User talk:Captain panda/Archive 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Repeated vandal edits on List of Indian television stations
Hi, I noticed that you undid few edits by an unregistered IP address on List of Indian television stations. The same person is using lots of different shared IPs (mostly 195.189.142.*) to make these vandal edits. If I follow the vandalism guidelines for blocking each IP, it would take a lot of time and wouldn't help much. What else can be done to stop this person from making these vandal edits? Raj712 03:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] re: Zerg
I'll address those questions one at a time:
- The real-world information involves development, reception and in some cases impact (for instance, the emergence of "zerging" in gaming vocabulary. Reception for the most part is fairly easily found in reliable reviews: IGN, GameSpot, games journalism magazines, etc. However, this coverage will mostly be generalised, only providing enough information to construct a reception section covering the species as a whole rather than indepth specific reception on each race. Development on the other hand is much more difficult when dealing with StarCraft, and I only know of one article over at StarCraft Legacy that covers the development of the species (through beta development of the game - after all, we planned these rewrites to cover specific real-world aspects of the series: characters is around lore, species will be around gameplay and locations will be around mapping and technical things). At the moment, the article is not available, SCL is still restoring its content and whilst I have contacted their web manager and have been assured of its return (along with transcripts and other useful things) it has slowed down development of the draft. I know this sounds like signing a blank cheque, but everywhere I've looked for SC development information it has directed me back to that single SC legacy article, or like SC evolution, uses that article as a source for its own article. That article shows the progression of the development of gameplay and the races and hence is perfect for constructing commentary on the development process. But again, it deals with species as a concept rather than each individually and there is insufficient information available to construct sections for all three races. There are also several interviews dotted around that give glimpses of the development process, such as those on SCL and BlizzPlanet. The only reason there isn't full real-world information in the draft (other than the merchandising section) is because I've not got around to it: we do that bit after the rest is done.
- In relation to plot details, plot isn't necessary for the encyclopedic treatment of the species. As said, the character and game articles cover the plot in ample detail, all the species needs is stuff for contextual information - the backstories in essense. And these can be covered through faction details - Terran backhistory with the UED and Confederacy, Zerg with the Xel'Naga, Protoss with the Xel'Naga, Khalai protoss and dark templar. Anything other than that is not necessary, and WP:FICTION#Defining_notability_for_fiction reflects that.
- Notability problems have not been addressed simply in the AfD. They simply (and barely) came to the conclusion that the subjects are notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but not how they should be treated or structured. The issue is surmountable, yes, but not in its current form. I took part in those AfD's, if you look you will see me refering to the draft in question, as the solution to the said surmountable problem.
- An Auxilary concepts in StarCraft article is flawed from the beginning. Simply throwing everything else together does not establish notability, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Xel'Naga has no notability unless properly incorporated with the species. Factions have no notability unless properly incorporated with the species. Psionic technology has no notability unless properly incorporated with the species. There is no other way to properly include this information on Wikipedia.
That may not answer all of that, but I'm tired and somewhat distracted at the moment. In any case, as previously stated, if you don't want to help, then don't. But we've looked at other ways of approaching this and other SC subjects in some detail, and this is the one that we're taking. -- Sabre 19:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
--
I was hoping you could work with a couple of sections on the draft article:
- The gameplay aspect sections - adapted from the current versions in Protoss and Zerg - could use some better references: they are currently referenced by Battle.net, which counts as a primary source. The Terran gameplay section hasn't been started yet, I'm a little lost for what to write there.
- The Zerg section hasn't got much significant work other than the gameplay section. The Physiology and nature (basically the same thing in Zerg terms) section is basically meant to be a full description of the Zerg, how they operate and function and so on. Due to the lack of factions (the original brood structure is basically wiped out by the end of Brood War, so significant elaboration on individual broods isn't necessary) or even consistent physiology I'm having trouble trying to write this.
Remember, just because there isn't a dedicated plot section does not mean the plot cannot be used to demonstrate a point - the Terran psionic technology section regarding the emitters and disruptor is a reasonable way to reflect this: the main focus we're trying to get across is on how these work and what their significance is, with a little plot added to reinforce the point, rather than simply what happens to it in the course of the story. Don't worry about referencing plot points at this moment in time though. -- Sabre 13:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My (KWSN's) RFA
Thank you for supporting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Zerg Trivia
Well What if the Trivia section is informative? Lotsa other articles had Trivia sections(last time I checked)StarcraftBuff 20:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow... you responded preety fast. Thx for the piece of adviceStarcraftBuff 20:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Introduction
Where you edited today?
--Gogobefeto 22:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] subst:
Remember to substitute warning templates by adding subst: to the template tag (for example, instead of using {{uw-vand1|Article}}, use {{subst:uw-vand1|Article}}. Thanks and happy editing! Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 23:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 13:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] You have email...
...from me--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 17:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thank you for voicing your opinions in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to take the advice the community has given me and wait till someone nominates me next time as well as improve my editing skills. Have a great day(or night)! --Hdt83 Chat 05:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Metric space aimed at its subspace
Please, have another look. Also at the discussion of the article. Thank you, Wlod 06:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please respond. And, please remove that inappriopriate notice. Whoever did it has no sufficient knowledge of the topic of the category of metric spaces, metric maps, injective spaces, and the applications to functional analysis. -- Wlod 20:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
"Captain Panda", why are you interfering? It's clear from your comments that you don't have a clue about the topic and the domain of the mathematics to which it belongs. You sound like mathematics is alien to you. Can't you leave it those administrators which are more knowledgeable about mathematics? With your attitude there would be no valuable articles on mathematics on wikipedia. Only pseudo-meritorious articles would be left. -- Wlod 00:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] OhanaUnited's RfA
Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chicken riggies
Hi! You tagged Chicken riggies for speedy deletion, and I wanted to let you know that it turns out to be a real regional dish. I'd never heard of it either! William Pietri 10:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comment
Thanks for your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xian H-8, just a note to let you know that a couple of editors have replied to your comment. Tim Vickers 20:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] nickelback
it isn't spelled "nickleback" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.253.91 (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
[edit] Hello
I draw your attention to my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArtRocker (2nd nomination) 217.44.107.225 23:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, this was me forgetting to log in No more bongos 23:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on AFD page No more bongos 00:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Replied again on AFD page. I assume you might not be British? By the way, I would suggest "Art Rock" or "Art Rocker" with the space is a generic term, and "Artrocker" as one word is rarely if ever used elsewhere. I don't mean to war over this, but a feature by the BBC would confer instant notability on just about anything else. I mean, the BBCs website has 12 million unique users each week... No more bongos 02:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Replied again, believe he is a sanctioned contributing writer, and also that in general, it would be beyond foolish. Give me three or four days to dig out some sources from the major UK newspapers, as it crops up in one or the other of them every few weeks - seriously, it's one of the major publicatios in its market, which is a pretty substantial one these days. 100,000 readership out of 59 million people in the UK isn't bad, would equate to a readership of 500,000 in the US if scaled up, that wouldn't be too bad, now?
