View source for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 174

{{WPMILHIST Archive}}{{Automatic archive navigator}}

== Zhou-class SSN, calling our submarine experts ==

The lead boat of a new class of Chinese PLAN SSN, with one of the X-shaped (rudders?) astern, sank in dock last year, the papers are reporting. We have nothing more than a redirect to [[:Category:Nuclear submarines of the Chinese Navy]] however. Could I ask the editors who often write submarine articles, even if they focus on RN and USN, to put their heads together and create a short stub? Would be very helpful. An obvious workspace would be [[Talk:People's Liberation Army Navy Submarine Force]]. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 11:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:I've started [[Draft:Zhou-class submarine]], but I'm not 100% confident that at this stage it's detailed enough to go into mainspace. Some basic specs or goals of the programme would help, but I've not been able to find any info on that. Too bad my latest copy of Janes Fighting Ships is only from 2010. [[User:Loafiewa|Loafiewa]] ([[User talk:Loafiewa|talk]]) 16:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::Great start!! I've made some additions and copied in H I Sutton's page. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 20:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

== [[USS Texas (BB-35)]] A-Class reappraisal ==

Reposted from coordinator talk page for greater coverage. [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 01:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Just like the Texas herself, I believe that it's time to bring this neglected 15 year-old A-class article to [[USS Texas (BB-35)#2022 dry docking period|dry dock]] for repairs. There are several issues ([[Special:Permalink/1247595038|article version]]):
* A1: The citation style is inconsistent. There are refs (including some bare URLs) mixed in with {{tl|sfn}}s. Some claims are cited to irreputable sources, such as YouTube videos (e.g., ref 71) and primary sources (see all 18 references tagged with {{tl|third-party inline}} as of Sept. 2012). There's also a valid {{tl|failed verification}} tag from Nov. 2012 and three valid citation needed tags (oldest Jan. 2023). Additionally, all but one of the nine footnotes (ref group A) lack inline citations.
* A2: The article goes into unnecessary detail in that it relies on primary sources. It also lacks relevant detail in that the 2022 dry docking section hasn't been updated since April 2024. Additionally, given the sourcing issues, the article may not be factually accurate.
* A3: The service history section is well-organized, but the museum section has several sub-sections with three short paragraphs mixed in with much longer sub-sections. Both could also use years in parentheticals in the subheadings.
I will be bringing these concerns to GA reassessment as well. Best, [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:I've nominated this for GAR as well: {{garl|USS Texas (BB-35)}}. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 01:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

== Capitalization of "tab" and "badge" ==

Having stumbled upon [[Tabs of the United States Army]] (and learning that these insignia are even {{em|called}} tabs), I noticed with some annoyance that the word "tab" was inconsistently capitalized in that article, sometimes as "tab" sometimes as "Tab". I was pretty confident that, when talking about tabs in general, we should use lower case. It's in no case a proper noun then. The problem was in usages like "Airborne Tab" or "Special Forces Tab", as if that's a proper noun as an official title of the thing.
I looked at the main US Army source promininently used in that article, [https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN30302-AR_670-1-000-WEB-1.pdf AR 670-1], and this ''Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia'' document does not use caps for the word tab, even when referring to "the airborne tab".

Badges are trickier, apparently, because the capitalization in AR 670-1 varies. Section 21, for example, leaves "badge" lowercase, as in:
*"...who have been awarded the combat infantryman badge, the expert infantryman badge", top of p.49 (PDF-page 57) or
*"...have been awarded the corresponding Parachutist or Air Assault badge", lower down on that same page.

Section 22, meanwhile, seems to cap more eagerly, as in
*"...affixed to the Parachutist Badge and the Military Free Fall Parachutist Badge", p.52 (PDF-p.60)
*"...or Naval Qualification Badges such as the Naval aviation warfare specialist" p.54 (PDF-p.62)
That section also caps "Presidential Medal of Freedom" and "Medal of Honor", with which I take no issue, but also capitalizes "Soldiers", as in "next of kin of Soldiers who lost their lives", e.g. at the top of p.51 (PDF-p.59). The 2nd page of the PDF also uses "...authorizes female Soldiers who are...", which I see as just wrong.

But based on this (shaky?) evidence in AR 670-1, and encouraged by the fact that [[Ranger tab]] already had a lowercase title and that other sources I quickly surveyed tended to {{em|not}} cap, I went about standardizing on lower-case usage, not only within [[Tabs of the United States Army]], but with the titles and content of our other tab articles. [[Ranger tab]], for example, had mixed-use (mostly "Tab"); other articles ([[Ranger Challenge Tab]] and [[President's Hundred Tab]]), were all "Tab".

I tried "fixing" the last article, after moving (with redirects) what I could, but [[Special Forces tab]] already exists as a redirect to [[Special Forces Tab]]. My "bold clean-up" is now stalled at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Contested technical requests]]. My question ({{em|finally!!}} is, what style policy is appropriate for article names and references to this kind of insignia?

I've found a fairly recent move discussion at [[Talk:Ranger tab#Requested move 10 February 2024]], with arguments in favor of "Ranger tab". However, the wide use of "Tab" (even months later on that article) makes me wonder what consistent usage we want. Thanks for your time and any input you can give. <i>&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:JohnFromPinckney|JohnFromPinckney]] ([[User talk:JohnFromPinckney|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/JohnFromPinckney|edits]])</i> 11:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

:My impression, from looking at a variety of sources, is that ''tab'' is not generally considered to be part of a proper name, but ''badge'' often is.  For example, that parachutist badge is capped in almost all books (but not in ''Army Officer's Guide'').  Go figure. And ''qualification badges'' would [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*+qualification+badges%2C*+Qualification+Badges%2C*+Qualification+badges&year_start=1940&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false of course be lowercase], though a minority of books cap it. Specific qualification badges [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=*+qualification+badge%2C*+Qualification+Badge%2C*+Qualification+badge&year_start=1940&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 can be capped]. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 19:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:The most appropriate guideline is generally the lead at [[MOS:CAPS]], which relies on studying sources, even if that doesn't make it all easy or totally consistent. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 19:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

:: I have a few sources about shoulder sleeve insignia or patches. When tab is used in a sentence, unconnected to a specific tab, it is not capitalized. However, I found nothing in any of them about capitalization of a specific tab, such as Ranger Tab. The tabs themselves are in all caps. That is the way the sources that I have show them in sentences or captions. That is not helpful for Wikipedia title captions, of course. [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 00:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

== Source request ==

Hello all. Just wondering if anyone owns, or might be able to access, a copy of ''Breaker Morant: The Final Roundup'' (ISBN: 9781445659657). If so, if would help expand a FA candidate. Cheers in advance. [[User:AssociateAffiliate|AA]] ([[User talk:AssociateAffiliate|talk]]) 14:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

:Hi [[User:AssociateAffiliate|AA]].  I assume it was for filling in the missing page numbers at [[Robert Poore]]?  I got lucky with Google Books preview which had the pages in question and have completed the citations - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 23:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::It was indeed for the page numbers! How did you manage it? My usual trick is to quickly flick the pages, and it usually confuses it enough to reveal the page numbers, but it didn't work this time! Much appreciated :) [[User:AssociateAffiliate|AA]] ([[User talk:AssociateAffiliate|talk]]) 09:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I usually do a search for the subject you are looking for within the book (eg. "poore").  It will give you a snippet view of each mention and the surrounding couple of sentences.  If you do a fresh Google search for a particular phrase (ie. enclosed in quotation marks) on the page you are interested in it will often give you full page preview access; the url it gives you has the page number encoded into it, eg. "&pg=PT543" is page 543.  Bit of a faff but works OK as long as there's not too many mentions in the book! - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 09:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

== [[Western Front tactics, 1917]] ==

Does anyone know why ShadowTZX keeps putting casualties for the Western Front 1914-1918 into the infobox? I've asked twice. Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 07:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

:Maybe ShadowTZX finds the infobox of [[Western Front tactics, 1917]] as confusing as I do. It gives a date range of the entire war, lists 1917 as an Allied victory, and in the commanders box lists Foch but notes he only took command in 1918  - not really relevant/correct if this is about 1917 only. [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 08:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::You might be right, I'm not sure if other parts of the infobox have been altered too. I'll have a look. Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 08:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I've edited the infobox but wonder now if it's the right one? Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 08:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} TZX has replied, apparently he's using the article as a sandbox so I've set one up for him. Should keep him out of trouble. ;O) [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 14:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

== What was the South African Field Force? ==

Hello all. I have seen the term "South African Field Force" banded about in works on the Second Boer War, but I'm not entirely sure what it is. Is it another name for the South African Army, or an extension of the [[Natal Field Force]]? [[User:AssociateAffiliate|AA]] ([[User talk:AssociateAffiliate|talk]]) 08:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

:I don't know a great deal about the Second Boer War but the term "field force" was used fairly often in the later 19th century to denote a group of units working together in one campaign.  The British and colonial troops committed to the Second Invasion of the 1879 [[Anglo-Zulu War]] were formally known as the South African Field Force (which was itself further split into two divisions) and an earlier incarnation of the Natal Field Force served in the First Boer War (1880-1881).  The [[Peshawar Valley Field Force]] and [[Kabul Field Force]] were used in the [[Second Anglo-Afghan War]] (1878-1880).  I don't know much about how they were formed specifically but I suspect they were an easy way to combine together units drawn from various British Army commands, armies (Natal Colony, British India etc.) and locally-raised forces under a single commander - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 11:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::It was (in a sense) the British term for a temporary brigade. In the Cold War, there was a formally organized field force in BAOR (8th field force as I recall). [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::[[Field force]] [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 12:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you all for getting back to me on this, has helped settle a query at FAC. [[User:AssociateAffiliate|AA]] ([[User talk:AssociateAffiliate|talk]]) 20:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

