Talk:Operation Ellamy

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

Proposed Merger[edit]

Hey guys and girls. I'm proposing a merger of this article into Libyan no-fly zone. If I understand correctly from the article, this is the British part of the more general operation, As I don't really see how this British segment is in any way different from, say, French (underway), Canadian (to come) or American (possibly to come), I'm not sure if there are enough information about it to warrant a separate article and, even if there are, if it makes sense to make 30 articles (one for each country) about essentially the same thing. Would there also be 30 articles on Operation Deny Flight, for example? (On an unrelated sidenote, why does it say "Kosovo" at the beginning of Operation Deny Flight and why can't I find any reference to this word in the edit page?) Peasantwarrior (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No, I think this should be kept because it is true that there could be 30 other different articles on this subject but Operation Ellamy is special - it could be a huge event but it needs to be given time! This one is special because it is the only codename so far given to the Libuan no-fly zone and also involves Britain, France and the USA. There is yet more information to come just as soon as we make a copyedit. I think people are misunderstanding, this has to be kept. Jaguar (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, that is incorrect - right now you can see on the BBC News that the operation has US codename Odyssey Dawn. And even if it was true, sorry if I sound a bit rude, but how does something having a name make it more special? I'm quite certain my name is unique in the entire world. However, you don't see an Wikipedia article about me... yet. :D Also, something which "could be a huge event but needs to be given time" should probably get an article once it becomes a huge event (to use another analogy, my friend could be a huge rock star, but needs to be given time :D), in my mind. Anyway, thanks for your input. :) Peasantwarrior (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I'm sorry about that mistake. Things just happen so quickly! I had created this article just 30 minutes after it had been announced by the government! That just shows how much ethusiastic some people are... Jaguar (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It makes sense to have it as a paragraph in the main article rather than branching articles offZaq12wsx (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - There are separate articles on UK involvement in the IRaq and Afghanistan wars - this is similar
I agree, any operation like this deserves its own independance. Jaguar (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:OSE isn't really a great argument. There are, for example, to my knowledge no articles on UK involvement in the Operation Deny Flight, which is probably the most similar situation. Iraq and Afghanistan wars are ongoing for almost a decade now - I believe that itself makes a significant difference. Peasantwarrior (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either give both Operation Odyssey Dawn and Operation Ellamy pages separate from the Libyan NFZ page or have both redirect. Quærenstalk/contributions 20:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is the British response to the No Fly Zone and it should remain separate. I just recreated the page for Operation Odyssey Dawn as it should be there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the individual UK response, besides there are many other articles similar to this in other conflicts, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq. IJA (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, things change very quickly and now all three operations have been created. I have removed the merger banner from the main article but if anybody thinks that there would be any reason to keep the discussion going, please feel free to spring it back up. Jaguar (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vehemently support — per how well put together the french version seems to be. Having these in separate articles separates crucial, unified information. --thejoewoods (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge too many current events are being over-documented on Wikipedia and split into excessive numbers of subpages. The air operations are all part of the enforcement of the Libya No-Fly Zone, we can have separate sections for the military actions by various countries, but 4 (so far) separate pages is just overkill. If the Libya NFZ page gets too large or the operations continue for a substantial time we can split them out then Mztourist (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - too much detail on the main Libya no-fly zone article as it is. Best to break down the copious information somehow. Would actually like to see a simplified Libya no-fly zone article, with information put into a timeline article and various operation articles. David (talk) 12:51, 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) 13:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that's "disagree" with the merger proposal? Because that's what my comment meant! David (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vehemently support merger — the article title isn't even correct: British operational names should be capitalised, i.e. Operation ELLAMY, this has been done for Op MOBILE but not ELLAMY. Yorkshire Phoenix United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland God's own county 13:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using allcaps in an article name is against the MoS (see WP:ALLCAPS). Currently only some Canadian operations, like your example given, have allcaps in the article name. The military style guide does not trump the inhouse one.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The 2011 military intervention in Libya page has too much detail to be merged anyway. This page summarises British intervention which I don't have a problem with at all. I see reason to merge the page. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ellamy"[edit]

What does "Ellamy" mean? ({Heroeswithmetaphors talk} 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It's just a codename - every operation is simply meant to have a name. In fact, most famous operation names even don't have meanings. Ditto Operation Market Garden. Jaguar (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or if you're really curious, 'Ellamy' is a girl's name that is found in Greek origin.[1] Jaguar (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, we should start an article for the guy who comes up with these names. That would be a rather epic job, I would think. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess David Cameron is no exception. Jaguar (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Market Garden was made up of two ops: Market (aerial) and Garden (land) in conjunction. Granby alludes to but is not necessarily named after the Marquess of Granby who was a commander during the Seven Years War. Operation Neptune, part of the Normandy Landings, was indeed to do with command of the sea. British operation naming is certainly complex though the titles are less evocative than the Rainbow Codes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this [1] BBC news article quotes a Ministry of Defence spokesperson as saying the name was randomly generated "so the name doesn't relate in any way to the action." --129.11.13.73 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents[edit]

