Talk:Operation Prairie II
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Possible improvements
@Mztourist: Nice work here. Expand the lead per WP:LEAD and it is a B class. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Military Conflict Box Template RFC
 |
|
For military conflict infobox. Compare the edits here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Prairie_II&diff=1345121416&oldid=1344997126
The previous consensus edit stated casualties section which states reported casualties figures as being from US Sources. I edited to include "Per US" while keeping the Vietnam War body count controversy link.
I made edits to remove original research in the results section, and made the template more consistent with other campaign boxes. A user is now making edits which makes the infobox less informative/accurate. Summerhall fire (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the Template:Infobox military conflict that addresses this. As you have recently made numerous changes to results of other Vietnam War infoboxes on the basis of the template you must adopt a similar standard on this issue. If you have concerns about source reliability you should go to WP:RSN. Mztourist (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- I seem to recall it's also frowned upon to use a Wikipedia article as a source for anything. The body count controversy is far more nuanced than the linked article purports. Some units were notorious for "padding" the count, while others didn't. If a particular RS uses the "per US body count" language it should be used in the body of the article, not in the infobox. Intothatdarkness 14:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- my assumption is that it was a consensus edit to include this information, hence why it seems to be linked in every article. These articles are almost my entirely single source, which relies on AARs and so-on. Removing them without a valid justification does not seem warranted.
- the edits I made were to improve clarity of the text box, alongside removing a very OR results statement which the sources do not discuss.
- As reference, these articles have a higher quality text box with a generally good summary of results. These articles should be the standard.
- Second Battle of Donetsk Airport
- Twelve-Day War Summerhall fire (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Those articles are both concerned with very recent events, and as such will have a different look (and corresponding minutiae). While you seem to feel they should be the standard, your opinion is just one among many. Also, your blanket removal of results sections claiming them to be OR doesn't always stand up to scrutiny. And as far as the linked body count article goes, it's standard practice by some editors to add wikilinks to things just because they're there. That isn't always an indication of reliability or quality. Intothatdarkness 14:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't add them originally, and they seem fine to include. Other users seemingly left it in place and did not remove it. There is a bigger problem with this editor stalking my edits and proceeding to vandalize the Infinix seemingly out of spite. Look at that users edit history, he clearly just stalked my edits.
- I am fine with including whatever results sections, but there is a clear rule that it has to either be victory/inconclusive/aftermath. All else seems to be original research. Summerhall fire (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Since Prairie II was part of an operational series, it seems most appropriate (to me) to remove the results field entirely. Many operations during the Vietnam War, especially if they were part of a larger operation, don't always have clear "results" noted in RS. The Marine Corps official history, for example, doesn't give any results for Prairie II. That doesn't mean there isn't an RS that does, but it's an example of how these series operations tend to be treated. Just my opinion. Intothatdarkness 15:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- hm this approach sounds good. Another user was inserting hyperlinks, an aftermath and a discussion to other operations at around the same time. It honestly is more constructive than the reductive gamified analysis that treats this page as a sport or videogame, where there is a very binary "Success" or "Failure" metric.
- The edit here is one I would agree improved the article.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Cedar_Falls&diff=1344922476&oldid=1344475957 Summerhall fire (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Assuming a Results field is required at all, that is perhaps the best way forward with some Vietnam War articles. However, if RS says an operation is a victory it can be noted that way. Us liking it or not doesn't factor in if the RS agree. "Other operations at around the same time" isn't a workable thing, though. There were often many operations going at the same time in different parts of South Vietnam. This idea works best when you're dealing with operations that were phased or linked by planning (Prairie I-III being examples here, along with Cedar Falls and Junction City). Intothatdarkness 16:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment below is an example, but it requires far more time and skills than what I am capable of at the moment. Interlinked campaign box/with clear prominent links. The Battle of Stalingrad with all the smaller operations and the overall campaign box works wonderfully and is a fantastic example of a well designed wiki project. It's not bloating up an otherwise already quite bloated infosection. My overall issue with the Vietnam war campaign box is that it's very unintuitive and cluttered, and many of the articles themselves are just not interesting, notable or enjoyable.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Battle_of_Stalingrad
- Standout examples - Operations within Stalingrad
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Winter_Storm
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Uranus Summerhall fire (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Assuming a Results field is required at all, that is perhaps the best way forward with some Vietnam War articles. However, if RS says an operation is a victory it can be noted that way. Us liking it or not doesn't factor in if the RS agree. "Other operations at around the same time" isn't a workable thing, though. There were often many operations going at the same time in different parts of South Vietnam. This idea works best when you're dealing with operations that were phased or linked by planning (Prairie I-III being examples here, along with Cedar Falls and Junction City). Intothatdarkness 16:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- just a follow-up, a general merger article might work far better. The overall campaignbox is littered with these small or big operations which are not in my opinion, well-written. I can compare this one and all the other ones to articles like Easter Offensive, and there is a very clear difference in research and quality. This article seems to only really discuss very barebones description of casualties, timelines and dates.
