Talk:Phases of Operation Car Wash/Archive 1

Archive 1

Condução coercitiva

Elinruby, when you come across "condução coercitiva" in the original, I suggest you code it like this: ''[[condução coercitiva]]''{{efn|name="cc"}} warrants. I've added that to phase 5 Bidone II, replacing the {{what}} tag. The English article condução coercitiva exists now, and is a partial translation of the Portuguese one; if you feel like expanding it further, go for it. Mathglot (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I will probably do a global find and replace once I remember how to spell that. But yeah, I agree with that. Elinruby (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Already done; this is just for going forward. Mathglot (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The closest I've found to it in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, is the material witness in U.S. law, but it's not that close, and we couldn't use it anyway, as no reliable sources that I've seen make that comparison. The two areas of overlap, are that they can be both be used to compel an innocent person not suspected of any infraction to a court against their will, and that jurists in both countries find it controversial and potentially against the supreme law of the land. Mathglot (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot, To make things easier, you could create a list with all instructions on how to translate the common terms and phrases. Like this:

• condução coercitiva -> ''[[condução coercitiva]]''{{efn|name="cc"}} warrants
• ...

and so on. It'd make things a lot easier for me, because right now, it's complicated to find out how a certain word or phrase has been translated.... --Bageense^(disc.) 16:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I've just founf out this translation was already in progress. I think this one can be translated much more quickly. --Bageense^(disc.) 16:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bageense:, thanks for that suggestion. In fact, I had thought of something very similar, and it was pretty much the motivation for the original creation of the Brazil PLGL Glossary. As I was creating it, I concentrated on finding the definition, rather than creating "suggested translation code" as you exemplified above in the bullet point, but it was in my mind. You can see an example of this, at the entry for CPI da Petrobras. It wasn't set up as a bullet point as you suggest, but it could be, and your way is probably better. Some of the descriptions are quite long, such as Precatório, and I think putting that much text into a bullet item would be counterproductive. But maybe it could be followed by a bullet item with a brief treatment. One of my concerns is keeping it readable, without creating too much redundancy, i.e., writing everything twice: once in normal, running text, followed by a bullet point saying pretty much the same thing. I'll think about how to do this. All suggestions are welcome. Thanks again for your idea; it's well worth considering. Maybe User:Elinruby will have some thoughts about this. Mathglot (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, That glossary is really helpful. I've attempted to translate a section using it as a guide. See Draft:Operation_Car_Wash_investigation_phases#Phase_17_—_Operation_Pixuleco. I've spotted a term that is not yet in the glossary: "formação de quadrilha", which appears twice in the original article. Tbh, I've never known exactly what that means. --Bageense^(disc.) 20:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bageense: I’ve seen that before and have some notes about it somewhere. I’ll dig them up and add an entry . Mathglot (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Found it; see link.

I looked at Phase 17, and I have to congratulate you, it looks great! (There was one minor typo in laundering.) Given the context of that phase, since we are talking about politicians, or public officials, the word "gang" is too informal; "gang" would be used more about street gangs, prison gangs, not usually party or elected officials. So in this case, I would use criminal conspiracy as a translation of formação de quadrilha in this context. If you fix the typo, and add the translation of the term, I think Phase 17 is done. Mathglot (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, I used to think that, since my translation would require proofreading, I didn't have to worry much about ortography. But I'll be more careful from now on.

Criminal conspiracy, ok, I'll add that in the section --Bageense^(disc.) 15:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Bageense, regarding the spelling: please understand me: my comment about spelling is not a criticism of your writing, and of course you are right that it will be proofread. Minor changes like that will be fixed (some even by bot!) so you do not have to worry about it. My comment about your spelling had two purposes: the first, was to let you know, since you seem to be very interested in improving your English (as I am, in improving my Portuguese), and since one way to improve, is for someone to point out the mistakes. So, the comment on the misspelling was in the friendly spirit of helping you improve your English, and not in criticizing your writing. The second purpose, was a kind of compliment: your translation was so good, there was almost nothing to criticize; whey the worst thing someone can say is that you made a minor typo that a native speaker could also have made, that means you did a very good job indeed. If you prefer that I not criticize your English in the future, I'll be happy to respect your wishes. Mathglot (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