I'd propose using a different name for Libya, as the definition of "Libya": a country split in two is not clear. What we really need to describe is forces loyal to Gaddafi. I'd advise using {{flagicon|Libya}} '''[[Gaddafi]] [[loyalists]]''' as seen on the main uprising article. Jolly Ω Janner 23:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree The national army is being used. Just as when the Yougoslav army attacked the rest of what used to be Yugoslavia, their name didn't change because the country broke up.--Terrillja talk 23:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the nation itself is disputed, so effectively has two armies. I just think we should be more specific as to which army it is that is being used. Jolly Ω Janner 23:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The national army is being used. Thus, the Army of Lybia.--Terrillja talk 00:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Libya could refer to the Libyan Republic as the official government of Libya, which implies the UK is fighting the rebels, but they are not. Thus simply stating "Libya" could refer to them. The coalition forces are not fighting the Republic, but Gaddafi's army. Jolly Ω Janner 13:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unification of similar articles[edit]

It doesnt make sense to have separate articles for US, UK and French operations in Libya, simply because they each have different code names. They are coordinated coalition operations against a single enemy. The articles should be unified under a new title, perhaps Coalition operations in Libya. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

    No, i believe we should keep them independant, just like the operations in iraq/afghanistan.
    Webb20k (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ellamy or Odessy Dawn?[edit]

The Royal Navy SSN fired cruise missiles along with USShips--so which operation was the RN sub part of? Ellamy or the American operation?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Navy SSN was the only one to file the Tomahawk missles - there is no evidence that the USS ships fired them so far although 117 has been fired altogether. Jaguar (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

timeline?[edit]

The other Operation articles (UN1973) seem to have a timeline section, should this one also? 184.144.166.85 (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think we could try it. Jaguar (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Op Ellamy is all UNSCR 1973 Enforcement Action by UK Forces (not just NFZ)[edit]

Perhaps we should change the definition of Op Ellamy to state: "Operation Ellamy is the codename for the United Kingdom participation in the enforcement of UN Security Council Revolution 1973" (As defined by MoD - http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/LibyaUpdate.htm) From "Operation Ellamy is the codename for the United Kingdom participation in the Libyan no-fly zone" Op Ellamy covers all UK action, not just the enforcement of a NFZ Gp324 (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special forces[edit]

There has been significant media coverage of eyewitness reports of British special forces (Special Air Service, Special Boat Service and Special Reconnaissance Regiment) on the ground in Libya.[2][3][4][5][6][7] Should this be included? ShipFan (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deployed Forces vs Military Equipment used[edit]

What is the difference between these two sections? Why aren't the photos of the various military assets in Military Equipment Used just part of a gallery in the Deployed Forces section? Mztourist (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LWhy are the photos there at all?GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Sentinels[edit]

I challenge that claim. The article says no specific numberOther dictionaries are better (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article mentions the sentinel is in use; ergo at least one is there. If you want to be cavil to the extent you want to query the number 1 - by all means remove the number - that doesn't however alter the fact its been deployed to the operation nor the fact the reference was valid. At the very least there is more assurance on the Sentinel than the vague numbers given for typhoons/tornadosZaq12wsx (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine I'll remove the number. I read that the article just specifies the names and types of planes, no numbers at allOther dictionaries are better (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Should we add Queen Elizabeth II as a commander In the I infobox? She is the commander in chief making her the highest ranked military offical. Spongie555 (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No she is NOT an operational commander.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are Call me Dave and Dr Fox. Yorkshire Phoenix United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland God's own county 13:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the PM in the overall person to announce combat as along with the Defence Minister. I see you political leanings here.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No don't include Queen Liz, she is just head of the armed forced for Ceremonial and Traditional reasons. IJA (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and I'd have said the flags were superfluous which ever British leader is listed in the infobox.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is great[edit]

One of the most updated and sourced and non-biased unlike the Americanised article Operation Odyssey DawnOther dictionaries are better (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISS list[edit]

The iss has a comprehensive list of assets deployed; im a bit busy now but i will ammend in time

http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-voices/operation-odyssey-dawn-ellamy-harmattan-mobile/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaq12wsx (talk • contribs) 06:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article still being expanded?[edit]

Operation Unified Protector consolidated all the various operations against Gaddafi forces with effect from 31 March. The Odyssey Dawn, Mobile and Harmattan pages all end on 31 March, so why is the Ellamy page being continued? Mztourist (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Brits still call it Ellamy--any thing related to an op on libya--http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/InDepth/LibyaOperationEllamy.htm Other dictionaries are better (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The NATO operation is Op Unified Protector but the UK contribution to Unified Protector is still Op ELLAMY. The same applies to the NATO op in Afghanistan (UK contribution Op HERRICK) and various other places.
Mztourist, good observation.Cibwins2885 (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs updating[edit]

Operation is stil continuing.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFTG inclusion[edit]

I will include RFTG assets in the force table shortly. Leave citation tags atm please. G.R. Allison (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Operation Ellamy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Operation Ellamy. 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) 06:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British death toll[edit]

I'm not entirely sure where the 22-36 figure for deaths on the British side originates from Freddie Scowen (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Ellamy&oldid=1208845258"