Talk:Operation Euphrates Shield

Regarding the impossibly bloated infobox and excessive TOC

Hello. Twice now my attempts at trimming the infobox down to its bare essentials have been reverted by disruptive editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines, jumping the gun, failing to assume good faith, and instead tunneling in on supposed vandalism. The simple fact is that this article looks ridiculous and in all likelihood only defers potential readers with its excessive bloating. Is this what hoarding looks like? Don't get me started on the continued removal of maintenance headers.

Firstly, the TOC is stretched to its limits with overly long and unnecessarily descriptive subsection titles, and it borderline-defeats its navigational purpose. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the infobox examplifies just about everything an infobox shouldn't be. "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)."

While its contents are relevant to the article, it includes lots of statistics otherwise not talked about in prose, just as it contains many more commanders, leaders, units, and other bits of information that fail to appear in the article text itself. "Long bodies of text, or very detailed statistics, belong in the article body." Also, an article's quality may be judged by its inclusion of references in its infobox. An infobox's contents should ideally already be part of the article itself, and thus these very same contents do not require references in an infobox, lest they be redundant. The fact that so many of this article's references orginate from the infobox is telling, and perhaps we should consider the possiblity that this may not be a very good article at all.

I propose we set an example here and try to curtail this disease that is gripping Wikipedia (including WP:RECENTISM.) Jay D. Easy (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You cannot remove the entire infobox and leave it blank. At least leave the details like casualties troops etc. This is just disruptive as it is right now. Jim7049 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I trimmed the excessive infobox content while leaving the casualties, troops, etc. Hope that works. Kaldari (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, sorry I reverted it, you can not remove all of them. But I will begin to an article like Order of battle for Operation Olive Branch, hopefully move all of these here. Let it stay for now. Thanks. Beshogur (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kaldari:, done. Could you fix the infobox size please? A bit wider. Beshogur (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. But do we really need the absurdly long list of commanders and leaders in the infobox? It's not really important for understanding the gist of the article and seems like excessive detail for the infobox. Kaldari (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 2 November 2021

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.

Consensus not to move per WP:COMMONNAME.(non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Operation Euphrates Shield → 2016 Turkish offensive into north-western Syria – Current title violates WP:POVTITLE as it is a purely Turkish point of view on the offensives. Nor does Turkey's odd choices of operation names properly describe or title the events for readers to grasp what is happening. With the developments of a potential future offensive again, the convoluted operation names potentially hides away the broader occupation. So I propose a consistent naming structure for the current Turkish occupation and offensives/invasions that have taken place to better fulfil WP:CRITERIA:

Turkish occupation of northern Syria

Operation Euphrates Shield > ---> 2016 Turkish offensive into north-western Syria

Operation Olive Branch ---> 2018 Turkish offensive into north-western Syria

2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria

Note: Turkey's president in 2019 threatened to flood Europe with refugees if European leaders/nations continued to call Turkey's offensives as an invasion hence some sources trying to be politically correct may be used as supposed reference to the current title, but this threat should be factored in to avoid the bias. "Erdogan threatens to flood Europe with 3.6 million refugees if EU calls Turkish operation in Syria an 'invasion'". 10 October 2019. TataofTata (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: "Operation Euphrates Shield" is the most common and precise name for the multi-front offensive. The proposed title is not widely used. Lightspecs (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I'm not mad keen on one-sided names for conflicts like this, but it does appear to be the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject in English reliable sources, so it's not really for us to change that.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2021 (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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Fırat Kalkanı Harekatında Görevli Deniz Piyadesi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

ISIS and SDF on lede

Dear, they ar already mentioned did you read it? Adding them again is not really helpful. Please explain your edits. Shadow4dark (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

From my lengthy protection summary that didn't fully make it: IP, you've not engaged the talk page (here). Why is that? The lead paragraph already says "The Turkish military and Turkey-aligned Syrian rebel groups, some of which used the Free Syrian Army label, fought against the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) as well as against the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)." Do you [not see that?] El_C 07:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

If lead paragraph mentions them anyway, why are they mentioned again in the first sentence?

First sentence: "Operation Euphrates Shield (Turkish: Fırat Kalkanı Harekâtı) was a cross-border military operation conducted by the Turkish Armed Forces and Turkey-aligned Syrian opposition groups in the Syrian Civil War which led to the Turkish occupation of northern Syria."

The only thing that is missing in the first sentence is who it was done against. It mentions one side of the conflict (TAF and aligned Syrian groups), where it happened (Syrian civil war) and the result (occupation of northern Syria) but it doesn't mention who it was done against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.181.172 (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe remove the second paragraph or move it to first paragraph. But do not add them twice on ledeShadow4dark (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)