Talk:Operation Guerrero

SMM unit[edit]

I think it was Denebola that had a SMM unit away doing exercises. - Aldous

Yeah. I saw that in the House Davion Handbook a little later. I just don't have it on me so I can't update the source. Feel free to change the article to the correct unit though. --Mbear 14:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeez... the FM:FWL gives a detailed account of the war than Shattered Sphere. There is also greater detail in the FM:Mercenaries. — The preceding unsigned comment was provided by Aldous (talkcontribs) 20 November 2009.

Have to remember that Shattered Sphere was only intended to give an overview at most of the past events, the only difference is the other major events it covers (Battle of Coventry, Task Force Serpent, Operation Bulldog, Operation Odysseus) all got their own sourcebooks while the Guerrero didn't. Cyc 01:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
That's because any dedicated sourcebook will show the AFFS wasn't as defenseless as portrayed in Guerrero. There was still a ton of FedCom units in the Sarna March and not enough CCAF to beat them all even with Merc help. - Aldous 11/22/2009

Sorry Mbear, I make a mistake. I want save my work and in this progress your work were overwrite. I will do my best to change that. I will put more infos about the mercs in this article and the role of house liao.Neuling 20:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem Neuling. I was able to restore the original article and integrate your changes into it.
I also reformatted your Aftermath table a little. Added a table header and combined some of the States into a single row. I hope you like it.--Mbear 19:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I finished my work at this point and will post a map a last. I hope you are satisfied with my work Mbear.--21:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)



Surely, Bred For War and Chaos March have passed the moratorium periods years ago?? Did I miss something? ClanWolverine101 15:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

They did, and you didn't. The update needed template just includes that Moratorium stuff by default.--Mbear 16:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
So I can clean that up? ClanWolverine101 16:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
If by "clean up" you mean add relevant content from those sources, then yes. Smiley.gif--Mbear 16:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I meant dump the outdated moratorium boxes, then maybe fill in. :P I dunno about other people, but I tend to avoid posting on pages with moratorium boxes, for fear I'll make an illegit edit. ClanWolverine101 18:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Second time this has come up, which tells me I need to think about re-wording. I'd prefer you make the changes and then remove the box (indicating that is has information from those sources). Actually, now what I'm thinking is I'll remove the statement about the moratorium completely and we'll only add the 'needs updating' template aften the moratorium is over. Greater chance we'll forget to add the template (we sometimes miss that a moratorium is over), but I'd hate for people to not update because they mis-read the statement. Hmmmmm. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've certainly read the template messages, and I understand the principal. My knee-jerk reaction is to go "Huh - that moratorium might not have expired and the stuff I have might be from that publication..." And I move on. THIS one caught my eye because I remember exactly when those books came out. Weird that this was ever considered moratorium... ClanWolverine101 23:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I had similar reaction too, ClanWolverine101. I don't like the combining of the moratorium and need for update with them. However, some sources that posted gives heads up that new source information came up regarding article, but they need wait because its too new and has moratorium. -- Wrangler 23:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete summary tables[edit]

These were on the main article page and confusing the content, so I moved them here. Removed per comment below.--Mbear 15:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

... Why?[edit]

