Talk:Operation Model 5
Add topic
.svg){kind=small}
 | You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}
You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning {
display: none;
}
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) |
| Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Arab–Israeli conflict.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
Article name
[edit]Any objections to moving this to Operation Model 5? I believe the English name is more appropriate. However, if someone opposes using the English name in principle, the second best would be Operation Dugman 5 per WP:HE. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- "Operation Dugman" is fine, but I really dislike the name "Operation Model 5". "Model" is too generic, it has too many meanings, unlike the Hebrew counterpart. No one's ever going to guess what type of model "Doogman" refers to. Besides, most literature refers to the event as "Doogman" or "Dugman" anyway. Poliocretes (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Erm, I moved the article but forgot that this discussion ever took place. Feel free to move back if you wish, but we should revisit the discussion—I believe that the name Doogman 5 is meaningless to English-speakers, so it shouldn't be used as a title. In the article itself, we can list the Hebrew name anyway. However, if in most literature the Hebrew name is used, then we should use it. However, I prefer Dugman over Doogman. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I still prefer the Hebrew Dugman, but "Model" will do. Poliocretes (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Erm, I moved the article but forgot that this discussion ever took place. Feel free to move back if you wish, but we should revisit the discussion—I believe that the name Doogman 5 is meaningless to English-speakers, so it shouldn't be used as a title. In the article itself, we can list the Hebrew name anyway. However, if in most literature the Hebrew name is used, then we should use it. However, I prefer Dugman over Doogman. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Casualties
[edit]The article currently states that 5 of the two seat F-4 Phantom aircraft were lost and another was damaged but returned to Ramat David, while there were 2 KIA and 9 POW. Was one of the KIA in the damaged aircraft? -- 119.31.121.88 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- 6 aircraft were lost, article corrected. Poliocretes (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Stub-Class Syria articles
- Low-importance Syria articles
- WikiProject Syria articles
- Stub-Class Israel-related articles
- Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles