This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Meghdoot article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan 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.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
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:
I appreciate that the links I added were already in the article, but other articles use similar tactics in the See Also section- they were intended to allow a reader, having just finished reading the article, to easily find another, related article: a summary of the more important links used in the article.
I don't want to engage in an edit war, so, to help expand the article a little and help people who don't know anything about the subject, which internal links would you suggest?
If you want to discuss it, feel free to use my talk page.
How about "The singular case of a bunch of breathless idiots fighting over a giant ice cube?" Makes a change from all the other stupid things humans fight over. Imagine the size of the whiskey glass it could fit into!
All sources listed here and anywhere you'll see mention this specific assault in 1984 as Op Meghdoot. Actually you'll have to prove otherwise that it was a "war". No credible source mentions it as such. Thanks. Idleguy14:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MilHist:Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pl avoid making wholesale changes, including changing the Ind-Pak campaign box when your claims are neither properly sourced nor do they have a consensus in changing over here. Thanks. Idleguy15:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont indulge in speculation and original research. Everything you add in Wikipedia is to be properly sourced. Actually that Time magazine article is one of the sources I used and no it doesn't refer to this specific incident as Siachen War or something like that.
see the infobox conflict name and date. This is a Preemptive war, what do you think it is other than that, see also Six-Day War
AGAIN: WP:MilHist:Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name.
ehm, I saw Siachen War, like Kargil War - the same standards. You still did not get the point and the infobox still contains Operation Trident - this statement raises doubts over your knowledge of this thing, I will have to activate WP:Milhist --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people quoting that guideline on codenames always omit the second part? If this conflict/engagement/whatever is overwhelmingly known under an operational codename (which may or may not be the case—I'm not an expert on this topic by any stretch of the imagination—but is certainly suggested by the Google results), then it should be left at that title, rather than being moved to an arbitrary geographic one that's not used in actual historical literature on this topic. (Indeed, the "most common name" principle is almost universal in Wikipedia's naming conventions.) Kirill Lokshin22:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur - the article name should correspond to the name used in the historical literature. The ghits seem to suggest that Operation Meghdoot is the most common name, but I also cannot speak from any position of authority or expertise. Carom22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to ask the people who moved those articles; presumably the codenames are not widely enough used for the "most common name" principle to outweigh the drawbacks of employing them as article title. Kirill Lokshin22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
btw, pl look at Template talk:Campaignbox Indo-Pakistani Wars where I've responded in detail. If Siachen needs to be linked then the template name should be changed to Conflicts and the correct link should point to the war/conflict and not just one of the operations of the siachen conflict that has gone on since 1984. Also TheFEARgod has not spelt out clearly what needs to be cleaned up in the page here. The tag itself says that a more precise problem needs to be identified instead of a vague tag. Thanks. Idleguy05:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot18:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for Image:Siachen-inf06-1024.jpg[edit]
Image:Siachen-inf06-1024.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