It's ok.. I didn't take it as a criticism. :) --Bageense^(disc.) 19:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bageense and Elinruby: Okay, I've thought about your request above regarding a list of instructions of how to translate something. Rather than create one list separate from the main list of terms in the glossary, I think it would make sense to keep it distributed, with each set of instructions connected to the entry for the corresponding term. So, for example, for condução coercitiva, the instructions would be kept in that section. I've modified modified the glossary entry for that term, in an attempt to respond to your request, and I wanted to see how you like it, before expanding to other entries. Please go to the entry for that term, and tell me what you think. Make sure you click [show] on the collapse bar. Mathglot (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, this isn't the right venue for this portion of the discussion. Could you please respond at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brazil/PLG Glossary#Instructions for adapting glossary entries in articles rather than here? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Pixuleco II

I've translated Pixuleco II. New expression: empresa de fachada. Google translates it as facade company. It is basically a false company, used probably for money laundering. PS: I decided to translate "vantagens indevidas" as "illicit advantages", but there is no strong reason to use this translation instead of simply "undue advanages"--Bageense^(disc.) 15:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

pt:Empresa de fachada in common parlance, is "front company"; if it's clear from context that it's a company, you can even just use "a front" as a noun, without the word company. I will add this to the glossary. This expression gives the impression of a facade that is being used to conceal something. It reminds me of "Potemkin village", but that's just me, and not part of the meaning. (I was going to link the Portuguese version of that article, but unfortunately none exists. Maybe you could write pt:Aldeia Potemkin? This is an important concept, and part of history.)

Please note that the term empresa de fachada yields easily to what I call, the "interwiki translation technique". In brief, it is this:

1. Search for the term in pt-wiki. (Result: here. Note: it is a redirect, but that's fine.)
2. Go to the language sidebar in the left margin, and look for the word "English", and click it. (Result: here)
3. That may be your answer; if so, you're done. To make sure, check by doing the following:
   • Find the heading "Tools" in the left sidebar, and under it, click: "What links here". (If you don't see it, click "Tools".)
   • On the What links here page, look under "Filters" (second box) and click "Hide transclusions" and then click "Hide links".
   • In the top box, next to "Namespace", change from "(All)" to "Article", and click the "Go" button.
   • This gives a list of a dozen or so redirects; one (or more) of these, may be the term you are looking for; in this case Front company is listed.

Hope this helps! Mathglot (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I do that often (no. 1 and 2), but 3 is new to me. Anyway, in fact, front company does seem to be the correct translation: A front organization is any entity set up by and controlled by another organization, such as intelligence agencies, organized crime groups, banned organizations, religious or political groups, advocacy groups, or corporations. Front organizations can act for the parent group without the actions being attributed to the parent group thereby allowing them to hide from public view.

Wow, the article Potemkin village exists in so many languages... --Bageense^(disc.) 16:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Operation addiction

I've translated "Operation Addiction". That one in particular needs proofreading. I've left notes in the original text. The name should be "vice". Addiction has more to do with drugs, I think. --Bageense^(disc.) 15:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

sovereign immunity

Not sure this is the right work -- the wiki article seems to be talking about the concept in common law systems. Leaving as aquestion for now. Elinruby (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Vantagens indevidas

PS: I decided to translate "vantagens indevidas" as "illicit advantages", but there is no strong reason to use this translation instead of simply "undue advanages"--Bageense(disc.) 15:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  Comment above copied from this section. Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bageense: I think either expression in English could be okay, but they do have slightly different meanings, so you should pick the one which comes closer to the original intent. The term undue, has a sense of "unfair", while "illicit" has the sense of something that is at least against the rules, if not outright illegal. If the boys' soccer team gets 90% of the high school's budget for uniforms and other sports equipment, while the girls' soccer team, of equal size, gets 10%, one could say that the high school administration is giving the boys' team an undue advantage. Even if there are no state or municipal laws about the topic, or even any high school regulations that forbid it, it still seems grossly unfair. That is pretty much what "undue" means. If it is stronger than that, if there is an actual law, charter, regulation, or some kind of instruction that governs the situation and forbids it, then you could say it is an "illicit advantage". In the case of the use of illicit advantages at Pixuleco II, I think it's defensible, since $R 50 million was involved, but the expression is awkward as a noun phrase. I think I would convert it to an adverbial phrase, and say something like: "Romano was suspected of illicitly profiting at least fifty million reais in the scheme." (or, "...of illict profits of $R 50 million...").

By the way, because of your question, I beefed up the entry for Vantagem illicita, have a look. Mathglot (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, I've just now found out that an article about "vantagem indevida" exists in the pt wiki: pt:Recebimento de vantagem indevida. The quality of the article is poor and is poorly written as well, but it confirms my way of translating it:

"Recebimento de vantagem indevida ... is any illicit "enrichment" (enrichment isn't the right way to translate "enriquecimento", but it simply means "to get rich", but as a noun, not a verb. (there is also the verb "enriquecer", by the way.)) etc...

