Talk:Operation 1107

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article was accepted from this draft on 10 November 2023 by reviewer Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs).

Myanmar

Operation 1107 is within the scope of WikiProject Myanmar, a project to improve all Myanmar related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systemic bias group on Wikipedia aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Myanmar-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.MyanmarWikipedia:WikiProject MyanmarTemplate:WikiProject MyanmarMyanmar articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : offices, ministries and politicians of current cabinet, requested articles on Burmese subjects and articles on smaller towns and villages
Expand : Top-importance and High-importance articles
Photo : add photos of incumbent politicians
Stubs : Category:Myanmar stubs
Update : offices, ministries and politicians of current cabinet after 2015 election
Other : If you know Burmese, go on the Myanmar Wikipedia and make sure each article on the English Wikipedia has one in Burmese also

Military history: Asian / Southeast Asia / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Southeast Asian military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Karenni Allied Revolutionary Forces?[edit]

I can't find any source referring to the alliance of Karenni militant groups under this name. Articles refer to them as "revolutionary forces", but it doesn't appear to be a name for any formal alliance. Only [1] uses the term once in title case, which doesn't seem enough to extrapolate it as referring to an all-encompassing alliance. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 21:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong and the KARF might just as well be an actual alliance, I just can't seem to find sources mentioning it. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 21:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think looking into it, I don't see any sources mentioning this as a specific alliance like the Three Brotherhood Alliance. And searching in Burmese the only thing close is this source talking about "ကရင်နီပြည် မဟာမိတ်တပ်ဖွဲ့တွေ" (i.e. Allied Karenni forces). I'm gonna assume that there is no such alliance until we get WP:RS that talk about the alliance. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 22:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10 November Aircraft[edit]

Both sources state the aircraft crashed Saturday, 11 November. This appears to be the same aircraft mentioned in the 11 November section (aviation-safety.net is using a different name for the same state). The 10 November section should be merged into 11 November. DA39A3 (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done: agreed, the sources all say 11 November EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New section explaining the purpose of Op 1107[edit]

I think it's a bit confusing currently when there are two operations launched in the Kayah state. I'm wondering if there could be a short section explaining the difference. My understanding is 1107 in the overall operation meant to secure all Kayah, while 1111 is meant to secure specifically Loikaw. I read online one stated goal of 1107 was to support 1027. Correct me if I'm wrong. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I initially felt like 1107 and 1111 should be merged, or that 1111 should be a subsection of 1107. But there aren't enough RS to properly make that argument yet. i.e. not sure what the consensus amongst news sources and analysts on the southern operations and what to call them are yetEmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 20:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what about renaming both articles? Thus article to something like Kayah state campaign and 1111 to battle of Loikaw and then just deciding to document everythin in Loikaw in one article and only at glance here, but all other, like Mese township etc. happenings here. What about this? I think the current may be confusing to the reader with both named operation x numbering and both having same participants etc. I would personally prefer a explaner type or renames. :) Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I support a merge, but keeping separate articles doesn't really solve the issue tbh. The titles should be named by what news sources and analysts are calling it- which is still 1107 and 1111. We can disambiguate any confused readers with a hatnote in the mean time- I've gone and done3 that. I'd personally prefer to connect 1111 with the other Battles of Loikaw, but Operation 1111 is also more WP:NATURAL than Battle of Loikaw (2023) EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see value in both combining the battles of Loikaw, but also keeping them separate. Combining separate articles into one would make it a bit easier and logical for the wikipedia editors, not having to have to jump through multiply articles if something concerns several. However the advantage of keeping them separate is a benefit to the reader, take the current Battle of Avdiivka (2022–present), at a glance it may not be easy for the reader to deduce the different phases of the battle, who gained lost/attacked/defended etc. without having to read the article, if that sort of quick information is what your looking for. This quick information is useful if you already know some of the topic, but want to update your knowledge. The battles of Loikaw are also separated in time periods of fighting, while Avdiivka have been a more constant fight. Thus it would be easier to quickly understand that the two earlier battles ended in stalemate or ceasefire while this ongoing one ends in x, then based on that read the sections I feel I need to update myself. Personally I just find it easier to navigate and get to what I want to read. In this case I would air on benefitting the reader rather then the editor.

That said, already something like elaborating what the goal of 1107 is could help in the meanwhile, I think 1111 states it's goal is to capture Loikaw. So if a reader then jumps between the articles they can compare and figure it out. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the issue is solved for my part, there is a clarifying text above the article now that does what I was asking for :) Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I meant by a WP:HATNOTE. I still think there's value to merging 1107 and 1111 given that there's next to no text/info in 1107 that isn't about 1111. I'll suggest a merge later this week after doing some background research. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]