Military history: North America / United States Template‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would want to suggest to make and add an article about the Mahdi army uprising of april 2004, and for it to be added to the campaignbox, it was something like the Vietnam Tet offensive and I think it should be added. Any opinions? -- User:Top Gun
I have a suggestion to add two more battles to the Campaignbox Iraq War. The battle of Ramadi, April 6 2004, and The battle of Husaybah April 17 2004, both were minor engaments, not on the scale of Fallujah, Baghdad or Najaf, and lasted only a day, but the soldiers themselves said that they were fierce fights, and in both battles more than a dozen Marines were killed, 12 in Ramadi and 5 in Husaybah, and also 150 insurgents per battle were involved. They were notable battles like the Battle of Mogadishu. So if anybody's for this say it. I think it would be a good add to the Campaignbox Iraq War, and also would help to diffirentiat these casualties from the casualties suffered in the first battle for Fallujah because they have been included in that battle because these battles were initiated by the insurgents to relive pressure from the siege of the city. So who's up for this?
Should the Battle of Debecka Pass be added to this campaignbox, or is it too insignificant? -- Roman Babylon 13:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Removed "militias" - it's not a phase of the conflict
I've just merged in what appears to be a pretty comprehensive list of operations; unfortunately, this has made the campaignbox rather large. There are two main options I can see for reducing the size:
Kirill Lokshin 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like your standard large-scale raid and round up of suspects. No different from Operation Rifles Blitz or any other uneventful city wide search. - Atfyfe 06:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest splitting the box into campaigns: 2003 invasion, 2004 uprising, and 2005-present. -- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the campaignbox is getting a little big. Not sure about splits-is it possible to match the "Phases"(invasion-insurgency, etc) to a good split. Publicus 21:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
How about a Baghdad campaignbox and or an Anbar province one? A lot of these are in either of those? Publicus 21:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
That would be hard with the 2004 uprising beaing on both fronts where would you put that one then. Listen here is a proposition and you take it in to considiration. We split in two to boxes one for engagements and one for major suicide attacks like the Ashoura massacre, Sadr city bombing, and the 22nd january and 3 february Baghdad bombings and also maybe it would be a good ide to add the Hilla bombing of february 2005 because more 120 people died there also. User:Top Gun 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Should major terrorist attacks such as the
23 November 2006 Sadr City bombings and the
3 February 2007 Baghdad market bombing be listed as "engagements" in the campaignbox?
Black Falcon 20:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
A comment regarding the new design: not all of the incidents noted in the "bombings" campaignbox are "suicide bombings" (al-Aqsari mosque, Sadr City). Please consider renaming to "major bombings", "terrorist attacks", etc. Black Falcon 06:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
..because everything in this box is already included in the {{Iraq War}} template?-- TheFEARgod ( Ч) 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
This box was thought off by me, Publicus, Freepsbane, several other users and you yourself TheFEARgod two years ago to link to distinct phases of the war and also to link to a section that containes exclusivly a list of battles and a section that contains exclusivly a list of bomb attacks. The current box that contains all of the battles has become just too big so it is better this way that that box is only in the article which lists coalition operations of the war. And this box links to that one. Already, the current {{Iraq War}} template is just fine. But, like every war article there should be one campaignbox at the beggining of the article, and because of the nature of this war this box is just like it should be. 89.216.236.45 ( talk) 17:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Should we have 1990-2002 in there, I think it's helpful but wanted to see what other editors thought. Publicus 18:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)