Today I don't have much time, but tomorrow I'll translate more and check again the Pixuleco II translation. Your way of translating also sounds good, but "vantagem indevida", as well as "condução coercitiva", etc, are concepts, not common phrases... --Bageense^(disc.) 17:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Bageense Yes, totally agree with you and am well aware about the complex concepts that are not part of common speech, but legal concepts that need careful description, and that often cannot possibly be translated in two or three or four words into anything that makes sense in English. Both of the expressions you cited, are good examples of this, which is exactly why I think we need explanatory footnotes in the articles for them.

Following up on an earlier suggestion of yours, I have started adding some "copy-paste" text into a few of the glossary entries, to make this process easier. Have you seen them? There are examples of this now, at these three entries: #Colaboração premiada, #Condução coercitiva, and #Delação premiada. Perhaps vantagem indevida needs one, too. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bageense:, Okay, I added a "cut-paste" section to the glossary entry for WP:Brazil-G#Vantagem indevida, and then copied it to see what you think. Mathglot (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, Yes, I've seen them. This will make the process a lot quicker. I went to my local lan house and unfortunately it was closed today. They usually open on saturdays... so tomorrow I'll translate more. With the glossary, it will be easier to translate and I can compensate what I wont do today. Hopefully we can finish translating this quite soon. --Bageense^(disc.) 14:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bageense:, ah, by "lan house", I assume you mean what we call an "internet cafe"? By the way, if you ever want more terms in the glossary, feel free to add new sections to the Talk page there. A link to the original Portuguese context where you found it is always helpful. Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Aaaand the café is closed again. Yestarday I forgot today would be Sunday. But tomorrow... --Bageense^(disc.) 15:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, Unfortunately I also won't be able to review your translation because well, I've got a 3 month nlock in the ptwiki. It is a looong story, but basically it has to do with a Telegram chat group, which some admins hate. There, we sometimes complained about other editors and the path our project was taking. Others have been blocked as well. They blocked indefinately a 72 year old woman who was the 112th registered user (in all wikipedias). Years and years of experience and contributions. But wmf is being motified and perhaps soon enough eerything will be solved.

But meanwhile, I suggest you add the ((Corrigir)) maintenance tag at the top of the page. Add a subst:DATA as well, but thats not importanto imo. --Bageense^(disc.) 15:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Pardon the typos... I hate to type on mobile --Bageense^(disc.) 15:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Copy attribution

Bageense, thanks for you recent translations. I haven't had a chance to review them yet (might not be able to till tomorrow) but there is one important thing: every edit that involves copying or translating from another article on Wikipedia must contain a statement in the edit summary acknowledging the attribution. This is a matter of Wikipedia's licensing requirements, and is not optional. You can copy the following code, and paste it into the edit summary field if you wish:

Content in this edit was translated from [[pt:Fases da Operação Lava Jato]] revision [[:pt:Special:Permalink/57268782|57268782]]; see that article's history for attribution.

If you look at the History of the Draft, you will see examples of it there. Alternative wordings are available at WP:TFOLWP. Please use the suggested edit summary or something similar as shown at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Updated to fix Permalink. Mathglot (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that next time. --Bageense^(disc.) 13:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I think out permalinks aren't working. The permalink I added in the summary took me to a deletion discussion for "Blondphilia" (yes), and one of your permalinks also doesn't work as expected. --Bageense^(disc.) 14:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I've spotted the problem. We have to use [[pt:Special:Permalink...]]. In your code the pt: is missing --Bageense^(disc.) 14:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You're right! I did it from memory, and should have copy-pasted it! Corrected the code above, so now it should be good to go.

Operation Aletheia

" and seizure warrants in addresses associated with some of Lula's relatives". Ah, I knew that the preposition was "with". Hehe. Thanks for the copy editing. I'll try to follow the pattern. --Bageense^(disc.) 13:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

35/70 translations left. Exactly 50% of the article is translated. --Bageense^(disc.) 15:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Bageense, In Phase 24, where you highlighted, "allegedly (not in the original text, but important)", shouldn't this modify the verb "renovated" and not "had"? That is, it's uncontroversial that Lula *had* an apartment there, right? it's only questionable whether or not it was renovated for him in shady dealings. If you agree with that, I would rewrite the sentence fragment this way:

...both located in the state of São Paulo, where Lula and his wife had a triplex apartment, allegedly renovated by building contractor OAS.