Could someone please justify removing the tables from the article? While there were no doubt things that could have been improved, I find this over-kill. ClanWolverine101 21:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes remove this from the talk page, it finds his own place on the wiki, and added on the wiki page. I think we can integrated on the own pages.Doneve 21:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
You guys do know you mixed the later battles with the Guerrero ones? Wei was attacked by the Big Mac AFTER Guerrero. I spotted a few others that were also mixed. Pretty confusing. Aldous 13:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed the summary tables at the end for a few reasons: They were incomplete and poorly written. Whoever posted them apparently lost interest in completing them, and having them dangling there like loose threads was driving me nuts. So I put them on this page, hoping to find time to fix them up. But since other editors want them back in the article, I've undone that change and the half-completed tables are back in place in the main article.--Mbear 15:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a good compromise.Doneve 16:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Mbear - I don't question there were improvements to be made. By all means, spearhead an effort to correct the material - I will give you a shiny Award for it! But don't just take down so much material. ClanWolverine101 16:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
(A lot of this is me venting.) Part of the reason I removed them is that they're just a re-hash of what I've already written. EVERYTHING in the tables that were set up has been covered already in the text of the article. Then the editor who dropped these ugly-ass tables into the article that I worked so hard on just left the job half done. Frankly, that annoyed the hell out of me.
I agree that a summary table would be useful, but I'm getting tired of playing janitor and cleaning up the mess that was made. (The aftermath section wasn't the only one with a mess; They were all screwy at one point.) So I pulled it out. Then you said "Please don't do that", so I put them back in. Now you suggest I go in and "spearhead an effort to correct the material", or in other words do it all again? That will be the third time I've had to write the same thing! I'm sure you can understand how I might be a little annoyed and frustrated with that suggestion, and how removing the tables would strike me as a good idea. And though I appreciate the offer of an award, it's not enough to motivate me to keep trying to clean up this mess.
OK. Rant over. None of this is meant as a personal attack against you or anyone else. I'm sure you can understand how I'd be frustrated by the situation. It's like making a nice painting and having someone throw random streaks of paint over the canvas.--Mbear 17:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Understood. For the record, I wasn't insisting you do it yourself. Just that if an idea is good, and if material is relevent, but incomplete, mark it. Put up a banner at the top saying "This stuff needs to be completed." etc. Someone had a good idea with the tables - they just didn't follow through. And know what? Half the site is like that. Okay - maybe not half - but a lot. So don't take anything incomplete as an attack - no one is expecting you to do it alone. I only tossed it to you because you indicated it bothered you personally. ClanWolverine101 17:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I know you want me on the open end of a gun, because I put the tables in your nice article. I think it is not clear enough were the CCAF operation ended and the followup actions begins. I have a idea. Let us divide the articel. One part FWLM and the other CCAF or first step the combined offensive and the second the creation of the chaos march as a result. I'm open for other solutions... Neuling 03:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Neuling, I don't want you on the end of a gun. Then you couldn't work on the article. ;). What I want is for you to finish the tables you started. The summary table at the end for example has a lot of ???? entries. Please replace the ???? with actual values, and I'll be a happy camper again.
I'd also like to move the tables to another article as Frabby suggests below. Then we could include the map you mentioned and some other stuff without overwhelming the reader with a lot of detail.--Mbear 12:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I can see two issues here, and have two suggestions to make accordingly (and mind that they are really only that, suggestions):
1) Unfinished work - As far as I gather, the original tables were unfinished and remained so for a long time, with no "work in progress" or similar tag. This apparently resulted in a broken, unfinished and overall not very nice article. My suggestion here would be to do major work offline - what I do on major overhauls (or big new articles) is to work totally offline, and only upload the article/changes when the work is completely done. Copy & Paste in conjunction with the Preview option allow to see the article in wiki format in the meantime, but this prevents half-done ruins for articles as well as a long string of smallish edits to a given article's history.
2) It is a totally different question whether or not extensive tables are desirable in the article. I reckon there is something like too much detail, and when the greater part of an article consists of tables it doesn't make for a good read (informative as it may be). Suggestion: Keep the article itself more concise and in article form (as opposed to one big set of tables), and consider to put all that extra data into a separate article, perhaps a subpage that could be linked with: "For a detailed rundown on units that were confirmed to be involved in the action by canonical sources, see Operation Guerrero/Involved Units"
Frabby 05:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
With no good argument why, other than Wikipedia avoids article subpages because subpages often tend to belong to more than one hierarchy (in this case, Operation Guerrero and say AFFC, CCAF & FWLM, for a semi-ok example), I'd rather we call such an article something along the line of Units Involved in Operation Guerrero, no subpage.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion : Wouldn't it be easier just to cleanup the tables to bring them up to quality? ClanWolverine101 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Two responses:
  • That was Mbear's original intent. By moving them to the talk page, he was highlighting the opinion that the tables were so far from complete that they needed to be moved to 'behind the scenes', in order to be addressed. (Almost a chicken-egg thing.) Maybe not the same action that every other Editor would take, but up to that point every other Editor was letting the tables remain incomplete.
  • If I read Mbear's concerns correctly, the information that was in the tables was already provided in the text that he wrote previously. If the tables are providing full statements (rather than short facts, like "yes", "2781", "Draconis Combine", "Amaris sucks"), then why are they in tables? Previously, Mbear had done work in other articles to turn similar 'stated' tables into text narrative to great result (solving one Editor's German-to-English problem). Instead, the reverse happened here: his text was copied into tables. I'm admitting I'm not seeing the added value, especially if work on the tables by the previous Editor had ceased. Mbear was being bold by focusing on improving the article rather than only the tables. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if my text was copied into the tables, but I know the tables duplicate the work I've already done. And I do think they have some value in that they provide a very quick summary of what happened on each world.--Mbear 12:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay then. Mbear - No one is suggesting the tables replace the more detailed material you already wrote. Some of us just process info better when its read from tables (such as myself). You seem to understand this, based on your last comment. So stick a banner on the table pointing out that its incomplete, thus inviting people to help fill it in. I understand how you must have felt about it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that dragging incomplete material from an article to its talk page for completion isn't an ideal way of correcting a problem. That's all anyone is saying, I think. ClanWolverine101 13:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Capellan Information[edit]

I can supply the Capellan actions but someone else has to add them to the tables and make it pretty. Who do I send the data to? Aldous 06:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Errr...that's a hard question. There is no librarian position for BTW. All Editors are expected to provide their own data on hand. If someone feels the wiki project needs to have an article on a subject, they add the material in. If no one feels it deserves an article, then it doesn't get made. answer I can give on that one.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Rolled back changes[edit]

Hello all. Just a note to explain what happened to the page today (January 19 2011). Many changes had been made to the page and I didn't like them but I was willing to let sleeping dogs lie in the interests of consensus-building. Then I noticed that someone had flagged the page with a cleanup tag and looked at it for the first time in a few months. I discovered that my text, which I worked very hard on, had been replaced by something that made little sense and was ugly.

So I changed it back to the original version I wrote. My reasons include:

  1. The tables that were entered just duplicated my work.
  2. My work was almost totally destroyed by others.
  3. The work done by others was substandard.
  4. The work done by others was incomplete and inaccurate (see comments from Aldous above).

I realize that this will probably annoy some contributors, but I think it's time for me to assert myself on this.--Mbear 18:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)