== Invitation to WikiProject Council ==

[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council]] is a "meta" WikiProject that talks about how to organize and support WikiProjects.  I would love it if some of you would put that page on your watchlist and would join the discussions there.  Thanks,  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:Added. {{@MILHIST}} y'all may also be interested. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 20:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

== Goals on MILHIST main page are over 100% ==

Should we reset the goals listed at [[WP:MILHIST#What do we do?]] All but the B-class goal are over 100% complete. (Well done everyone!) [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 22:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

:[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Archive 60#Two milestones achieved|Last time this came up]] the coordinators elected to "bask in the sense of a mission completed for a while". That was two years ago. [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 144# |Back in 2018]], there was a proposal that we move away from long term goals towards more short-term goals. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 23:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::Looks like this is being tackled at [[WT:MHCOORD#Suggestions]]. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 20:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

== Does anyone need Time Life books about WWII for sourcing? ==

I am currently volunteering at a book sale and we have about 40 [[Time Life]] books about WWII. Note that this is a limited time offer because other people are buying books and the sale ends today at 7PM EST. Please ping me if you need one and I’d be happy to contact you about sending it or just finding the info you need. [[User:Di (they-them)|Di (they-them)]] ([[User talk:Di (they-them)|talk]]) 19:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:Tough timeline here! If that happens again, I might advise adding "URGENT" or similar to your section title. :-) [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 20:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

== Edit screen changes? ==

Does anyone know of a change in the way that the edit screen looks? When I click the edit button, it looks normal, then all of a sudden, items that are links or in the lang|xx| formula etc go coloured.... It's like someone's got over-enthusiastic with crayons. Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 18:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:It's doing it here now. I've checked my preferences but can't see anything that would do this. <nowiki>{{short description|German withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line, 1917}}</nowiki> ('Edit screen changes?' is sans serif and in a larger font, 'short description' is violet in bold, the rest of the text is violet and not bold). Most perplexing. Even the four tildes are in blue.... [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 08:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::You turned on the [[Wikipedia:Syntax highlighting|syntax highlighter]].
::—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 12:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks, I'll get rid. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 12:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::::{{Ping|Keith-264}} I'd encourage you to try it out for a couple days... Syntax highlighting has ''really'' helped me parse things like complicated article source code and talk page conversations. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 20:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} No thanks, too fussy. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 20:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

== Add the Battle of Muddy Flat to List of Wars Involving the USA and the Taiping Rebellion Wiki?  ==

Hi everyone so the [[Battle of Muddy Flat]] article has been published. Should we add it to the  [[List of wars involving the United States]] and the [[Taiping Rebellion]] Wiki? 

Please let me know your thoughts and contribute to the conversations either here or there, preferably both. If no objects to it, I will likely do it myself at some point in the near future. [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 20:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::Note: I've added this to WT:MILHIST from [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input]], as it may generate a conversation. cc {{u|Historyguy1138}}. Thanks! [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 20:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks [[User:The ed17|Ed]]. (: [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 13:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

== Flags in Infoboxes ==

I would like some confirmation of the policy on FLAGS within Infoboxes, ''when applied to military units''.

[[WP:MILMOS#FLAGS]] states;
:In general, the use of flag icons is not recommended; neither, however, is it prohibited.
:Do the icons convey useful information to the reader, or are they merely decorative?
Template '''<nowiki>{{</nowiki>'''[[Template:Infobox military unit|infobox military unit]]'''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>''' adds;
* '''country''' – ''optional'' – If the unit is part of the armed forces of a sovereign state, the name of that state.
* '''allegiance''' – ''optional'' – Used to indicate the allegiance of units which are not part of the regular armed forces of a sovereign state; can usually be omitted otherwise. In the case of National Guard or Naval Militia units, the State of origin should be indicated.

Searching for a good example, I found [[No. 1 Squadron RAAF]], rated WP:FA, with an Infobox as clean as a whistle; no flags, no pretty ribbons, just plain text. This is not the case when it comes to many RAF and USAF units. 
But if I start tearing down national flags, I could end up starting World War III.

[[User:WendlingCrusader|WendlingCrusader]] ([[User talk:WendlingCrusader|talk]]) 12:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

:According to [[MOS:INFOBOXFLAG]] which is one of [[WP:GUIDELINE|WP Guidelines]], {{tq|Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many}}. IMO, the guideline is quite clear on this issue: we should not include flag icons in military unit infobox. The only exception is the inclusion of flag icons in military conflict infobox. [[User:Ckfasdf|Ckfasdf]] ([[User talk:Ckfasdf|talk]]) 12:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::So I am all for removing more flags from infoboxes, but I would note that the first section of [[MOS:FLAGS]] says: "''Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams.''" There's a potential contradiction here that we should probably bring to [[WT:MOSICON]]. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 15:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:The ed17|The ed17]] Context is everything, and one example where flags can work admirably is military battles, such as the [[Battle of the Atlantic]], where it is not just one single nationality we are identifying. In fact, the Battle of the Atlantic infobox contains no less than 31 flags, and conveying that amount of information without using flags would be real headache. Likewise ''international'' sporting events may benefit from flags.
:::But identifying a national team (in isolation) is another matter. Volleyball is a very random example, with countless national volleyball teams being allied to a rather large version of their national flag, e.g. [[Estonia men's national volleyball team]]. But not [[Chile men's national volleyball team|Chile]], [[Germany men's national volleyball team|Germany]], [[Romania men's national volleyball team|Romania]] or [[Venezuela men's national volleyball team|Venezuela]], who all display the logo of their '''national volleyball federation''' at the top of their infobox.
:::Returning to your point, [[WP:MOSICON]] goes on to say ''Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text''. For the Battle of the Atlantic, they are used to <u>replace</u> text in a succinct manner. In the cases I am addressing, the country name 'France' (for example) is accompanied by the flag of France, and that isn't giving us anything extra, so it fails. It's mere decoration. For a military-themed example, [[WP:MOSICON]] also says [[Template:Infobox weapon]] ''has explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons''.
:::[[User:WendlingCrusader|WendlingCrusader]] ([[User talk:WendlingCrusader|talk]]) 17:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::So the name France or Norway is a bit confusing and so needs a flag next to it? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:NO I do not think they do, but do often cause a lot of hassle. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Flags are like adjectives and adverbs, the less the better. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 17:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

== Leslie Controls ==

When I created the article [[Leslie Controls]] (before I knew what sources were [[WP:RS|acceptable]]), the company was significant in my view for train horns. Because someone decided the company was not notable, I did some additional research and found that it was well known for its contributions to the military. At least non-independent sources and routine coverage stated this was so. I'm trying to figure out if there are any sources that haven't been considered that would help the article pass the notability test.— [[User:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#070">Vchimpanzee</span>]]&nbsp;• [[User talk:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#aa4400"> talk</span>]]&nbsp;• [[Special:Contribs/Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#700">contributions</span>]]&nbsp;•  15:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:At the very least, you'd need to add whatever exactly it supplied to the military.--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 18:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::One source says "reducing valves" and "regulators". It was not independent as it came from the company history everyone was given a copy of at an anniversary event. Other than that the specifics are not stated. You can see [https://www.newspapers.com/image/553436874/?clipping_id=156945473 here].

::However, I was hoping [https://www.newspapers.com/image/528085231/?match=1&clipping_id=156901759 this source] would be approved. It gives a little more detail. I don't want to type the quotes myself.— [[User:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#070">Vchimpanzee</span>]]&nbsp;• [[User talk:Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#aa4400"> talk</span>]]&nbsp;• [[Special:Contribs/Vchimpanzee|<span style="color:#700">contributions</span>]]&nbsp;•  19:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

== WW2 British/Indian artillery ==

Hi all, I have a number of questions about this pic: [[:File:Indian-field-gun-keren.jpg]] which appears at [[Battle of Keren#15–27 March]], fought in March 1941.

This is the original caption from [http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/fsa.8b05827 Library of Congress]:
:"India in the war. Indian soldiers in action before the capture of Keren in Eritrea. This gun hurled approximately 24,000 shells a day. Note the shadow of camouflage on the field gun." 
I realise that the caption reflects that Indian divisions were involved, but it may not be 100% accurate, like many wartime captions.

1. Which gun is pictured? Could it be an [[:File:18 pounder field gun of 96 Field Battery 1938.jpg|QF 18-pounder gun]], or an [[:File:The British Army in France and Belgium 1940 F4338.jpg|QF 18/25 pounder]], with the split trail, see [[Ordnance QF 25-pounder#Mark I]]? Some clues might be found in: the distinctive double-drilled slide below the barrel; the vertical handles on the shield; the slit in the top left of the shield; and the type of ammunition, apparently two-part.

2. Are the soldiers (apart from the obviously white officer) necessarily Indian? Put another way, avoiding questions of skin colour, would an Indian battery have used this gun? The infobox at [[Battle of Keren]] gives the [[4th Infantry Division (India)]] and [[5th Infantry Division (India)]] as the main combatants, but both 'Formation during World War II' sections in these articles indicate that the artillery was attached to the divisional HQ and appears to be mostly British Army rather than Indian. The most likely Indian unit appears to be the 1 Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) Battery from the 5th Division, see [[Regiment of Artillery (India)#Second World War]] with [https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/203255/5/chapter%203.pdf this source], [pdf p. 33]   (which also uses this pic) links to [[23 Field Regiment (India)#76 (Jammu and Kashmir) Battery]], but this unit seems to have used the [[QF 3.7-inch mountain howitzer]].

3. Is this rate of fire (24,000 shells per day) even scarcely believable? This would indicate firing 1,000 rounds per hour, 16.66 rpm, a shell every 3 to 4 seconds, non-stop.

Cheers, [[User:MinorProphet|MinorProphet]] ([[User talk:MinorProphet|talk]]) 11:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

:Not sure I can help with the latter two questions, but it's a [[QF 18-pounder gun]]. [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 11:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Thanks, it seems to be a  Mk. IV 18 pounder Field Gun on Mk V carriage. Basic info about Indian gunners at [[Royal Indian Artillery]]. For example, [[41 Field Regiment (India)#84 (Scindia) Field Battery]] was issued with 18 pounders in 1934. See also [https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/artillery.htm Regiment of Artillery] and [[List of regiments and corps of the Indian Army#Artillery]]. Thanks for your help. [[User:MinorProphet|MinorProphet]] ([[User talk:MinorProphet|talk]]) 13:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:Prewar, I believe that Indians only manned mountain artillery units, with all other artillery manned solely by British soldiers. This was a legacy of the 1857 Mutiny.--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 18:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

::Hiya. "The British felt that the Indian possession of modern weaponry was a potential threat and thus maintained the Indian Army as only a light infantry and cavalry force commanded by British officers. A few batteries of Mountain Artillery within the Royal Artillery retained Indian gunners, and a few Indian princes kept their artillery weaponry; so some native Indians remained familiar with field artillery operations...
::"The British Government relented on the order banning native artillery, and thus on 15 January 1935, `A' Field Brigade, comprising four batteries of horse-drawn guns, was raised at Bangalore. 'A' Field Brigade was the first Artillery unit to be officered by Indians and, besides inspiring great pride in the Regiment, is close to the hearts of all Gunners. 2 Lt (later Lt Gen) P S Gyani was the first Indian officer to be commissioned into an Artillery unit. In 1937, the maintain batteries, which had formed part of the Royal Artillery, were transferred to the Indian Artillery, which later became 1st Indian Field Regiment. The generic title the Regiment of Indian Artillery was conferred upon the new Arm, which got a tremendous boost with the transfer of 6 Indian Mountain Regiment of Royal Artillery, raising of 'B' Field Brigade and the first unit of the anti-tank, anti-aircraft and coastal artillery." From [https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/artillery.htm Regiment of Artillery], cited above.
:: Expenditure of shells, as mentioned above: "Between 15 and 27 March, the Royal Artillery facing Keren fired more than 110,000 shells, all carried by lorry from railhead over 150 miles away. (Wavell's Despatch. [http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/37645/pages/3543 Supplement to ''London Gazette'', 10 July 1946]) From [https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/SouthAfrica/EAfrica/EAfrica-18.html ''East African and Abyssinian Campaigns''] Ch. 18, by Neil Orpen. Obviously some exaggeration in the caption - that solitary gun would have needed a few new tubes as well...
:: I still haven't able to find out which unit might be depicted - the first Pathé newsreel [https://www.britishpathe.com/groupitem/2155/ here] shows plenty of explosions though, in the desolate mountainous scenery. Anyone have access to Gulati, YB (1973). ''History of the Regiment of Artillery, Indian Army''? [[User:MinorProphet|MinorProphet]] ([[User talk:MinorProphet|talk]]) 10:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

== Mini-drive on articles needing supporting materials ==
Hi all.  I've been thinking recently on our backlog at [[:Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials]] which currently stands at 1,337 articles.  These are articles that have been assessed (either manually or by the MilHistBot) as just needing an image, infobox or similar to achieve all of the B-class criteria.  I don't think it would take too much effort to clear this category if each of us does a handful.  It will also help us to progress towards our top-level goal of having 15% or more of all our articles at B-class quality or above.  As a trial I've listed about 100 articles from the category below, listed by our period/conflict task forces (so hopefully there will be some articles of interest to everybody).  If this is successful I am happy to list more articles for another mini-drive - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 07:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
=== Instructions ===
Look at one of the articles below and either:
*If you think it passes all of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class|B-class criteria]] and you haven't been involved in writing the article, assess it as B-class on the talk banner template
*If you think the article requires improvement against another of the B-class criteria, assess it as so on the talk banner template
*If you can improve the article to meet all of the B-class criteria (many hopefully will just need an image or infobox) and list it at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests]] for formal assessment

When you have done one of these actions strike through the article name and sign against it on the list below

=== Articles ===
{{div col|colwidth=24em}}
;Classical
* <s>[[Quintus Fulvius Flaccus (consul 179 BC)]]</s> failed on B1, missing citations [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 01:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
* [[Thrasyllus]]
* <s>[[Seleucid army]]</s> failed on B1, missing citations - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 07:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
* <s>[[Magister equitum]]</s> regraded as B class. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 19:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
* [[Lost Army of Cambyses]]
* [[Siege of Tbilisi (627–628)]]
* <s>[[Servius Fulvius Flaccus]]</s> reassessed as a 4-sentence stub - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 07:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
* <s>[[Marinus (praetorian prefect)]]</s> Added infobox, might be B class now if someone could reassess. [[User:Matarisvan|Matarisvan]] ([[User talk:Matarisvan|talk]]) 07:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
;Medieval
*[[St Brice's Day massacre]]
*<s>[[William of Ypres]]</s> infobox and related image added, asked for assessment - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 09:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Military history of the Mali Empire]]</s> failed on B1, missing citations [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Bandon (Byzantine Empire)]]
*[[Yang Chongben]]
*<s>[[Fortifications of Famagusta]]</s> tagged a source for improvement, b1=n, b5=y - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 08:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Thomas Harrington (died 1460)]]
*[[Manx revolt of 1275]]
;Early Muslim
*[[Tughj ibn Juff]]
*[[Turabay ibn Qaraja]]
*[[Ubayd Allah ibn Umar]]
*[[Siege of Jerez (1261)]]
*[[Al-Husayn ibn Ali al-Abid]]
*[[Fadala ibn Ubayd]]
*[[Moroccan invasion of the Songhai Empire]]
*[[Ghurid campaigns in India]]
;Crusades
*[[Anthony le Flamenc]]
*[[Massacre at Béziers]]
*[[Albert of Schwarzburg]]
*<s>[[History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick]]</s> Has a map, looks OK to me for B-class - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 10:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[William of Santo Stefano]]
*[[Matthew Orsini]]
*[[Battle at Gaza (1239)]]
*[[Henry Fitzcount]]
;Early Modern
*<s>[[George Anson's voyage around the world]]</s> B5 met, but not B1. Reassessed as start. [[User:Zawed|Zawed]] ([[User talk:Zawed|talk]]) 10:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[John Smith (British Army officer, born 1754)]]</s> Infobox added, B class. [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 10:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Pavliuk uprising]]
*<s>[[HM galley Pigot]]</s> B1=no. [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 10:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Kingdom of Ardra]]
*[[Peñol de Cerquín]]
*[[Avranches massacre]]
*[[John Spratt Rainier]]
;Three Kingdoms
*[[Anthony Hungerford (Roundhead)]]
*[[Anthony Hungerford (Royalist)]]
*<s>[[Worcestershire in the English Civil War]]</s> Added a couple of refs, has images, assessed as B - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 06:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Tinker Fox]]
*[[Edward Burghall]]
*<s>[[Sir John Heydon]]</s> b5=y, b2=n - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 08:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Gilbert Gerard (Governor of Worcester)]]</s> Infobox added, B class. [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 11:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Edmund Verney (soldier)]]
;American Revolutionary War
*<s>[[Lazarus Stewart]]</s> Assessed as b-class. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 01:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[George Johnstone (British Army officer)]]</s> Assessed as b-class. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 20:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[John Pigeon]]
*<s>[[Henry Sherburne (colonel)]]</s> b1=n, missing citations - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 08:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Pierre Gibault]]</s> b5=y but b1=n, missing a few citations - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 10:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Nero Hawley]]</s> b1=n, missing a few citations - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 08:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[John Storm]]</s> Doesn't seem notable; listed at AFD. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 20:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Nicholas-Hyacinthe de Botderu]]</s> The only positive here is that it has citations. [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 20:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
;Napoleonic
*[[Willem Benjamin Craan]]
*[[William Leeke]]
*<s>[[Sir William Anson, 1st Baronet]]</s> This is an article I expanded for GA in 2022 and then forgot about. It should be B now but I'll leave that for someone else to judge! [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 20:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC) Agreed, and have assessed as B-class - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 21:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[HMS Curlew (1812)]]</s> Missing citations. [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 20:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Nicolas-François Roussel d'Hurbal]]</s> Had an infobox already and otherwise looks good, so assessed as B class.  Added an ancillary image - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 13:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Hired armed lugger Nile]]
*<s>[[Prince Friedrich Franz Xaver of Hohenzollern-Hechingen]]</s> b1=n, missing citations - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 08:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[James Hamilton Stanhope]]
;American Civil War
*<s>[[Isaac Sears]]</s> b1=no. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 03:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Peace Conference of 1861]]
*<s>[[Shaler Battery]]</s> Stub with no inline citations; reassessed b1, b2, and b3. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 19:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Hines' Raid]]
*<s>[[Pleasant J. Philips]]</s> Reassessed as b-class. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 00:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Shelton Laurel massacre]]
*[[Joseph N. G. Whistler]]
*<s>[[Texas Marine Department]]</s> structure and comprehensiveness issues; reassessed. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 00:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
;World War I
*<s>[[Eric Poole]]</s> image and reference added. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 19:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Royal Hellenic Navy in 1917]]</s> Stub - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 11:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[William Denis Browne]]</s> infobox/images added by another editor, assessed as B. [[User:Zawed|Zawed]] ([[User talk:Zawed|talk]]) 08:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Ninoshima]]
*[[Chambeshi Monument]]
*<s>[[William Wright (Indian civil servant)]]</s> Reference added. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 19:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[No. 135 Squadron RAF]]</s> Cleaned by Keith-264 and myself. C class--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 18:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control]]</s>  B2=n - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 06:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
;World War II
*<s>[[Nakajima Aircraft Company]]</s> assessed as C. [[User:Zawed|Zawed]] ([[User talk:Zawed|talk]]) 08:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Tikka Khan]]</s> b1=n, already tagged as needing improvements to citations - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 18:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Irish Republican Army–Abwehr collaboration]]</s> B1=n lacks citations - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 21:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force]]
*<s>[[George Unwin]]</s> reassessed as start for now, but will work on it to get it up to B. [[User:Zawed|Zawed]] ([[User talk:Zawed|talk]]) 10:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Nakajima G10N]]</s> C class--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 18:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Oslo Report]]</s> Already tagged for citations - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 08:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Havana Conference (1940)]]
;Cold War
*<s>[[Peter Tapsell (British politician)]]</s> Removed banner, out of scope per [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#cite_note-3]] - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 11:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Vin americanii!]]</s> Reassessed as B class by bot - has an image now [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 19:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Teddy Gueritz]]</s> Added image to infobox - reassessed as B class by bot. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 19:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Bill Young (CIA officer)]]</s> Reassessed as B class by bot - has an infobox now 
*[[Sigma I-64 war game]]
*[[Neville Alexander Odartey-Wellington]] Needs a reference to make it to B. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 20:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Operation Paul Revere]]</s> Bot thought it was too short, but re-rated B. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 18:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[295th Rifle Division]]</s> Needs a reference to make it to B. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 20:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC) - I've assessed it as B after rescuing the ref (looks to have been lost in a paragraph split) - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 21:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
;Post-Cold War
*[[Gary Wilcox]]
*[[Rwandan genocide denial]]
*[[Siege of Dammaj]]
*[[Bangui Agreements]]
*[[Leonid Derkach]]
*[[Group of Popular Combatants]]
*[[William Evanina]]
*<s>[[Maaparankoe Mahao]]</s> b1=n - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 18:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
{{div col end}}

===Discussion===

== Decapitalisation of [[AEC Armoured Command Vehicle]] ==

Yet another unsourced attempt to impose WP:MOS over WP:RS at [[Talk:AEC Armoured Command Vehicle#Requested move 19 October 2024]] [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 08:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:Adding a notification here about that discussion seems appropriate, but the wording of such a notice should be neutral per [[WP:CANVASSING]]. People with any opinion should feel encouraged to participate in the discussion. —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 18:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

== hyphen or dash in [[:Category:Torpedoes_of_the_United_States]]? ==
Many years ago [[Bliss-Leavitt Mark 8 torpedo]] was moved to [[Bliss–Leavitt Mark 8 torpedo]], hyphen to ndash,  but the rest from those two people are not, see the Category. Should the Mark 8 be moved back, or should the other Bliss-Levitt torpedoes move changed like the Mark 8 was?[[User:Naraht|Naraht]] ([[User talk:Naraht|talk]]) 21:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:Good question. In any case, I think there should be consistency among the titles in [[:Category:Bliss-Leavitt torpedoes]]. {{u|Dicklyon}} may have been at least partly mistaken in his [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bliss%E2%80%93Leavitt_Mark_8_torpedo&diff=639894684&oldid=631823201|renaming edit summary] ten years ago. Apparently, [[Frank McDowell Leavitt|Leavitt]] was an engineer who worked at the [[E.&nbsp;W.&nbsp;Bliss Company]], and the [[Eliphalet Williams Bliss|person named E.&nbsp;W.&nbsp;Bliss]] was not really a co-designer of the Leavitt-variant torpedoes. It is not a two-person attribution, since [[Eliphalet Williams Bliss]] died before Leavitt designed these torpedoes. Instead, it is a "company-/–person" construction. Here, "Bliss" seems to refer to a company, not a person, while Leavitt was a person. This seems like more of a model name or description of a subtype (the Leavitt subtype) of torpedoes produced by the Bliss Company. {{u|SMcCandlish}} may have some expertise on this question. —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 17:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::I found [https://web.archive.org/web/20130131132410/http://pt-king.gdinc.com/Torpedo.html one source] referring to "the Bliss-Leavitt Company", but the article about the [[E.&nbsp;W.&nbsp;Bliss Company]] does not say the company ever had that name, and I suspect it did not. —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 17:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:I have no recollection or explanation of how I came upon that one and not the others.  [https://books.google.com/books?id=X6RFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA329&dq=Bliss+Leavitt&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2gYvQwZuJAxVjIDQIHQOdEJkQ6AF6BAgIEAI#v=onepage&q=Bliss%20Leavitt&f=false Here is a book] with "the Bliss-Leavitt Company of Brooklyn", whether that's the actual company name or not. Later it was just Bliss, so clearly two names joined, even if one is a company, so the en dash is most appropriate. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 22:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:It needn't be a two-individual-human-person relationship. That is, there being two parties joined/divided by a dash doesn't require that the parties be equal or of the same sort. E.g., one could write of ''Musk–Twitter negotiations and legal disputes'' in the run-up to his purchase of the company. One could also write of a ''Putin–MAGA alignment of interests'' and of ''Trump–NATO animosity''. The fuction of the dash is to conjoin two distinct entities in a context, as collaborators or antagonists: ''Dunning–Kruger effect'', ''Mexican–American War''. It doesn't imply anything about the nature of the parties (in the abstract or in comparison to each other).<p>Anyway, I agree this category of Bliss–Leavitt things should be named consistently. The dash exists for this sort of construction, though it tends to get pushback from MILHIST and other people, due to the hyphen being more common in source material (not because a hyphen is more semantically correct/sensible/useful in an academic and encyclopedic register of writing, but simply because journalists and military-history book writers tend not to use dashes at all, other than unrelatedly as parentheticalizing puncutation in a sentence, but even then they will usually use an unspaced em dash for that). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 14:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)</p>

== US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement ==

The [[US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement]] is up for renewal by the end of the year. It is unlikely to make the front pages here, but should be big news in the UK. If UK-based editors could keep an eye out and alert me when it happens, that would be much appreciated. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 00:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:It depends if the orange one gets elected again: there may be considerably more to to keep you amused. Like the ending of US contributions to NATO. I can imagine (or not) the front pages of the ''[[Daily Mail]]'':  "Scandal: [[Keir Starmer|Starmer]] accepted tickets to [[Taylor Swift]] gig 6 months ago!" "CIA and MI5 cuddle up again!" "Still no British planes on our [[HMS Prince of Wales (R09)|aircraft carriers!]]" "''[[Bake Off]]'' goes underground: ''[[Strictly Come Dancing|Strictly]]'' filmed in nuclear bunker!"  I'll keep you in mind. [[User:MinorProphet|MinorProphet]] ([[User talk:MinorProphet|talk]]) 00:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

== November unreferenced article backlog drive ==

Hi all.  I'm not sure if anyone is planning on taking part in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/November 2024|Wikipedia-wide November 2024 unreferenced article backlog drive]]?  If so [https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?psid=29608153 this is a dynamic list of all MILHIST articles tagged as having no references] (currently stands at 1,861 entries).  The only two articles tagged as unsourced BLPS in the project are [[Vincent W. Patton III]] and [[Mieczysław Gocuł]].  Would be great if we can reduce these numbers, but appreciate people are busy doing good work elsewhere too - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 14:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:I did an initial review of Patton and added some references; I think a service-knowledgeable editor could help.--<span style="background:#C2C2C2">[[User:Gaarmyvet|<b style="color: red;">Georgia Army Vet</b> ]][[Special:Contributions/Gaarmyvet|<i style="color: white;">Contribs</i> ]][[User Talk:Gaarmyvet|<b style="color: blue;">Talk</b>]] </span> 19:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks, I've added a ref to the very basic information that was at the Gocuł article and removed the unsourced tags from both.  That's one maintenance category cleared at least! - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 21:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

== Good article reassessment for [[Adriatic Sea]] ==
[[Adriatic Sea]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Adriatic Sea/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 22:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

== 'the JsonConfig extension' ==

Anyone know what this means? Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 08:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:see [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 24#Category:Pages using the JsonConfig extension]]. [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 12:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::Ah, thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 13:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

== Ship templates question ==

What's the difference between <nowiki>{{sclass|</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{sclass2|</nowiki>? Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 08:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

:Italics - sclass2 does not italicize the name of the class, which is used for thematic classes as opposed to classes named after one of the ships of the class (like the [[Battle-class destroyer]]s, as there was no member of the class named HMS ''Battle''). [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 09:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::Aaah, thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 11:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

== [[Army Aviation School]] ==

Would someone mind investigating and doing something with this long-time unreferenced article? It's an attractive nuisance given that [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Army_Aviation_School|most of the incoming links]] likely mean to link to [[United States Army Aviation School]] (which now redirects to [[U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence]]); on en-wiki there is also currently [[School of Army Aviation (Germany)]] ("German Army Aviation School" in its lead) and [[Northeast China Democratic United Army Aviation School]]. I also suspect that other branches' aviation schools may have a few commonalities with the generic Army one that the article describes ([[Aviation school]] redirects to [[flight training]] and I can't see a common military aviation school article). DAB/SIA? Redirect to the US article as most likely primary topic? <span style="font-size: 80%;color:blue"><sup>~</sup>[[User:Hydronium Hydroxide|Hydronium<sup>~</sup>Hydroxide]]<sup>~[[User talk:Hydronium Hydroxide|(Talk)]]~</sup></span> 14:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
: Hi, i've sorted out the redirects to the correct unit articles. [[User:Gavbadger|Gavbadger]] ([[User talk:Gavbadger|talk]]) 11:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

== Should we add any of the U.S. Labor Wars (especially the Coal Wars) to the List of wars involving the United States? ==

[[List of wars involving the United States]]

Not sure if we should count them or not? I'm having a hard time with this one. On the one hand we could consider them as regular conflicts like the [[List of conflicts in the United States]]. Although the top of this list does not say wars, it says the US was involved in 113 military conflicts. But it does not stop short of conflicts outside the USA, because it includes [[Bleeding Kansas]]. It does seem to stop short of wars where the U.S. military is not involved, but then again the U.S. miliary could be said to include the U.S. miliary on two points. 1. John Brown's [[John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry|raid on Harpers Ferry]] did involve the U.S. military, and 2. it involved them as [[Bleeding Kansas]] bleed into the Civil War (pun intended).

So in like manner should we open up this list to the Coal and Labor wars where the U.S. military fought in? Here is a few key ones to consider The [[Coal Wars]] (think of the [[Battle of Blair Mountain]]), the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, the [[1811 German Coast uprising|1811 German Coast Uprising]].

Many of them included the national guard at the very least, If we stop there what about [[Shays's Rebellion|Shays' Rebellion]], the [[Whiskey Rebellion]], or [[Fries's Rebellion]]?

'''If we went this route, maybe we should only include the Labor Wars, Rebellions, and Slave Rebellions where the United States military fought in.'''

So for example we would not include Slave rebellions such as the 1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation?

'''Also if we do the Coal Wars should we divide them up based off of Wars involving the U.S. Military or just leave them as the Coal Wars in general and adjust the dates and casualties based on all the Coal Wars combined where the USA fought?''' My hunch is no since we did not do this with the Banana wars or the American Indian Wars, but its fine with me either way.

Thanks. [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 19:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

:I would say leave them out. [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 19:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::I'm could be convinced either way of doing that. But what would be the reasons for leaving them in or leaving them out, for reasons explained above.
::Tell me your thoughts please, if you will. (: [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 20:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::For one thing, the National Guard isn't the US military per se, especially during the time period most of these incidents occurred. There's also the very basic point that these were not declared wars or conflicts. And if you're basing it off National Guard involvement (which to be clear I do not agree with), where do you draw the line? National Guards from various states have been committed in times of civil unrest or natural disasters. Do you count civil unrest? If so, to what level?
:::And in at least some of these cases, the conflict didn't directly involve actual Federal troops. In some cases their arrival actually put an end to the conflict. You'd also have to include some of the railroad conflicts that occurred in the later 1800s, since some of those involved militia...the precursor to the National Guard.
:::It's a slippery slope, and one I don't think we need to be messing with. [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 01:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::"For one thing, the National Guard isn't the US military per se, especially during the time period most of these incidents occurred." 
::::This actually is the most compelling reason I have heard. Hmmmm not sure honestly. I double checked and "In 1933, with the passage of the National Guard Mobilization Act, Congress finalized the split between the National Guard and the traditional state militias by mandating that all federally funded soldiers take a dual enlistment/commission and thus enter both the state National Guard and the National Guard of the United States, a newly created federal reserve force."
::::As I understand it the National Guard by itself refers to an individual state national when it is acting as the state military/militia while the National Guard of the United States refers to the national guard acting as Federal military or when it is referring to all state, district, and territorial guards as a whole.
::::I think this is actually a convincing baseline for all future wars/conflicts.
::::The parameters as they seem to historically have been are
::::1:is it "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state." (this is the oxford definition of war).
::::2:Did the U.S. military actually follow it.
::::In the case of the National guard I actually would say that for articles to be featured on the list as wars they would 1. the Battle/War would have to take place in 1933. 2. They would have to be Federalized and not used in a State capacity unless Federalized and/or paired with the U.S. military.
::::As far "civil unrests" are concerned. I think for it to be a civil unrest or riot then the antagonist against the US military would have to not just be a riot, but an armed and organized fight or rebellion. I think we actually could define the Coal Wars and many of the Labor wars as such or at least most of them, but we cannot call them a War fought by the United States given that the National guards were not federalized.
::::I would have included the Harlan County War since the the National Guard Mobilization Act was passed in 1933 and this coal war ended in 1939, but I would not because to my knowledge the Kentucky National guard were never federalized. 
::::"'''There's also the very basic point that these were not declared wars or conflicts'''" Eh I would not use that argument only, because then the list would literally be reduced to 5 wars, since there are actually only 5 wars that the US actually declared. The American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Spanish American War, WW1, and WW2. That being said you have convinced me on the former points.
::::What do you guys think? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothatdarkness]]
::::Under these guidelines I do not think we could include [[Shays's Rebellion|Shays' Rebellion]] or [[Fries's Rebellion]], since only milita fought in this one. However, we could include the the [[Whiskey Rebellion]] and some slave Rebellions such as [[Nat Turner's Rebellion]], but not the [[1811 German Coast uprising|German Coast Uprising]].
::::Should we maybe add a note on this on the list? What do you guys think. (: [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 15:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I remain opposed to their inclusion. You might want to do some more research on the National Guard as well. There is a distinction between National Guard and the handful of state militias that exist (both in terms of funding and other areas). National Guard units can be used/activated by states without being called into Federal service (commonly done for natural disaster relief operations) but when called into Federal service they can be sent overseas (common since World War II). [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 15:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::"I remain opposed to their inclusion. You might want to do some more research on the National Guard as well. There is a distinction between National Guard and the handful of state militias that exist (both in terms of funding and other areas). National Guard units can be used/activated by states without being called into Federal service (commonly done for natural disaster relief operations) but when called into Federal service they can be sent overseas (common since World War II). "
::::::'''I do not disagree with you on the National Guard point. Your point was both well illustrated and valid.''' I did some reviewing and the only labor war I am aware of that included U.S. troops fighting is the [[West Virginia coal wars|West Virginia coal war]] specifically the [[Battle of Blair Mountain]]. And as of now. That is the only one I would personally consider including.
::::::Though I am confused as to why you would not include the Whiskey rebellion and Nat Turner Rebellion. [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 18:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::As do I, this changies nothing. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 15:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:No. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 20:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::Ok, but then what are the reasons for no. Mind you I will ask the same person this if they say yes we should. (: [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 20:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::They may be called wars, but are they more "warish" than any other violent labour dispute? Reads too American-centric. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 20:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Can you expand upon "warisah" I do not know this word. Do you mean like sort of a quasi war maybe, because it is more of a labor dispute?
::::I agree with you some wars are smaller than others, but then I would ask what do we define as a war for these articles? There are several wars on here that are small in scope and this is not unique to the United States. For example look at the [[Anglo-Zanzibar War]].
::::The Oxford dictionary defines a war as "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state." By this definition the Coal Wars could be included or at least the ones that involved fighting with the United States military, which actually involved several of them.
::::For example the [[Battle of Blair Mountain]], where literally tens of thousands of men fought. 
:::: As I stated above, based off the history of this list, it seems like we are only counting wars where the United States fought in so I can see the point in not including those specific coal and labor wars, or else people would probably include American feuds [[:Category:Feuds in the United States]] such as the infamous [[Hatfield–McCoy feud]] which were blood battles and wars fought between private groups not concerning the Unites States or gang wars such as the [[Tong Wars]] or [[Castellammarese War]]. Not I am not at all suggesting we add Feuds and Gang wars, I am just using them as a point of differentiation between these conflicts and wars involving the United States military including the coal wars. Unless there is another qualifier I am missing here. [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 21:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::What I mean was are these any more wars than any other violent labour dispute, so do we list all of those as wars, or just American ones? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't see a compelling reason to include any of them, regardless of national origin. [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 12:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::"What I mean was are these any more wars than any other violent labor dispute, so do we list all of those as wars, or just American ones?"
::::::If it is "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state." and it can be substantiated the Nation of that government fought against them and the opposing side was fighting them then yes. But not as a demonstration or a riot. The Battle of Blair Mountain is a good example, because it was a shooting war. But as [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] pointed out that in these wars the National Guard were not federalized troops. 
::::::I would still regard the coal wars as Wars, but not one in which the U.S. government fought in. It would have to be under a state's induvial list of wars if one can be made for a U.S. State.
::::::If in the case of England if the Peterloo Massacre was not a peaceful and the protestors actually fought against the British military in a battle then I would classify it as being a war. If it was fought between the workers of Peterloo and lets say a County militia/military then I would count it as a war too, but just not one fought by the national government if that makes sense. (: [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 16:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Maybe you just have a different definition of war than the field of history and your fellow wikipedia editors? [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Just using the dictionary definition. [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 18:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::A very literal interpretation, which doesn't really square with the historiography of military history or war studies in general. Most of the US cases you're listing are usually discussed either as part of labor history or in the context of misuse or overreach of the use of the US military in a domestic context. Including them in the list of wars is inappropriate. [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 18:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I would not inherently disagree with your point. However no one has produced a definition as of yet. There are several wars on the list already including [[Bleeding Kansas]], the [[Pig War (1859)|Pig War]], and [[Operation Ocean Shield]] which may or may not fit in with a standard definition of war as others have suggested.
::::::::::If a more concrete definition can be established I am all ears. But as of now there is no official stipulation about what constitutes a war on this list other than it involve US military forces. [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 18:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I think at this point you're starting to bludgeon the whole thing. You're the only one supporting adding the labor conflicts, and the only evidence provided is a basic dictionary definition of war. Bleeding Kansas is considered a lead-in to the Civil War by most, if not all, authorities on the subject, so it can't really be treated in isolation as you seem to suggest. And in most of the labor conflicts, the presence of the US military is more tertiary. [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 18:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::"You're the only one supporting adding the labor conflicts" Hmmmmm perhaps you are correct. I do believe that the majority should rule here. 
::::::::::::"the only evidence provided is a basic dictionary definition of war" Maybe so but I do not believe the burden of proof is on me here, as the list itself provides others examples for my point. I still think that at the very least Blair Mountain should be included.
::::::::::::On Bleeding Kansas however the only time the U.S. military got involved that I am aware of was during the raid on Harpers Ferry. And although there was casualties on the U.S. military side this was tertiary compared to state militia. A lead into the Civil War does not equal a war (not including the dictionary definition).
::::::::::::The Pig War directly involved the U.S. military, but there were no deaths or injuries.
::::::::::::And we cannot include Operation Ocean Shield or else we would have to include military operations against Pirates in the Caribbean and Greece. The Barbary wars are an exception since of course the Barbary states were also nation states.
::::::::::::But again I will concede your point, if nothing else for majority rules. Though I think I will give it a month and then I will start a new topic on the subject of defining our terms (on wars) and removing Bleeding Kansas, the Pig War, and Operation Ocean Shield and others and/or adding the Nat Turner and Whiskey Rebellions.
::::::::::::(Of course not saying we will add or remove anything, I am just saying I will open the discussion). 
::::::::::::I am sincerely sorry if I made you or anyone else personally upset, that is not my intention. Though I would argue I have done nothing inherently wrong and the subject is worth talking about. But I think I am following the Wikipedia spirit of both being bold, and a team player by not making any major changes to the list without consulting the group as a whole. [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 19:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Actually military operations in Bleeding Kansas have been studied as examples of early "peacekeeping operations," since the intent was to prevent hostilities through the presence of troops. And if anything, the list should possibly be reduced instead of expanded. [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 19:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::"Actually military operations in Bleeding Kansas have been studied as examples of early "peacekeeping operations," since the intent was to prevent hostilities through the presence of troops. And if anything, the list should possibly be reduced instead of expanded."
::::::::::::::I mean fair enough. I can see that how that could be the case. I just don't see why it's inherently on this list considering other definition of wars. Or some of the other wars here. Since other than Harpers Ferry there were no other battles.
::::::::::::::Can it be considered a peacekeeping operation if it is peacekeeping American citizens? (Sincere question.)
::::::::::::::I think you maybe your proving my point is that we should indeed have a talk about the wider parameters on the list. To either reduce it or expand it, or a bit of both and more thoroughly define our terms. Maybe Bleeding Kansas should be kept and some of the others dropped. [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 19:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Yes, it can...because the main purpose of peacekeeping operations writ large is to prevent or minimize open conflict. And at the time there was precious little in terms of civilian law enforcement in either Kansas or western Missouri, and what was there was considered corrupt or biased to one degree or another. The military already had a presence in Kansas due to the Indian Wars, so it was simply a matter of adjusting the existing mission.
:::::::::::::::Frankly, I find that list a bit of a mess (like many lists on Wikipedia), but I would lean more toward shrinking it instead of expanding it to include every incident where there might have been a US military member within ten miles. [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 20:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I see. I am not inherently against shrinking it or expanding, so long as the terms are clearly defined for a common basis. Does not matter so much to me if we included peacekeeping operations in that definition. 
::::::::::::::::I will include your peacekeeping operation point as a detail when I start the new topic next month. I will link you to the post so you can get an instant notification if you would like.
::::::::::::::::"Frankly, I find that list a bit of a mess (like many lists on Wikipedia), but I would lean more toward shrinking it instead of expanding it to include every incident where there might have been a US military member within ten miles."
::::::::::::::::We can see what the majority think on it later. If minority does not like it they can always create their own list with specific parameters. [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 20:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:In general I would say keep it tight, if its only kind of war (coal war, timber war, cola war) I would exclude it. Just because it has war in the name doesn't mean it needs to be included. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 21:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::I agree to an extent. Like I said to [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] I definitely would not include the [[Tong Wars]] or [[Hatfield–McCoy feud|Hatfield-McCoy feud]], because they were gang wars and feuds not involving the united states military. And I would not include the [[Cola wars]] since those were just a business feud and the Timber Wars had more to do with [[Timber pirate|Timber Pirates]] (not sure if the USA actually fought them or not. I think the [[USS Michigan (1843)|U.S.S. Michigan]] encountered them once, but I have not studied them too closely yet. 
::But unlike the Tong Wars, Hatfield-McCoy feud, and [[Great Lakes Patrol|Timber Wars]], the battles that were fought in them did not include the U.S. military that I am aware of. Where as many of the coal wars did. 
::Perhaps if we include them at all we should only include the Coal Wars where the United States military fought? Or we should include key battles like [[Battle of Blair Mountain|Blair Mountain]] and just have it under the header as (part of the coal wars)? What do you think? (: [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 22:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Why only US ones, why not the [[Peterloo Massacre]] or the [[1984–1985 United Kingdom miners' strike]]? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Interesting point. I mean those would not fit in the [[List of wars involving the United States]], however I do think we could place the Peterloo Massacre in the [[List of wars involving the United Kingdom]]. Not the 1984–1985 United Kingdom miners' strike though, because the strike did not include a UK military presence that I am aware of, only police. [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 13:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Ooooh but then again looking at Peterloo this seems like more of a peaceful demonstration then a war. If the people at Peterloo fought back against the British Military I think that would make more sense. [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 13:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::It still wouldn't be a war... These simply are not wars. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
*No. Even when there was some violence, "war" is used only as a metaphor. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Hmmm I respectfully disagree good sir. The Coal wars had a number of battles in them. For example the [[Battle of Matewan]] and the [[Battle of Blair Mountain]] especially which involved tens of thousands of men. Oxford defines a war as "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state."
*:That being said @[[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothatdarkness]] made an extremely compelling reason from a different angel. In that he pointed out that during these wars none of the National Guard who fought in it were actually Federalized into the U.S. military at that time. And since this is more focused on wars fought by the U.S. military and not states as individuals that is a more compelling argument. I think we are starting to move away from that argument and now asking if we should include the [[Whiskey Rebellion]] or specific slave rebellions involving the U.S. military for example the [[Nat Turner's Rebellion|Nat Turner Rebellion]]. [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 15:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Neither the Battle of Matewan or the Battle of Blair Mountain are really battles... The first is a simple shootout between non-governemnt parties, and  the second is more a one sided police actions that is called a battle because the pro-business forces won the larger political wrangling about them, if labor had won it would be called a massacre. Same for the "Coal war" its only a war in metaphor. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Respectfully it depends on how you define a battle. 
::::Oxford defines a battle as "a hostile engagement between opposing forces on land or sea; a combat a fight." 
::::Webster defines it as "to engage in combat between individuals or armed forces : to engage in battle". " The first is a simple shootout between non-governemnt parties," A shootout is just a smaller battle. And a war does not need to include nations to be considered a war. Its just a different kind of war. 
::::For example the Castellammarese War was indeed a war fought by non state actors. That being said the argument does not matter as we are focusing on wars fought by the Unites States military for this list. 
::::"one sided police actions that is called a battle because the pro-business forces won the larger political wrangling about them, if labor had won it would be called a massacre. Same for the "Coal war" its only a war in metaphor." Eh actually it was pointed out to me that the U.S. Army not just the militia did fight in this war. And even if a war is one sided that does or is a massacre that does not mean it is not a battle. For it to be massacre by itself it would have to imply that the other side cannot fight back. Wounded Knee was indeed a massacre, but they were able to fight back.
::::Not sure you could even say Blair Mountain was a massacre as the miners killed 30 company men and 4 army soldiers. One side had 10,000 and the other had 30,000, but both had machine guns. Although the Army did bring in bombers with both gas and bombs.
::::A metaphor is "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable", but people actually fought and died in these wars. But it seems to me that the [[West Virginia coal wars|West Virginia coal war]] is the only one that I know of where Federalized U.S. military troops ever fought. Maybe though only the [[Battle of Blair Mountain|Battle of Blair mountai]]n should be included on the list and not the full war. [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 17:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I find your logic peculiar and remain unconvinced. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Fair enough. As I mentioned to [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothatdarkness]] I am willing to concede the point if nothing else, because I believe the majority should rule as this list does not belong to any one person. 
::::::Though as I told him. I think I will give it a month and then post a new topic on adding a more thorough definition to what we consider a war for the list. That way we can give this page more structure as to what should or should not be included.
::::::As I think a good argument could be made that we should consider removing Bleeding Kansas, the Pig War, and Operation Ocean Shield and others and/or adding the Nat Turner and Whiskey Rebellions. I say this because it seems that in this discussion that besides the basic dictionary definition of wars, there are a few other definitions (though so far undefined) that would disqualify or qualify some of these wars/conflicts/etc.
::::::(Of course not saying we will add or remove anything, I am just saying I will open the discussion). I think it will be helpful moving forward. [[User:Historyguy1138|Historyguy1138]] ([[User talk:Historyguy1138|talk]]) 19:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::People are killed in riots as well, including when militia or national guard or even army soldiers act with force to put down violent agitation about one or two domestic issues. I agree that war is used as a metaphor in these cases. Even the Whiskey Rebellion, which was a violent tax protest, which dissolved when Washington himself led the militia to put down the "rebellion". It was a vehement and somewhat violent protest against the tax which the protesters refused to pay (at first), not a war. Also, as the article states: "The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation." None of these civil disorders, riots or protests, even if some peope died, which weree due to a single domestic issues or a few issues qualify as a war. Given the broad sweep of the military history project, these disturbances involving any branch of the military do come within the topics that qualify for listing and assessment by the project. That does not make them "wars" as usually understood and they should not be listed as such. [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 02:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