If you agree, can you make that change? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh also,the triplex, that's the Alitbaia site, isn't it? If it is, I'd like to add that. If it's a triplex, maybe the term "estate" isn't right in English, and we can change that note. Mathglot (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Those are two different things. He was accused of having both a triplex in Guarujá and a site in Atibaia (that's the correct name btw). By "site" I mean like a field. A house near the rural area, with grass, lake, paddleboat (he had duck boats with the names of his family members written on them) etc.

Lula was condemned and arrested for having that triplex, but later, when in prision, he was also condemned for having that site. --Bageense^(disc.) 15:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

More information about the processes he was involved in, see the big table in the "contexto" section in pt:Prisão de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. I created it --Bageense^(disc.) 15:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, The "allegedly" applies to everything. It is "allegedly" because that's what Lula was acused of. We don't know whether the apartment is actually his. It most likely is, but what matters is that Lula himself has always denied that he owned that apartment. --Bageense^(disc.) 14:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"Financial operator" – Phase 25 - Raul Schmidt's position

Bageense, Regarding your question in Phase 25 about Raul Schmidt's title, which in pt is listed as operador financeiro, the Guardian comes up with the same literal translation as you did, namely, "financial operator". If I had not seen this Guardian article, which uses that same term, I probably would have used the word financier for this. Sometimes even reliable outlets like The Guardian translate things too literally, and we can see if there are other solutions in English, but for now, we can go with the term you and The Guardian chose. Mathglot (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No prob. Well, I don't have much time now, but I'll resume the translations when possible. This is going to take less time than I expected, actually. --Bageense^(disc.) 15:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

And sometimes, in the context of a criminal operation, English uses "bagman" (i.e., the man who carries the bag that has large amounts of cash stuffed into it). This is a somewhat slangy term, but it is regularly used in news reports about criminal operations involving illegal cash disbursements, (e.g., Watergate bagman Fred LaRue) and I don't know another word or brief expression for it. As an alternative, you'd have to use a phrase instead. It depends how the original uses the word; if it's something like, "Mr Silva, an operador financeiro for Banco do Brasil, illegally transferred cash to Mr Pereira...", then just use "financial operator", because they are talking about his actual title or description of his (legal) position in the bank. But if the original says something like, "The PF investigation targeted banker Joao Silva as the operador financeiro who delivered the illegal cash payments from Petrobras..." then in English you could either say "bagman" for the illegal activity, or you could use some similar expression like "money man" or even "financier" or the original "financial operator". These are all terms on an axis of informality–formality, and the less formal it is (bagman) the more it tends to have an unsavory flavor, that implies something less than legal going on. "Financial operator" is the most formal term, and completely neutral in tone; if used as the translation, it doesn't imply any wrongdoing. Mathglot (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Another term comes to mind: the leader of a criminal gang is sometimes called the "ring leader", but this doesn't necessarily imply any financial acumen, merely that he is the top man in the gang. Since most of the criminal activity investigated in Operation Car Wash was related to financial operations, i.e., kickbacks, bribery, money laundering, illegal money transfers, and so on, the " operador financeiro" probably was the "ring leader" in many cases. On the other hand, a "ring leader" implies at least several people (let's say, 3 or more) in the gang as a criminal conspiracy; if there's just one or two people bribing some government or company official, then "ring leader" wouldn't work there. Mathglot (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Setor de propina in Phase 63

Bageense, This is just fyi, in case you haven't seen this quirky expression before. I was creating the translation for Phase 63 — Operation Carbonara Chimica (from Fases), and ran into the expression "Setor de propina", which seemed rather shocking, and couldn't be taken seriously, and had to be a joke of some kind. In fact, that's kind of what it is; maybe not a joke, but a slang term or nickname. You can follow the glossary link, or the {{efn}} explanatory footnote at the article (currently Note j, in Phase 63) As a side note, the amount of wikicode to create that explanatory note, is longer than the code for the whole rest of that section. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, I know it's shocking, but there was an actual bribery department in Odebrecht. It was operational for many many years and Marcelo Odebrecht even said that they'd forgotten it was illegal. --Bageense^(disc.) 16:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Incredible. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Phase 47 - intermediarios

User:Bageense, replying to your comment that "intermediaries" didn't fit well in the translation for Phase 47: this article may give additional insight into this. It does look like there was a company acting as an intermediary. If they are talking about the people involved, then the term "middlemen" can be used; if it's the company itself, you can't say middleman for a company; in that case, intermediary may be the best word, but it can also be used for a person, as well. Mathglot (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Release

Tasks that have to be done before, during, and after release from Draft to Mainspace. The pre-release tasks are now down, and we are in the "around release time" task list.

