicked because there's a WP that says so (somewhere). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:MILMOSKeith-264 (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)