- Tldr in its current state, it litters the campaignbox and detracts from better written collaborative articles. I would suggest many of these are merged, since it's much harder to edit many different articles all at once.
- An example. Operation Uranus was a subset operation of the Battle of Stalingrad. It doesn't clunk up the main campaignbox, but links directly to the overall larger battle. This is a constructive, intuitive format.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Uranus Summerhall fire (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- There's already a series of list articles for military operations Vietnam by year, and it's included in the Vietnam campaign box you're referencing. Vietnam isn't World War II. It's very difficult to break the conflict down into the sort of neat packages you seem to be looking for. Of course the US military didn't help by coming up with its odd series of campaign "names" (Defense, Counteroffensive Phase I and so on). The best framework to me feels like the lists of operations by year, both because it doesn't rely on any campaign naming conventions and because it gives a better feel for the actual pace of larger operations at any given time. These lists also capture SVN and allied operations. Some of these don't lend themselves to merging, either, and if you do someone will drive by and complain about them being too long (or a minor engagement will bulk up so much it looks far more significant than it really was). Intothatdarkness 17:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- There were thousands of named operations in the Vietnam War from 1960 to 1975, but relatively few of them are notable. Separate pages have been created for almost all substantive battles or operations of the war that resulted in significant casualties or territorial changes. One User's opinion that "many of the articles themselves are just not interesting, notable or enjoyable" is of no relevance to the project. Mztourist (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- Exactly. Some were connected, others were not. It would require some OR in many cases to work that out. And World War II isn't a good framework to follow. I think the user's also confusing Infoboxes and Campaignboxes in their comments above. I'm not a fan of the sprawling "Battles and Engagements" format...I think the "List of Operations" is slightly more useful (at least for the US period). Intothatdarkness 12:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- There were thousands of named operations in the Vietnam War from 1960 to 1975, but relatively few of them are notable. Separate pages have been created for almost all substantive battles or operations of the war that resulted in significant casualties or territorial changes. One User's opinion that "many of the articles themselves are just not interesting, notable or enjoyable" is of no relevance to the project. Mztourist (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- There's already a series of list articles for military operations Vietnam by year, and it's included in the Vietnam campaign box you're referencing. Vietnam isn't World War II. It's very difficult to break the conflict down into the sort of neat packages you seem to be looking for. Of course the US military didn't help by coming up with its odd series of campaign "names" (Defense, Counteroffensive Phase I and so on). The best framework to me feels like the lists of operations by year, both because it doesn't rely on any campaign naming conventions and because it gives a better feel for the actual pace of larger operations at any given time. These lists also capture SVN and allied operations. Some of these don't lend themselves to merging, either, and if you do someone will drive by and complain about them being too long (or a minor engagement will bulk up so much it looks far more significant than it really was). Intothatdarkness 17:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Since Prairie II was part of an operational series, it seems most appropriate (to me) to remove the results field entirely. Many operations during the Vietnam War, especially if they were part of a larger operation, don't always have clear "results" noted in RS. The Marine Corps official history, for example, doesn't give any results for Prairie II. That doesn't mean there isn't an RS that does, but it's an example of how these series operations tend to be treated. Just my opinion. Intothatdarkness 15:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Those articles are both concerned with very recent events, and as such will have a different look (and corresponding minutiae). While you seem to feel they should be the standard, your opinion is just one among many. Also, your blanket removal of results sections claiming them to be OR doesn't always stand up to scrutiny. And as far as the linked body count article goes, it's standard practice by some editors to add wikilinks to things just because they're there. That isn't always an indication of reliability or quality. Intothatdarkness 14:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- the changes I made was inserting Per, adding line breaks and removing OR. I did not make changes which undermined the general informability of a template box. You proceeded to stalk my edits and vandalize these articles out of spite. Also see this below: optional field for further notes; this should only be used in exceptional circumstances. Summerhall fire (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- I seem to recall it's also frowned upon to use a Wikipedia article as a source for anything. The body count controversy is far more nuanced than the linked article purports. Some units were notorious for "padding" the count, while others didn't. If a particular RS uses the "per US body count" language it should be used in the body of the article, not in the infobox. Intothatdarkness 14:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Please see WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Chaste Krassley (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2026 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)