Talk:Operation GUERRERO

SMM unit

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 posted by Aldous (talk • contribs) 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)

Moratorium

Guys,

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. --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Actually, I meant dump the outdated moratorium boxes, then maybe fill in.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

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?

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)