Talk:Operation Mobile

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Mobile article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Canada: History / Military Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.
	This article is supported by the joint Canadian military and military history task force

Military history: Aviation / Maritime / Canadian / North America

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Maritime warfare task force
	Canadian military history task force
	North American military history task force

Africa: Libya Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libya portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as Low-importance).

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Duplicate

A stub of this topic was created a few minutes ago here: Operation MOBILE. BurtAlert (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Sorry that was my fault - move all to new title as this is the format used in Canada see List of Canadian military operations .Moxy (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime

This is WPMILHIST Maritime because there are warships involved. Don't forget that Canada is sending a frigate. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOBILE or Mobile?

Before anybody queries this, All current/recent Canadian Military Operation names are capitalised by the Canadian authorities, so that is the correct format to use, and there should therefore be no need to change the name of this article. However, in common usage, in the body of articles for example, the capitalisation may seem out of place, and it should therefore be acceptable to use the atlernative, Operation Mobile. Well, that's what I think :) Regards Lynbarn (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an acronym? 184.144.166.85 (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, NAFAIK, just a Canadian convention. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would be best to keep this like all the others as per previous talks .Moxy (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean, I've not been party to other discussion son this. do you mean other operations generally, or other canadian operations wilth Capitalised names? Are you sayingthe article name should be changed from "Operation MOBILE" to "Operation Mobile"? Lynbarn (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i was unclear - keep as Operation MOBILE - List of Canadian military operations (this has been the norm for 10 years) - as long as all is not in caps and we agree its ok - we are ok by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms Moxy (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my reading of MOS:ALLCAPS which starts "Avoid writing with all capitals. Reduce them to one of the other title cases". Other countries operations that are written in Allcaps in military documentation may have Allcaps in the lede but not in the article title (eg Operation Telic) No historical operation uses Allcaps that I know of. If it is allcaps in the title should it also be written allcaps style throughout the article? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes in the articles samll would be fine so its like all the other - but the title is NOT all caps plus as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms this was a convention that was determined long ago- that said if a new consensuses would like to change all this that fine with me - but we would need to tlak alot more about this then just here. this terms are linked like this in many many Canadians articles.Moxy (talk)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms is referring to initial letter capitalization and therefore not relevant to this allcaps discussion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think MOXY means the consensus was to use the caps not the MOS its self - but rather the style was chosen.99.240.171.234 (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@IP bill is that you ?? @ all after looking into this i see it was decided WAY back in 2004 - long before the MOS on caps - so i say we "move" {with redirects) them all to normal text like the other countries . Dont think anyone will complain as most of the users that had voted on this are long gone. Moxy (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently nine UC versus eight LC for Canada, so standardisation would certainly be a good idea! As you say, lowercase would be consistent with other usage - note also this article where a CF source confirms the caps are just a stylistic choice. Shimgray | talk | 20:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of all capitals for operations is fairly common in western militaries, not just Canada (Australia for one). Regardless my interpretation of wiki policy is that we should use lower case, i.e. Operation Mobile, regardless. So I propose moving this page over the redirect. Anotherclown (talk) 07:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's general consensus to move, so I'll do it just now. Shimgray | talk | 18:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force Libeccio

Task Force Libeccio should redirect here. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does! (now) Lynbarn (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal to Libya no-fly zone

We now have 4 separate stub pages detailing actions taken by various countries to enforce the Libya no-fly zone - Operation Mobile, Operation Ellamy, Operation Odyssey Dawn and Opération Harmattan. This is overkill, we should simply have separate sections on the Libya NFZ page for each country's actions. If the Libya NFZ page gets too long or the operations continue for a substantial time we can separate them out then. Mztourist (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Each can stand on their own at this time, as the stories are emerging and individual country's efforts are not yet being merged into a cohesive action. Bzuk (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, these are 4 separate operations at the moment. i.e. the French Ground Strikes around Benghazi on March 19th were done without the coalitions command structure. Also until a central command is set up each nation operates a national operation, based on the requirements of the strategic command (US African Command) and then in the theater of operations are conducted under the tactical command of US Naval Forces Europe. noclador (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Should we add Queen Elizabeth II as a commander in the infobox? She is the commander in chief making her the highest ranked military offical or we could put the Governor General since he represents the Queen. Spongie555 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is not an operational commander.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also disagree she is not a leader or commander, just the head of state (though not by convention). Krazytea(talk) 15:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that LGen André Deschamps is not in the chain of command of Operation MOBILE; as Commander, Air Command, he is a force generator, not a force employer. LGen Marc Lessard, Commander, Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, should be added as the overall commander of the Canadian effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharmionCT (talk • contribs) 18:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better sourced and written

than the Americanised page Operation Odyssey Dawn Other dictionaries are better (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation MOBILE and Operation Unified Protector

I recently reverted an edit that removed the CP-140 Auroras from the page stating "The CP-140 Auroras still fall under Operation MOBILE, as Operation Unified Protector is also taking over the no-fly zone, not just the arms embargo." After looking at the actual NATO page and not just news articles, I realize that Operation Unified Protector just refers to the arms embargo and I was mistaken in my statement. However, as I understand it, the entire Canadian Contribution still falls under Operation MOBILE regardless, and the CP-140s should still be included. Does anybody have any sources that would clear this up either way?Piper2000ca (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the DND page for Operation MOBILE, they make clear that Canada's contribution to Operation Unified Protector still falls under Operation MOBILE. It even names the CP-140s as being under Task Force Libeccio. Ref: http://www.comfec-cefcom.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/ops/mobile/index-eng.asp Piper2000ca (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

currently all this is being reorganized: Unified Protector will take of the arms embargo (= all the ships and maritime surveillance) and the no-fly zone (= the planes of all nations, who refuse to carry out ground strikes). Who will take control of the UK, French, Canadian, Belgian, Norwegian and Danish, Spanish ground strike forces is still unclear. However: Operation Mobile will be broken up into different commands soon. noclador (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Day Numbers

Should the Summary of Action continue with the current format (Day 1: 21 March 2011, Day 2: 22 March 2011, etc.), or switch to just posting the date (21 March 2011, 22 March 2011, etc.)? I propose changing it, and to just post the date, and get rid of the day number. Piper2000ca (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about massive text dumps

This article is on its way to becoming a book, and there is little editing going on to use summaries or precise statements. FWiW, comments?

Dating

The infobox says that the Operation ended on March 31, when it actually ended in October. Can someone clarify that?--Stephen C Wells (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the introduction, why does it just break off and talk about how Odyssey Dawn was ended by Unified Protector when Odyssey Dawn had nothing to do with Canada and was America's op?

NATO took sole command of all operations in Libya from 06:00 GMT on 31 March, which effectively ended the U.S. Operation Odyssey Dawn, as all U.S. operations were absorbed into NATO's Unified Protector.

--Stephen C Wells (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Operation Mobile. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 00:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Operation Mobile. 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.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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) 22:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]