== War of the Sixth Coalition - United States co-belligerent? ==

There's currently a [[Talk:War_of_the_Sixth_Coalition#Revisiting_USA_as_Co-Belligerent_due_to_recent_editor_disagreements|discussion]] at [[War of the Sixth Coalition]] about whether or not the United States should be considered a co-belligerent. I'm not an expert in this particular area and would appreciate any feedback this project can provide. Thanks! [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 18:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:Absolutely not. I will post a reply there as soon as I can get the sources down on paper. The U.S. had grievances against the French as well as the English. The War of 1812 was initiated by the U.S. against the British for totally separate reasons and in no way to directly help the French. Nor did the French help the United States. In fact, the French continued to seize U.S. merchant ships. [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 02:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

== When a unit changes name ==

Firstly, let's distinguish between what I would describe as a simple change of name; i.e. when 57 Fighter Squadron (57 FS) becomes 57 ''Tactical'' Fighter Squadron (57 TFS), in a process that probably involves hundreds of units doing the same thing. I don't have a problem with this, although unit histories detailing that unit X was disbanded on one date, and unit Y created two weeks later, does have an unfortunate side effect of cluttering up an article with date trivia.

However, there is a second instance which is more problematic. If 100 squadron, flying fighters out of Little Piddington, Worcestershire, then morphs into 629 squadron, flying heavy bombers out of somewhere in Italy, as I see it, the 100 squadron article stops dead at that point.

Alternatively, if the '''40th''' Bombardment Squadron is re-designated the '''4th''' Antisubmarine Squadron along with a change of Command, Wing, aircraft and base, how can it be the same unit? But that's not the end; this unit was disbanded, and re-activated 14 years later as [[24th Tactical Missile Squadron|'''24th''' Tactical Missile Squadron]] (new Command, Wing, base, and no aircraft, just missiles). Again, how can that be the same unit in terms of this Wikipedia article? But that's not the end either; the 24th TMS was inactivated, and the personnel & assets spread around. Two years later it is re-activated, this time as the '''74th''' Air Defence Missile Squadron, at a new base, in a different country, and meh, whatever. But that's still not quite the end of it; out of some kind of magicians hat, the '''40th''' Bombardment Squadron, the unit we started with, suddenly re-appears and is consolidated with it's own grand-daughter and great-grand-daughter, the '''24th''' TMS and the '''74th''' ADMS. Thankfully, they all appear to be inactive units, so it was just a paper-exercise. I pride myself on being able to tease out relevant detail from some other editor's mixed-up story, but this one has me beat. Worryingly, I fear it is an accurate portrayal of how the USAF see this unit's history.

Now, you can, quite correctly, suggest that the proper place for this discussion is the relevant article talk-page. But I suspect it is just the tip-of-an-iceberg. I'm looking for some kind of general discussion regarding units folding into each other, merging, or just re-appearing with a whole new identity, role, personnel and equipment. This is less about RAF or USAF internal re-organisations, and more about how should Wikipedia handle it? 

[[User:WendlingCrusader|WendlingCrusader]] ([[User talk:WendlingCrusader|talk]]) 15:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

:USAF unit history is often an exercise in smoke and mirrors as you mention. They like to tack lineage onto new units, and examples abound. It's not just inactive units, either. They do it with active units as well. As for how Wikipedia should handle the issue...that's a good question. Internal links to squadrons/wings past and present is a good start, because that lets interested people track a unit's history without getting bogged down in a massive article with tons of confusing name/designation changes noted as sub-sections. This would also let us track the inevitable reshuffling of lineage that often occurs with USAF units (not sure about RAF) without redoing articles or having to mess with a bunch of redirects. [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 16:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

::For the US Army at least, we have an [https://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lh.html entity] that tracks and maintains the official lineages of units. I'm not sure if the USAF (or RAF) has the same. However, I would not say that changing significant aspects of a unit's operational role acts to sever the lineage of the unit. For example, my [[Governor's Guards (Florida)|former unit]] is currently known as Troop C, 1st Squadron, 153rd Cavalry Regiment. However just 20 years ago, we were Company A, 3rd Battalion, 124th Infantry Regiment. We were briefly in 1963, Company C, 261st Engineer Battalion (Combat). Before that, we were Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 1st Armored Rifle Battalion, 124th Infantry, 48th Armored Division. And if you go all the way back to our founding in 1857 we were a cavalry troop again. All of this is a clear, unbroken line of lineage.   So there's definitely precedent for lineage to remain present through reorganizations at the Division/Corps level; and there's precedent for the same through changes in branch (Air Force equivalent would be changing aircraft type). The only thing that did not change for us was basing (which we can point to myriad of other examples of units retaining their lineage through BRACs and other basing changes). So of the categories that you've given: command/wing, aircraft, and base, there is at least some degree of precedent for all of these things changing without losing the unit's underlying lineage. As to how that appears on Wikipedia, ultimately our responsibility is to report what reliable sources say, not to synthesize results for ourselves.  [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 23:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Swatjester|Swatjester]] Thanks for your input - I confess I struggled to follow all of the detail, maybe because I am not ex-service myself. Taking just one aspect of your unit's history, I see the change from cavalry to infantry as just a change of equipment. IIRC in 'Nam, the 7th Cavalry went into action riding in [[UH-1 Huey]]'s, and that's ok. 
:::Where I find myself struggling is when a unit is disbanded, and the equipment, the personnel, and indeed the task they performed, are all scattered to the four winds, absorbed into other units. Then, out of some kind of magic hat, two years later the unit is supposedly reformed, without any former personnel, with totally different equipment, and a totally different role. Where is the link, except on paper?
:::Your final point is valid too; Wikipedia must report what reliable sources say, and in this situation there is only one source to be considered, and unfortunately it is a primary source, the military themselves. But perhaps Wikipedia should ring-fence the activities and history of certain military units, with only a brief comment to cover the many instances where there is a broken and disjointed alleged lineage?[[User:WendlingCrusader|WendlingCrusader]] ([[User talk:WendlingCrusader|talk]]) 00:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Respectfully, you're mistaken about the difference between cavalry and infantry. It's not simply a change of equipment. It's a change of mission set, and in some cases, MOS. The mission of the infantry is to close with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver to destroy, capture, or repel an assault by fire, close combat, and counterattack. The mission of the cavalry is to conduct reconnaissance and security operations in close contact with enemy organizations and civilian populations. These are two distinct mission sets, much how air superiority and strategic bombing are two different mission sets. In both cases, they inform the structure, the capabilities, and the format of the unit. The "change of equipment" is a result of the change in mission, role, and organization. The reasons why units are seemingly disbanded and reformed often have nothing to do with their lineage and much more to do with organizational concerns and restructuring. For instance, a base may be closed or a unit may be realigned as a result of political infighting during a round of BRAC. A change in the overall structure of the force (for instance, in the Army example that could be the shift to the Pentomic army in the 1950's that prompted the creation of the Combat Arms Regimental System, the shift to the Army Regimental System in the 80's, the establishment of the 10-division army system, etc.) can result in units shifting around, deactivating and reactivating as necessary to support the overall mission. That's why it's up to the service historians to determine whether the lineage remains unbroken, and as previously mentioned, for us to rely on what reliable sources say rather than trying to figure it out for ourselves.[[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 01:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::It may be helpful to look at an Air Force example. You mentioned the [[24th Tactical Missile Squadron]]. They began as the 40th Bombardment Squadron (Medium) flying the B-18 in an anti-submarine warfare role. They then redesignate as 4th Antisubmarine Squadron, reflective of their mission; this redesignation is triggered as part of the reorganization of the 1st Air Force eliminating the 13th Bombardment Group, and also involves a reassignment of their parent unit from I Bomber Command to Army Air Forces Antisubmarine Command. All of this so far is very much akin to what happens all the time in a BRAC, or a Brigade-level realignment in the Army.  But by the 1950's, the ASW mission becomes dominated by the U.S. Navy, not the Air Force -- which begins to fight a service-level rivalry with the Army over the missile domain. This results in a redesignation to the 24th Tactical Missile Squadron. Now if we pause here, we can note that both the 24th TMS, *AND* the receiving units of it's ASW mission (within the Navy) carry on the lineage of the 40th Bombardment Squadron. However one of those branches has now shifted it's role from ASW to tactical cruise missile fires. So the 24th TMS is now operating the Matador cruise missile, our first cruise missile and at the time was the "new hotness" of the forces. The Korean war has just ended, and the need for missile batteries in the theater is high. So it gets deployed to Korea. The USAF appears to have done a bit of an organizational shuffle here -- the 310th Fighter-Bomber Sqdn. was already stationed at Osan, and the USAF apparently wants it to shift from an F-86 squadron to a Matador squadron. So, they combine and condense several units together, which gets the missiles of the 24th TMS into Osan, and presumably streamlines some organization for the USAF. However, shortly thereafter, the Mace missile came online in Okinawa and obsoleted the Matador, eliminating this need for a Matador squadron in South Korea. So the Matador units deactivate. A bit later, they are reactivated with a new mission -- air defense, as a surface-to-air missile unit. The Air Force and the Army are still squabbling over the missile and missile defense missions, but at this point the USAF still is maintaining a forward deployed air defense capability and hasn't yet ceded the majority of that mission to the Army. So this time, our unit has been redesignated as the 74th Air Defense Missile squadron, operating the BOMARC SAM, which would turn out to be the only long-range SAM the USAF ever operates. When those are deactivated in 1972, as best as I can tell, the lineage of the 24th TMS (dating back through the 40th Bombardment Squadron) ends. However, let's now look in comparison at the [[310th Fighter Squadron|310th Fighter-Bomber Squadron]] in Osan -- remember back when our unit was becoming a Matador squadron? The 310th has it's own lineage which dates back to it's early days as the 310th Fighter Squadron, a training and replacement unit, carries through a couple of redesignations, and persists today (again as the 310th Fighter Squadron) doing F-35 training out of Luke AFB.  So what you get is two parallel lineage tracks, that briefly overlap, and one of which has an offshoot into the Navy. All of these redesignations and reassignments appear to clearly have had a reason which allows us to trace the pathway and evolution of that lineage through time. I know that's all confusing, but I hope the examples help clarify a bit. Sometimes what's not obvious to civilians is more obvious to veterans and historians who know what additional context to look for in order to find those links. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 02:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I really appreciate the time you have taken, especially to focus on a subject that I raised originally, but you are correct - this civilian does not understand. And to save us arguing pointlessly over the huge holes in the explanation above, I'm going to step away from this. Go in peace, my friend. [[User:WendlingCrusader|WendlingCrusader]] ([[User talk:WendlingCrusader|talk]]) 09:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::The broken lineage is very common with US units. And the Air Force does have an organization that tracks and assigns unit lineage, but they are much more...fluid...with it than the Army. In either case it's not unusual for the link between an old and new unit to exist only on paper. In many cases the lineage is constructed to preserve what's considered an historically-significant unit. Trying to make sense of some of it will just give you a headache, honestly. [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 12:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Lineagegeek}} Yes, in many cases the lineage is constructed or reconstructed to continue or recontinue a historically significant unit. See the [[Air Force Historical Research Agency]]. That's pretty much the point of tying these lineages together. They have no resemblance to what happened to X Squadron at Y Base which may have been redesignated Z, A, and then B.. the lineage runs through the historically significant designation, not a particular air force organism. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 22:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Not sure why you pinged Lineagegeek here as they haven't participated in the discussion. [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 15:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} Because he does primarily USAF unit lineages and he will quote you the rules and the actual practice - and their inconsistencies - in chapter and verse. Take a look at his talkpage and contributions. He has more expertise in this area than anyone who has contributed above, including me. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 21:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

