User talk:Arunreginald/Archives/2011/November

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High, while for quality the scale goes from Low  to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High, while for quality the scale goes from Low  to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Split
I appreciate your split, however, I would urge that a consensus be built first on whether the article needs a split. Firstly, the news section of the main page is directing all reader traffic to the skirmishes article, so we should avoid making another article at this point (for consistency and to avoid confusion for editors) and probably wait for a couple of days until the news is no longer exposed on the main page. Secondly, the Pakistan-United skirmishes article is supposed to be the main article and allows readers to access the background history and all other events, and adding this attack there is consistent with what we've been following for all other events. An attack of this magnitude would naturally have more content as compared to other incidents since there are more casualties. There is still plenty of room in the skirmishes article (it's not that long) so the rationale of splitting it off still doesn't quite fit at this juncture. My third point is that given the government's and military establishment's rather patient and slow reaction, it is unlikely that this event is going to escalate more than a brief diplomatic spat (like all other incidents). In a couple of weeks, most of this will be forgotten and the NATO supply routes will be opened again. The way things are going at the moment in the Pakistani government, which so far has done nothing other than give a couple of statements here and there, seems to suggest that this will exactly be the outcome. I don't think we should really create a new article unless this event has lasting significance (or is more controversial than the other similiar skirmishes despite the number of casualties in this one) and will be talked about for months long, which is sort of hard to judge at the moment. My advice is that we should wait a couple of days/weeks, see what happens, and if this becomes more than just another NATO attack, then we go on and create an article. Otherwise, keeping this on the main article suffices, in my humble opinion. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in my opinion, each of the events listed on the skirmishes page should have their own articles. One can gather research material for almost all such incidents scattered throughout the internet (using reliable sources, ofcourse). However, in the case of the Salala incident, I think it is rather more than the normal incidents you hear about in the news - especially it coming just a day after the NATO general and COAS Kayani had talks. This is going to erupt into something rather magnanimous IMO. Although, I would be very grateful if you could create a discussion about the splitting of the article text into a separate article and commence with support/deny votes. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 15:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)