Talk:Battle of Mount Kent

Mt. Kent was clearly a lot more than just a simple skirmish

How can we fix this? Should we refer to it as a battle or as "Operation Autoimpuesta" the name given to the Argie operation in which the Argentine SFs planned to seize not only Mt. Kent but Estancia Mountain and Smoko Mount for example.--Dancesthewaltz (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This being the English wikipedia, I have a preference for an English language naming convention. I have some issues with naming it a battle as it was a series of skirmish actions between special forces. Martin Middlebrook refers to it as the Assault on Mount Kent, so perhaps that would be appropriate? The term used by Van dear Bills seems to be about creating a snappy title for his book. The Argentine name should be used as a redirect by the by. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please add in the info box Captain Peter Babbington's K Company that played in an important role in beating back Major Mario Castagneto's 601 Commando Company? Can we also add Major Mario Castagneto? Also I am still uncomfortable with the page still referring to the action as simply a "skirmish". Assault on Mount Kent is surely better than Skirmish on Mount Kent. Also why are we including the Argentinian wounded at Top Malo House in the info box? --Dancesthewaltz (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Italic text

I am including new information about the Argentine commando patrolling carried out on the night of 3-4 June. I will include the relevant source to back it up tomorrow, but I have to head off to work now, So I have run out of time. I hope we can soon change the title of the page from "Skirmish on Mount Kent" to something more accurate like "Clashes on Mount Kent", "Patrol Actions on Mount Kent" or something better, can somebody else come up with a better title rather than giving the false impression it was just a skirmish?--Dancesthewaltz (talk) 04:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I've made a bold move to simply move it, I hope this is non-controversial but if there are any issues with this, feel free to comment. I presumed it OK as no one else commented for over a year. Regards, WCM_email 06:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm surprised to keep discovering so many small but significant little actions. I now need to confirm the supposed near-miss by Canberra bombers against 42 Commando. But for that I'm going to need to find the book that I read about this bombing so many years ago. I don't recall the title but with time I will come across it again. --Dancesthewaltz (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I can lay my hands on a reference about the bombing. Will let you know by the weekend. WCM_email 11:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancesthewaltz (talk • contribs) 05:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Opening lines of article

Ok the article needs proper opening lines. As per Wiki guidelines it needs to make clear to someone who is not familiar with the subject what the article is about. At present the article leads in without any prior explanation. QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. DPdH (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Section titles in article

In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and manual of style the article should be divided into sections with titles. At the moment it is just one big list. I would suggest that there are separate sections for the "Background", the "Assault" and the "Aftermath".QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. DPdH (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.QuintusPetillius (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Harrier

I think what if a harrier was shot down is need to put in the infobox that one or more harriers fought in the combat Hehex2020 (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Not really, I actually agree with your removal of the Canberras, for exactly the same reason. We don't usually include aircraft that weren't dedicated to a battle. WCM_email 11:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)