Pre-release

Update: These are all done.

Hi, @Elinruby and Bageense:. Work has quieted on this draft, and idle drafts eventually get deleted, and we don't want that. So, even with some empty, untranslated sections, I'd like to release this anyway. There's no question that it's notable and has sufficient references, so that won't be a problem.

There's some housekeeping to do before a release, and I also wanted to make sure to give you a chance to weigh in before the release happens. I'm shooting for a couple of days, but if you'd like more time to take care of any issues, just let me know. Here are the tasks that I see need doing in the next couple of days:

Checklist of tasks to be done before launch      Done

Stuff that needs doing, before launch: Please change the template to {{checked box}} when done with a task. drop {{Draft}} template and boilerplate at the top. Mathglot (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC) fix red "cite errors" (e.g., ref #77) Mathglot (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC) drop untranslated Portuguese text in the article. Mathglot (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC) Drop "Lorem ipsum" text; mostly present to flow around images in empty sections. Mathglot (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC) convert yellow-highlighted, in-line comments (see discussion below)  In progress Mathglot (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC) disposition of hidden text: keep, remove, or convert Mathglot (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC) drop "glossary link" from See also Mathglot (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC) "Further reading" section needs some entries, or the section will be deleted – blanked. Mathglot (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC) deal with empty sections added one line of content each Mathglot (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC) translations tagged {{clarify}} (or {{clarify span}}) all except one (in phase 62) Style consistency: add pt operation name in parens after bolded en code name Mathglot (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to add any urgent items that need doing in the next few days or week; anything else can wait, imho. Mathglot (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That's it, I think. Those tasks shouldn't take long to be finished. --Bageense^(disc.) 05:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Pre-release tasks done; collapsed. Mathglot (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Just after launch

There are also some post-launch issues I've identified; we can do these later, but feel free to add items, as you think of them:

Post-launch issues (less important for now):

• • Translation attribution: make sure each translation has an attribution statement in the edit summary, and follow WP:RIA if not
  • go through See also and drop any items already linked in the body.
  • drop Draft template around Categories   —Mathglot (talk)
  • consolidate duplicate references using named references
  • add in-links from articles "See also" section may have good candidates.
  • consistency of name usage throughout, especially with government agencies. (Example: is it "MPF", or Ministério Público Federal, or Federal Public Ministry, or Procuradoria da república?)
  • add redirects per phase (2 ea.; en and pt, and include {{Wikidata redirect}} as faux interwiki
  • upgrade citations: add |lang=pt= and |trans-title= as needed.
  • Talk page: change "section sizes" to use the template   —
  • Talk page: add {{translated page}} templates as needed (optional; recommended)

Mathglot (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yellow comments inline

How do we want to handle these? They are notices to editors, not part of the article, so they have to be invisible when we launch. But, they have useful information for translators and proofreaders, and shouldn't be deleted.

One way, it to put them in hidden text; there, they can be seen in preview mode in the wikicode, if you look for them. Another way, is to use the {{clarify}} template (or {{clarify span}}, which I prefer).

There may be other ways as well. My preference is some mix of {{clarify}} and {{clarify span}} because it renders visibly on the page as a small, superscript notice like this one, and you can use the |reason= parameter to generate a tooltip that is visible on hover (try it: hover over the tag). The {{clarify span}} template, is useful for outlining the exact chunk of text you want to comment on, as in: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua., and for what it's worth, the superscript wording is shorter, so less interruption in the flow.

Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The yellow comments, at least those which I've written, have to do mostly with the translation and the process of translation, so they shouldn't be of interest to the reader. I suggest you have a brief look at them and see if my translation is acceptable, with the lowest standards possible in mind. If they are ok, just remove them. --Bageense^(disc.) 05:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate and repeat links

This article is unlikely to be "read from top to bottom" but rather examined for information about particular operations. As such, it is analogous to a list or glossary article. Although MOS:DUPLINK doesn't cover this case exactly, because of the length of the article, the numerous short sections, and the general unfamiliarity with much of the material relating to Brazilian politics, economics, and criminal law, it promotes clarity and transparency to link certain terms the first time they come up in a given section, regardless how many times it was linked in earlier sections. To fail to do so, would be a disservice to the reader. Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

These are handled, now; either by fixing translations or altering grammar, or in a couple of cases, moved into a {{clarify span}} template. Mathglot (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Compact ToC pair

Because of the number of phases, I'm thinking that a pair of Compact ToCs might be a better way of indexing the content, than the standard vertical ToC. The top one could be by phase number, and the bottom one, by operation name, alphabetized. Mathglot (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)