Talk:List of military operations

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

Repeated lists?[edit]

Why are the WWII and Cold War ops lists repeated? Is there any reason the duplicated lists should not be merged? Bbpen 16:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Acting boldly[edit]

OK, I crosschecked both Cold War ops lists and removed this second one. Bbpen 16:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cold War Era

More bold actions[edit]

Crosschecked both WWII ops lists and removed this second one. Bbpen 16:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


World War II

Final bold action[edit]

Crosschecked remaining duplicate lists and removed these. Bbpen 16:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other/Unknown

Law Enforcement

  • Avalanche (1999) - American anti-pedophilia effort
  • Falcon (2004) - anti-pedophilia raid against companies handling credit card payments
  • Ore (2003) - American led anti-pedophilia effort
  • Pin (2003) - British-led anti-pedophilia effort

Other

Non-military operations

External links

Order And Discipline![edit]

I hope you like the new organization of the page. We might want to do WWII this way also. [[PaulinSaudi 08:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)]]

SEALORD vice Sealords[edit]

Dear Iam, All this Wikistuff is case-sensitive. Your SEALORD now points to Operation Sealords. When I first got here I protested much. We both know codewords are CAPITALIZED. That is just the local custom here, we cannot really change it.

Welcome to the Wiki!

[[PaulinSaudi 03:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)]]

  • Yes but SEALORDS is an acronym, not just a codeword. It stands for Southeast Asia Lake, Ocean, River, and Delta Strategy. So I don't know why it would be made lowercase for an acronym. Iam 04:01, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units)[edit]

Forgive the spam, but I'm trying to round up wikipedians with an interest in international military history to help work out some conventions for the names of military units. If you are interested in that sort of thing, please visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units) and join the discussions on the talk page. — B.Bryant 17:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

World War 2 operations[edit]

Don't know about any one else but I find that the WW2 list has become large and is too monolithic (ok, I am partly to blame). I suggest that it's subdivided into 'theatre', eg, Easterm Front, Mediterranean, Pacific, etc. Other approaches are possible (eg year, nation) but this seems the most obvious, although there will be overlaps.

Any views?

I don't mind starting the work. I'll make a start soon and offer a sample for further comment.

World War 2 operations again[edit]

The subdivision of WW2 operations hasn't prompted ny comments at all. I'll assume it's ok.

Next: the size of this whole article is getting a bit big and there's warnings about this on amendments. I suggest that the WW2 section be removed to a new article completely, with appropriate links. I'll wait for comments and suggestions, of course. Then, unless it's a problem, I'll go ahead on, say 6th November. It will be reversible. Folks at 137 21:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Folks-

Excuse me for not commenting on your bold move. My Muse is missing and I am unable of late of writing. Had I commented upon your proposal, I would have advised against it. Seeing your work, I must confess I am mightily pleased. Well done.

However, I take exception with further chopping the page. Its size has given me no real problem, have you encountered any?

Frankly, I simply like the words. The operations are not nearly so interesting to me. I like the parade of odd and obscure names.

Tell you what, why not make each and every war a redirect page? Let's see how that looks. Paul, in Saudi 04:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Paul: Thanks for your comments. Personally, size isn't a problem - the bits I'm interested are at the front, so I can put up with it. I was prompted by the Wiki generated comment 'This page is 64 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.' As I've helped to reach this condition, I didn't want to cop out, hence my offer/ suggestion.

    Best wishes to your Muse.Folks at 137 17:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Separation[edit]

Time to separate the military from the non-military and even the projects from the operations? GraemeLeggett 17:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accumulator (1944)[edit]

While there are certainly operations I have never heard of, I would really like more information on this one. I thought my research on Overlord was fairly complete. Paul, in Saudi 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My source is

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Normandy/ComNavEu/ComNavEu-416.html page 420. I felt that this was a good source, so included it.

There's more detail at

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/Admin-Hist/147.5-ComNavEu/ComNavEu-8.html

and more diversions are listed - Glimmer, Taxable & Bigdrum. Do you have objections to these being added to the list?
Been searching the web. No ref to Accumulator on HMCS Huron sites....
Folks at 137 10:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-classify by year[edit]

Some of the WW2 geographical areas have become so large as to make it difficult to follow campaigns or to group linked operations. I favour grouping by year, since that broadly groups like events together. First effort is Western Front as this neatly splits the German ascendancy from the Allied. Next could be Mediterranean: this would separate North Africa from Italy. Any views?? Folks at 137 11:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The situation her eis that the whole article is too large and needs to split down into smaller units (see List of armoured fighting vehicles for an example) I would hive off WW2 as a separate list for a starter.
I agree, but it's not unanimous, see "World War 2 operations again", above. If a consensus is found to split off WW2, I don't mind doing the work, however.

