Talk:Operation Okra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nick-D/AnotherClown Edit Warring[edit]

no consensus for the use of flags, um then why do all the other operation articles seem to have them? Also why did Nick-D undo my edit for the leaders infobox? Craig Orme is not a leader, he is not authorizing the airstrikes.--Empire of War (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with you is hardly edit warring. Fairly poor form on your part throwing that claim out there immediately. Are you interested in a discussion or do you just want an argument? Claiming bad faith is hardly a good way to start a discussion is it? In fact its just rude. There is no policy mandating the use of flags and another editor removed them, you re-adding them without discussion could well be interpreted as disruptive - hence my revert as "no consensus" per Bold, Revert, Discuss. Re Orme - from my point of view he seems to more closely fit the term "leader" than the politicians that were previously there. Quite simply its ridiculous to think that the Prime Minister or the Defence Minister are responsible for operational planning. Anotherclown (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On further review the relevant policy is WP:INFOBOXFLAG and it specifically states: "Generally, flag icons should NOT be used in infoboxes" (my emphasis). Anotherclown (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I removed them. The flags added visual clutter for no gain in helping readers understand the topic. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well then are you going to remove the flags/leaders from the other operation articles? When I wrote out the infobox I based it on the British/French airstrike operations articles.--Empire of War (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gimme time. I'll remove every incidence I see from now on. Flags are trivial decoration, and not useful to most people beyond a handful of very commonly recognised ones. HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Craig Orme is not a leader - Really? A Major General not a leader? (That's a worry!) Pdfpdf (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Grubb, Ben (4 October 2014). "The man calling Australia's shots in the new Iraq war". SMH.com.au. Fairfax Media. Retrieved 5 October 2014.

Type of Infobox?[edit]

"Operational plan" doesn't seem to be totally appropriate. (e.g. MajGen Orme is commanding it - it would be his J5 who is planning it.)
But I haven't been able to find anything particularly appropriate.
Many of the operations seem to be one of the sections on a page which uses a "Military conflict" infobox.
Perhaps a new template (e.g. "Military Operation") needs creation? Pdfpdf (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the infobox template currently used is probably not the best one. As you say most other articles just use the "Military conflict" box and I'd have no issue with it being changed to that if others are happy with that. FWIW even the J5 would have his / her minions... Anotherclown (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no issue with ... - Thanks. However, I'm not sure how well "Military conflict" does the job - its use kind-of-suggests that Operation Okra should be a section on some other page - Which one? There seem to be several candidates. But do we really want to embed Operation Okra into some other page? And there's also the Op that's the Naval companion (Manitou?). Where does/should that fit?
FWIW even the J5 would have his / her minions... - LOL!! (Maybe even ROTFL?) Yes, there is absolutely NO doubt about that!
Not sure what your opinion about Perhaps a new template (e.g. "Military Operation") needs creation? is?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Text has been copied[edit]

A lot of the text in the airstrikes table looks like it comes straight from the ADF webpage for this operation. It probably should be reworded.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.213.76 (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2014

This seems to have been resolved now by another editor as far as I can see. Anotherclown (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plan for Hornet squadron rotations[edit]

[1] The Air Force seems to believe this might go on for a while. Plan is for rotation of the deployment between the 3 operational classic hornet squadrons and 1 operational super hornet squadron, each of six months. 101.169.127.231 (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gday. Yes that is interesting, although it would probably fall under WP:CRYSTAL to include too much about this at this stage as it hasn't happened yet. It is a standard part of all operational planning to prepare for force rotations of ongoing deployments, although one assumes it would likely be indicative of some sort of guidance from government as to the expected duration. Anotherclown (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last month's edition of Australian Aviation included an interview with the Chief of the Air Force where he said that the plan was to rotate the fighter squadrons as noted above by the IP editor. I saw some commentary on this (I can't remember where) which was critical of this - eg, that tying down most of Australia's active duty fighter aircraft (assuming the standard military 3:1 ratio of readiness) in the Middle East for an indefinite period is a risky decision. I'll try to find this. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Military conflict infobox[edit]

Could someone explain to me why the articles covering American, British, Canadian, French, German and Turkish interventions against ISIL all have military conflict infoboxes, and Operation Okra doesn't, despite having similar sized articles? They aren't taking on ISIL by themselves either, which was the reason my edit was undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAustin390 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why should those articles have those infoboxes? They strike me as being misleading and over-sized, and so not of much help to readers. Using Infobox military operation is consistent with the approach in directly comparable articles such as Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War and Operation Slipper. The conflict infobox isn't used on any other top-level articles covering Australia's involvement in wars as a coalition member, and rightly so IMO given its not really suitable for this purpose. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I also don't think the conflict infobox is appropriate. The current one seems fine to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Operation Okra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Okra&oldid=1209530104"