Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Operation Victory

 Main page Main talk Showcase Open tasks Phase I Phase II Phase III Portal 

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The May newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Turabay dynasty • Thomas Neville (died 1460) • Battle of Poison Spring • Yugoslav submarine Mališan • Shigi Qutuqu Featured article review USS Wisconsin (BB-64) • Edward III of England • Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Battle of Saipan • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew • Boot Monument Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Battle of Pandu • West Point, New York • Charles the Bold • Regency of Algiers • Wolfgang Larrazábal Good article nominees Reza Qoli Mirza Afshar • Nazran uprising • Abu'l-Fath Khan Javanshir • Iga ikki • Kōka ikki • Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • William Henry Harrison Seeley • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Khalji Revolution • Travis King • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Antoine Hamilton • George II of Greece • Roswell incident • Podgorica Assembly • Masopha • Sam Bahadur (film) • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • HMS Renard (1909) • Battle of Meligalas • Blohm & Voss BV 40 • Zeppelin-Staaken L • Gubir shootdown • The Defence of Duffer's Drift • Chestertown Armory • Mariano R. Vázquez • Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk • Gotha WD.7 • CSS General Earl Van Dorn • Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (2023–present) • Cultybraggan Camp • HMS Basilisk (1910) • 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses Good article reassessments Golubac Fortress • Loitering munition Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (147,263) • only work on referencing and citation (43,165) • work on coverage and accuracy (122,372) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,618) • work on structure (31,769) • only work on structure (360) • work on grammar (8,184) • only work on grammar (45) • work on supporting materials (32,722) • only work on supporting materials (1,335) • assessment (1) • assessment as lists (122) • project tags fixed (8) • assessment checklists added (10) • assessment checklists completed (26) • task forces added (295) • attention to task force coverage (680)

Requested move 21 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clearly no consensus to move these pages. Number 57 13:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

---

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Operation Victory → Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/British Naval Service
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Operation Victory/Open tasks → Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/British Naval Service/Open tasks
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Operation Victory/Phase I/Articles to be created → Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/British Naval Service/Phase I/Articles to be created
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Operation Victory/Phase II/Articles to be created → Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/British Naval Service/Phase II/Articles to be created
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Operation Victory/Phase III/Articles to be created → Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/British Naval Service/Phase III/Articles to be created

– per main article "British Naval Service", which is the WP:NPOV descriptive term (see WP:NDESC) used in the lead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator/British Naval Service.
"Operation Victory" is thoroughly POV, and also WP:Original research since there isn't even an article of that name.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan club for any one country or its military services. And neutrality is of the core Five Principles: see WP:5P2. WikiProjects are supposed to be collaborations to uphold those core principles, so their titles should reflect those principles ... but this title looks like an exercise in flag-waving partisanship. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• If you knew anything about British Naval Service history, I'm sure that you would recognise HMS Victory as Lord Nelson's flagship at the Battle of Trafalgar- this project was merely named in recognition of this. SmartyPants22 (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

  @SmartyPants22: yes, of course I know about HMS Victory, but:

  1. "Operation Victory" is a noelogism of your invention
  2. The title is not neutral.

  Given your condescending sarcasm, your username suits you well ... but there are a few other adjectives which should be added. Now go read WP:NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  @BrownHairedGirl Yes I did invent it just like the name Operation Majestic Titan (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan) was invented. Secondly you either misinterpreted what I write or do not understand the definition of sarcasm- nothing I wrote there is sarcastic by aby stretch of the imagination. Thirdly, I fail to see how naming a Project after a RN vessel contradicts WP:NPOV. And lets keep it civilised please no need to resort to personal insults. SmartyPants22 (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  Let’s involve some users in this discussion who are actually members of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Military history or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force and who actually understand what a WP:MH Special Project is. SmartyPants22 (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  @SmartyPants22: If you want to keep it civilised please, then avoid sarcastic insults like you [snip] do not understand the definition of sarcasm and involve some users who [snip] actually understand what a WP:MH Special Project is. I understand very well what sarcasm is, and I also understand what a special project is, you condescending smarty pants ... and no Wikiproject or task force or special project is a vehicle for those who start out promoting propagandistic names. (Hint: I have been around here for a while)

  As to Operation Majestic Titan ... WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. That breach of NPOV does not justify anther one.

  HMS Victory is a vessel. "Operation Victory" is not a vessel.

  Neither "HMS Victory" not "Operation Victory" describes the scope of this project. They are forms of positive branding.

  If you don't see how inventing a marketer's name like "Operation Victory" is POV, then consider how you would feel if it was called "Operation Defeat"? That could be in honour of the great British naval defeats, such as Jutland, Bantry Bay, Beachy Head and Chesapeake ... or "Operation Sunk" after HMS Hood ... or "Operation War Crime" after one view of the sinking of the Belgrano. Note that I am definitely not advocating any such negative POV name. I am advocating a simple, neutral descriptive name per WP:NDESC, and i offer those titles merely as illustrations of the sort of can of worms which gets opened up when POV-pushing titles are used.

  Finally, there is a WP:OWNership issue. Members of a WikiProject don't get to choose their own exceptions to WP:NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  Very clever use of slips to completely change the meaning of what I said there. And let’s not forgot that you were the one to start the ‘name calling.’SmartyPants22 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Firstly this does not fall under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and I fail to see how naming a project namely ‘Operation Victory’ defies WP:NPOV in anyway. If Lord Nelson’s vessel was named HMS Duncan, and hence I named this project ‘Operation Duncan’ that would not be seen in the same light, and no eyelid would be battered. SmartyPants22 (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Even in that case, it would be better with a simple descriptive name, rather than a made-up name. And if after all that discussion, you still don't grasp how attaching the name "Operation Victory" to one military force is POV, then I can't help further.
    what exactly is your objection to the simple descriptive name: "British Naval Service"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.