This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 15:58, March 29, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
As per Template:Infobox_military_conflict the result section is optional in the first place, and whilst it states (as pointed out) do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical" - which hasn't happened here - it also states that where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). To be honest, that's a bit contradictory, and could be added, because there's a wealth of sourced commentary discussing the immediate results from a psychological frame.
However, it seems more likely that we won't agree on this topic so there are two options - the original can stay in place while the disagreement is worked out, as per WP:BRD, or we remove the parameter and thus all ambiguity, and let readers decide themselves from both "Aftermath" and "effect" section.
Describing the result as a "psychological victory" is without a doubt a non standard term. However if we can agree to simply omit the result, then I'm fine with that. Kolno (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