Potkova?[edit]

The very existance of operation named "Horseshoe" in Serbian (described here as a Serbian army offensive against "Kosovo Liberation Army" terrorist organisation) is a matter of considerable doubt. Reports of alleged organised widespread ethnic cleansing under it`s aegis was used NATO countries` war propaganda as justification for escalation of the bombing campaign against Federal Republic Of Yugoslavia. However it has never been proven that it had really exsisted as such.

But regardless of all that POTKOVA does NOT mean "horseshoe" in Serbian (in fact there is no such noun in Serbian language). POTKOVICA is Serbian for horseshoe.

Veljko Stevanovich 3. feb. 2006. 19:00 UTC+1


Croats vs Serbs[edit]

This is not intended to be a forum for a bunch of crazy Slavs to fight amongst themselves, so try to get some objectivity here. Whatever happened in Croatia is not commonly referred to as the 'Croatian War of Independence'. On the other side of the coin there has been certified evidence of atrocities committed by Serbs against Kosovars and Croats in military actions within the former Yugoslavia.

I have renamed Croatian War of Independence to War in Croatia, just like War in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I have also removed the word liberate as it is clearly NPOV, and any other NPOV terms.

Kransky 08:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa - apology[edit]

Not sure how, but I appear to have wiped this page earlier today (20:13). This was an accident, and I wish to apologise. Other editors have restored the info. Probably getting over-confident. My wrist is slapped. Folks at 137 20:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slipper[edit]

"Slipper — the Royal Australian Navy's contribution to the invasion of Afghanistan "

how on Earth would a navy been useful against an inland country? -- 01:58, 29 April 2006 Kransky

Airstrikes, reconstruction teams, corpsmen, special forces, etc. PRRfan 14:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Timor[edit]

Now has its own category 203.13.2.142 04:27, Kransky 02:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global War on Terror[edit]

I have grouped both military and law enforcement activities together, including the activities in Afghanistan (covered unchanged under its own sub-category).

The nature of counter-terrorist activities involving both civil and military organisations makes it tricky to define taxonomies, to say nothing of the controversy to link other conflicts in (Chechnya? Thailand? Iraq?). For the sake of simplicity I am just including operations directed against broadly Islamist threats in the post 9/11 era (this is not a clear-cut operation).

And did you know some terrorists also name their operations?

Law enforcement operations do not belong on a list of military operations unless they are operations conducted by military law enforcement. I have little confidence that any operation at present in the law enforcement section is valid. I checked two and they were not military operations. I removed them. TMLutas (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this fit?[edit]

Now that someone put this into Category:Lists I'm trying to figure out which sub-category it should go in. One thing that throws me is that the title says "and non-military" but its only included in military operations categories. The name seems to be too broad in that non-military operations and projects seems like it ought to include my project to build a deck in my backyard. What is this list really about? --JeffW 03:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the list was intended merely to be a list of "operations", to satisfy a curiosity about the allocation of such names. It includes police actions, for instance, which are not military. I've concentrated on WWII ops and it's been helpful and informative to ferret out the info. IMHO, the list is too broad and unmanageable and I've advocated extracting the WWII data to a new list. There's discussion on this, above; particularly from PaulinSaudi. Your suggestions welcomed. Folks at 137 19:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that it isn't useful to lump things together that are really different just because they contain a common word. Therefore, I think the non-military stuff should be put in its own list, or just deleted because there doesn't seem to be enough to justify a list. --JeffW 21:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 09:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

List of operations and projects (military and non-military) → List of military operations … Rationale: This is basically a list of military operations with a few non-military things called Operations tacked on the end. I think this organization is confusing and the non-military "operations" should be in a separate list if they are notable enough. …