- Replied again on AFD page. I assume you might not be British? By the way, I would suggest "Art Rock" or "Art Rocker" with the space is a generic term, and "Artrocker" as one word is rarely if ever used elsewhere. I don't mean to war over this, but a feature by the BBC would confer instant notability on just about anything else. I mean, the BBCs website has 12 million unique users each week... No more bongos 02:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on AFD page No more bongos 00:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Just some examples of mentions: [1], [2] [3] (mentioned just below New York Times in terms of importance). If you would view Drowned in Sound as being notable, this is a roughly equivalent level of notability (if not slightly more) in print. No more bongos 05:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
[edit] Your RFA
Hey, just to let you know, you haven't technically accepted the RFA yet. Don't forget to sign the "I accept" part :) Metros (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thx spam
 
|
Also, good luck for your ongoing RfA. :-) Best regards, Húsönd 02:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your RFA was not successful
I have closed your RFA. Apologies it took so long, someone removed the bottom dashes from WP:RFA which caused your RFA to be removed from the summary on the bureaucrats noticeboard, which I use for checking end times. I am afraid that there was no consensus to promote you. Please address the concerns that were raised and feel free to reapply in the future. Good luck. --Deskana (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Bad luck old bean. Better luck next time... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am sorry to hear your second RFA did not past. Good luck and I hope to be able to support you again if you decide to go for a third nomination. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think the consensus was that you need to do a bit of article editing, over a range of subjects, to indicate a working knowledge of policy. I didn't think it that necessary, given the range of work you needed the tools for, but I think you may need to address that requirement if you are to run again (since it is so easy to look at previous RfA's). I would also give it a few, rather than a couple, of months upping your mainspace contributions before trying again - and I certainly think you should try again. Don't be disheartened, and continue with your good work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- The irony is, of course, that if you care about the admin mop you rarely have time to do article editing because you are so busy sysopping - but, yes, it is useful to have working experience of policy, etc. before the next application. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am sorry that your RfA was not successful, especially after such a promising start. Please don't be discouraged, Captain panda, keep up your good work and try to focus on the main concern raised by your opposers. I am sure that you'll attain a successful RfA next time, which I hope will come soon. Best regards, Húsönd 04:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The irony is, of course, that if you care about the admin mop you rarely have time to do article editing because you are so busy sysopping - but, yes, it is useful to have working experience of policy, etc. before the next application. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to see your RFA wasn't successful. :( Better luck next time mate. · AndonicO Talk 01:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Glad to see you're taking the advice of the opposers; always nice to see someone that doesn't let a failed RFA get them down. ;) · AndonicO Talk 02:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dreamafter at RfA
Hello, Captain panda, in a recent (slightly over one month ago) RfA, you stated that I may be a decent candidate for Adminship. I would like to know why, how I can improve, what I am doing well in, and whether I can be nominated by you, on 8 April 2008? (FYI : That date, because I will have been here for one full year then.) Thank you, in advance, and I would accept a nom earlier, just in about a month, by a respected editor, like yourself. That would be, at minimum December 31. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response, and I would be glad to have you nom me on 8 April, 2008. Thank you again. <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 20:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RFA thanks
 |
Dear Captain panda,
Thank you for you confidence. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the support the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence and perceptiveness. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] First Edit
 |
Happy First Edit Day, Captain panda/Archive 5, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! |
- FROM YOUR FRIEND:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
| HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY! | from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE | |
|---|---|---|
  Wishing Captain panda/Archive 5 a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee |
||
[edit] Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Great success!
why is it that you think my artical is not worth having i think my knowlage of the ring is just as improtant as what you have and if you think that you know more about the topic i welcome you to send me any info that you have on it but otherwise i recomend that you withdraw your recomendation to have it taken off —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisbuff191 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Operation Barbarossa
Hi, This is just an invitation to get together at the Operation Barbarossa discussion page and see if the article can't be improved to the FA level. I am going to try and firstly restructure and later rewrite the article in my sandbox (firstly at home on my PC), but I have already discussed some ideas with one other contributor and would appreciate more input from members of the task force.--Mrg3105 (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, Elonka 06:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RfA thanks
|
Great success! Thank you for supporting my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 53-3-2. Special thanks goes to Shalom for both the suggestion and the nomination. I'm honored by the trust that the community has shown in me, and will do my very best as an administrator. Thanks again! faithless (speak) 08:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
[edit] Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RfA thanks
Dear Captain panda, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).
Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.
Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E talk 12:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] France "non existent" image
Would you please see Leyssard now thankyou. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 14:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I intentionally left it so when I uploaded it to the commons it would automatically appear. You weren't to know good to see people are quick to act though. Happy New Year!. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 14:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dreamafter's RFA
You said that you would nominate me for adminship, so I am curious. I have gone from this to a much better editor. On it it says that I have over 4,000 edits, I now currently have over 8,500 edits, currently participate in all the things I said I did, and continue to help users, having gotten six barnstars, two for helping users, two for articles, and two for other things. I also have a DYK for an article, showing good article writing skills. Anything that you can think of to make me a better user before being nominated by you I would appreciate. If you cannot think of anything, why not nominate me? I have matured, and would wait, if needed, until April 8th. Dreamafter ⇔ 19:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The bot concern : I am a fully qualified programmer. I chose against bothering to write the script to perform the tasks I had up. The AWB part didn't work, so really, I am just lazy on that account, not that I can't program bots. And if I wasn't liked, the others at the BAG would have asked me to stop participating. I can program in Perl when required. I have tried to be better at not being rude or incivil, and if I have, I have apologized. I have not added any {{db}} tags that were incorrect, changed my signature, learned to read diffs better, and only tagged articles when I was sure to use them. Dreamafter ⇔ 23:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please add your support and then list it for me? I have accepted it just now. Dreamafter ⇔ 23:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RfA thanks
John Carter (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Emmanuel Adebayor
Hi, was just wondering what Emmanuel Adebayor's connection was with royalty and nobility, It isn't obvious from the article. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] article structure consistency
Would like your input on the article structure I have developed for the series of articles dealing with Eastern Front operations. I am particularly concerned with the introduction section vs the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph is supposed to be a brief summary of the entire article, but I have found way too much information inserted in them in other articles, duplicating information in 'campaign boxes' and repeated in the introductions that follow Contents.
Below is a suggested standard structure for article taxonomy based more on the military terminology, and incorporating a way of describing an event that follows a more military event structure.
- ‘’’Introductory briefing’’’ (unnamed) – a short, one paragraph of no more then seven average length sentences, description of the article addressing the question when, where, who, why, larger context, significance, and outcome.) Using Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Describing conflicts would be helpful here.
+Contents (here)
- Role in the conflict – describes role of the event in the larger conflict. A war also has a context in a larger conflict since it usually evolves from non-armed forms of conflict such as social, cultural, political and economic conflicts.
-
- Campaign situation – this describes the event in terms of a war's theatre campaign.
- Strategic situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the campaign where an operation is the event
- Operation situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the operation where a battle is the event
- Battle situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the battle where an event describes a part of a tactical battle
- Decision making – after assessment of the situation comes the decision-making process that seeks to change the existing situation through securing of initiative by offensive action.
-
- Goal of the operation – to change the situation one needs a situational change goal
- Objective of the battle – at the tactical level the goal is called an objective
- Side A intelligence – the first step is to gather understanding by the attacked (A) of the defender’s (D) capacity to resist
- Side D intelligence – usually anyone suspicious of an attack will also gather intelligence on the likelihood of an impending attack
- Planning – after the intelligence is gathered, planning starts
-
- Side A – description of planning should begin with a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
- Forces involved – organisation of forces and their structural description (in modern times described as tables of equipment of organisation and equipment) need to be given
- Side D
- Forces involved
- Side A – description of planning should begin with a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
- Description of the Campaign/Strategic operation/operation/battle – this is the core part of the article. All military events have phased sequence that can be divided into:
-
- Initial attack – describes initial execution of the plan
- Progress of the offensive – describes success or failure of the plan
- Decisive action – describes the instance when the plan has the greatest chance of success or failure, or the attempt to correct the divergence from the plan
- Final commitment – any attempts to secure success or prevent failure of the plan
- Outcomes – comparison of end result with the planned result of the event plan
- Consequences – the impact of the outcomes on events that follow, but which are not part of the above-described plan
-
- Immediate effects – immediate effects that include changes in a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
- Effects on future planning – describe effects on the planning in the larger scope of events
- Myths – often popular rendition or beliefs about the event that are either partly or completely false, or presented for the purpose of propaganda
- Memorials – a means of post event commemoration of the event
- Popular culture – depiction of the event in popular culture and media
- References – page reference in an authoritative source used to research the article content
- Footnotes – explanatory notes for points made in the article
- Bibliography – sources used for the compilation of research on the article
- See also – other Wikipedia articles related to the event
- Online resources – other online sites that relate to the event or its larger context
- Further reading – other sources not used for the research of the article but recommended to the reader
The purpose of the article structure suggested above is not to straight-jacket the authors and editors, but to enhance consistency of presentation throughout the project’s assortment of articles to the reader, and to enable the future editors to be more focused in the editing process by providing more focused sections in the article structure. Thank you--mrg3105mrg3105 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My Rfa
I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 17:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