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support. The current term is both too specific and technical, and ironically inaccurate at the same time. True, some of these items are not military operations, but the concept of non-military operations and projects could easily refer to all operations and projects that any organization, public or private, has ever done. Since the article title does not use capitalization ("Operations and Projects" instead of "operations and projects") it does not even properly imply that items on the list need to be titled Operation X or Project Y. Anything from the Big Dig to the development of the next version of Windows to Wikipedia itself could be construed as an "operation or project (non-military)." While the title "List of Military Operations" may be a tad inaccurate, considering the diplomatic, technological, and miscellaneous items on the list, it is a much cleaner and tighter title. LordAmeth 23:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current title is over long and redundant. - SimonP 18:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with Lord Ameth on the unwieldy title. I would support renaming the title to List of Operations or List of Operations (Military and Non-military). Obviously things like Operation Clean Water (an anti-water pollution campaign in Ontario) would not be included. But one problem - a sign of the times - is the blurring between military and civilian authorities and responsibility. Should not a humanitarian operation involving an air force, or a counter-terrorist raid involving police and an intelligence service cooperatively, be included? Separating the list into military operations, law-enforcement operations, humanitarian operations etc is messy, and removing everything except the purely military could put a rod against our backs Kransky 09:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Subcategories for Cold War[edit]

I have created categories for the Vietnam War, Korean War and "Southern Africa", which are easily recognisable and distinct wars where operations generically could be considered 'Cold War' can be placed. Other military/intelligence operations of the Cold War (i.e.: between East and West, both proxy and/or involving the superpowers directly) can be placed here, such as Grenada, Cuba, Berlin etc.

One issue are conflicts that have outlasted the Cold War (such as Israel versus its neighbours), or which were not directly an East-West issue (such as the Falklands War, or India-Pakistan). Any suggestions? Kransky 05:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National indication[edit]

An experiment. I've added national flags to some WWII operations to indicate national origin (the "attacker" not "attackee"). Does this help? I think a graphic is easier to pick out than words. Comments? Folks at 137 09:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Splendid idea! I'm looking forward to see 36 flags at Operation Desert Storm ;-) Necessary Evil 15:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave that one to you, NE! Seriously though, it's a point: does it invalidate the idea? Folks at 137 22:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using 36 flag icons is no more or less doable than 36 names. So what's the difference? The flags idea is fine. Use them (and/or names) for the main combatants, otherwise, just use a name like "Allies", "Axis", "Coalition" etc.Michael Dorosh 23:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Banzaiii[edit]

I've changed the small Japanese red dots with Image:Naval Ensign of Japan.svg because the red dots look odd. The was also the flag of the Imperial Japanese Army.--Necessary Evil 17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Israeli Conflict[edit]

I have added a separate section for all conflicts involving Israel (strictly speaking, not all of them involve Arabs - somebody think of anything better). Kransky 06:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make table[edit]

I think that we should make a table out of this list of links. Would anyone have a problem with me creating a table for this. The fields I will put on it to start are Country (this will have the flag), Conflict, Year began, Year ended, Operation name and Comments. I will also add info about each major war/conflict and breakout large sections and create pages for them with forks from this page to the new one. If you want to see what this will look like when I am done see List of Medal of Honor recipients. If I don't get any comments against within the next couple weeks I will implement.--Kumioko (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THAT'S ALOT OF WORK, not just for you, but for future editors.
I think it would be better to solicite a person to create a bot to autopopulate the table based on the parameters of Military operation infoboxes. Each of these named operations that has an article should have an infobox that is populated with all the data you just mentioned.eximo (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Codenames[edit]

This list is essentially a list of one-word codenames (operations), but I can't find a list yet of two-word codenames (programs, I think). Can anyone assist? 70.251.32.227 (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

invalid operations in law enforcement section[edit]

Arguments for removing invalid law enforcement operations or entire section[edit]

Law enforcement operations do not belong on a list of military operations unless they are operations conducted by military law enforcement. I have little confidence that any operation at present in the law enforcement section is valid. I checked two and they were not military operations. I removed them. TMLutas (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TMLutas:
I'm in agreement, law enforcement operations should be moved to a separate article. A person searching for law enforcement operations would be likely to overlook this article in their search for a list of law enforcement operations.eximo (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against removing law enforcement section:[edit]

The only law enforcement operations that should be on this list are ones that were a joint operation between military and law enforcement. An example are some of the operations in the U.S. coastal waters whereby the Coast guard personnel deploy and conduct operations from U.S. Navy vessels.eximo (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of military operations. 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) 06:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of military operations. 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) 12:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This list is a ridiculous idea.[edit]

I wonder when it will occur to editors that this list, even as a list of lists of operations, will swell to unmanageable proportions?Georgejdorner (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that as a list of operations it will be unmanageable. I see merit in the idea of it being a list of lists, though.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_military_operations&oldid=1214873629"