:I'm familiar with their work, yes. And I'm also quite familiar with USAF lineage stuff in both theory and practice. However, an extended discussion on that didn't seem relevant to the original question as posed by the OP: how this kind of thing could be dealt with in a Wikipedia article. [[User:Intothatdarkness|Intothat]][[User_talk:Intothatdarkness|darkness]] 00:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Whether or not you agree with his interpretation of USAF lineage rules, and the way he has applied them here, WP is based upon Reliable Sources. He knows those reliable sources which have been repeatedly applied here and accepted, very well. If I was wanting to examine the OP's question, drawing on people who know the terrain, I would seriously consider going directly to his talkpage and seeking his input. That does not mean you have to accept or agree with it!! 
:: Cheers [[File:Sheep icon.png]] [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 07:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]]
:::[[File:African fish eagle (Haliaeetus vocifer) Ethiopia.jpg|thumb|I have decided that this is a Lesser spotted Tree [[Duck]], which is directly descended from a [[Camel]]. And because I am a '''reliable source''', you have to agree with me.]]
:::Thank you - I have been reading your input(s), but kept away from the discussion until I had something more to add. Lineagegeek seems to be the person to contact in certain respects, undoubtedly an expert in this field, but as you can see from my convo with Swatjester above, someone who is intimately familiar with the subject is not necessarily the best person to see it from an outside perspective. 
:::Yes, in many respects the USAF themselves are the best source, although I have seen so many errors in their published material that it makes me smile. To err is human, and it's good to see that they are very much human. But that digression apart, whilst the USAF/Army/Navy are entitled to name anything they so wish, apart from recording that fact here on Wikipedia, surely we should place it in context. In terms of lineage, I am looking for something to the effect of
::: ''The USAF has decided to apply the following lineage to this current unit;''.
:::Then at least the readers can make their own minds up as to whether it is even remotely relevant.
:::[[User:WendlingCrusader|WendlingCrusader]] ([[User talk:WendlingCrusader|talk]]) 13:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the convo above. I carefully laid out the reasoning and context behind why some seemingly random redesignations were actually easily attributed to broader service-wide decisions that may not be immediately obvious, and reiterated that ultimately what matters are what reliable sources say. I think someone approaching it from an "outsiders perspective" might wish to hesitate before declaring nuanced things as being "errors", particularly when they themselves are making basic errors and mistaken assumptions about a subject they admittedly do not understand.  [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 17:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Dear WendlingCrusader, I completely agree with you and I wish I had thought of that formulation five years ago. As you will see at [[Talk:Ninth Air Force (2009-2020)]] I have had arguments with <s>Lineagegeek</s> Bwmoll3 touching on that kind of subject. I hope you do not mind if I start rolling out your formulation wording to the [[1st Fighter Wing]] - [[99th Air Base Wing]] without any delay. 
::::You will see that I have tried an initial wording "The U.S. Air Force Historical Research Agency has determined [that the 99 ABW is descended etc]" at [[99th Air Base Wing]].
::::"Despite the fact that the [[Nevada Test and Training Range (military unit)]] is not designated a "wing," the U.S. Air Force Historical Research Agency has determined/decided that the history of the NTTR can be traced to the 98th Bombardment Group, a [...]"
::::I also completely agree on your avian identification and I believe the Lesser Spotted Tree Duck is/is not directly descended from the [[Sopwith Camel]] because, clearly, ''Jane's All the World's Aircraft'' said so in the 1921 edition. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 14:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

== [[Battle of Flers–Courcelette]] ==

Would anyone interested in copyvio matters have a look at the reversion of the paragraph ''German'' as it's apparently being taken as a copy of something when the thing that is supposed to be the original looks like a copy of our article and that bit is something I wrote based on the OH. Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 16:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:Matter resolved, thanks Nthep. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 17:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

== Sourcing for events at Kamal Adwan Hospital, Gaza ==

[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Talk:Kamal Adwan Hospital sieges #Over-use of Al Jazeera|Talk:Kamal Adwan Hospital sieges  §&nbsp;Over-use of Al Jazeera]].  ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Bri|Bri]]</span> ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 03:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->

== What do we do? ==

Hi {{u|Buckshot06}}, why the change to the Project's main page - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history&curid=118442&diff=1254352242&oldid=1248477271]. The new version doesn't seem to make sense. Unless it is read as "content-free encyclopedia", as I fear it may be. Also, the edit summary is "tech fix", what technical issue is it fixing? I assume that there is a consensus for this somewhere? Thanks. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 16:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:Very good!! I surrender!! Spotted in a heartbeat!! The joke's on me, not some poor sod months later!! Let me roll it back myself. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 16:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::Very droll. {{smiley}} For you Buckshot, the war is over.  [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 16:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

== Which German Kampfgruppe was at Steamroller Farm? ==

I'm slowly working on a draft on the Battle of Steamroller Farm [[User:FOARP/Battle_of_Steamroller_Farm|here]]. Steamroller Farm is notable because it was essentially the British doing a "Villers Bocage" to the Germans (i.e., a luck advance aided by strong armour shooting up a whole load of materiel and scoring an out-sized victory). Of course, very typically, we have multiple articles covering Michael Wittmann and Villers Bocage, but none covering Steamroller Farm. There are numerous sources covering the battle, though unfortunately the Internet Archive going offline has reduced this number so I'm relying on what's visible on Google Books (frustratingly [https://www.google.pl/books/edition/No_Dishonourable_Name/Ok4SnFZcgoQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Steamroller+farm%22&dq=%22Steamroller+farm%22&printsec=frontcover this detailed account is not visible]!) One issue I've got is the sources seems to totally disagree as to which Kampfgruppe the British were facing in this battle. These include:
*[https://www.google.pl/books/edition/Desert_Armour/9cPWEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Steamroller+farm%22&pg=PT316&printsec=frontcover Robert Forczyk in Desert Armour, p.250] - he says Kampfgruppe Schmid. This makes sense as Joseph Schmid was the commander of the Herman Goering division and the sources seem to agree that the German infantry at Steamroller Farm were ''fallshirmjaeger'' of the 5th regiment from that division. Also he provides a fairly detailed account of the battle and seems to have good credentials.
*[https://www.google.pl/books/edition/The_Bloody_Road_to_Tunis/914CDQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22steamroller+farm%22&pg=RA1-PT69&printsec=frontcover David Rolf in The Bloody Road to Tunis] credits Gruppe Koch with this attack, and shows Schmid as attacking further north. Indeed, [https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80018834 5th regiment seems to have been part of Kampfgruppe Koch]. This is pretty convincing, but...
*[https://www.google.pl/books/edition/Clear_the_Way/fvxmAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22steamroller+farm%22&dq=%22steamroller+farm%22&printsec=frontcover Clear The Way by Richard Doherty] credits it to Schirmer's men. This makes sense as Schirmer was a battalion commander in the 5th regiment - the full quote is not visible, but it seems possible that Schirmer's battalion could have been acting as part of a larger kampfgruppe under Schmid or Koch, through I do see other (non-RS) sources talking about "Gruppe Schirmer". <br/>
Based on [https://www.google.pl/books/edition/Fallschirm_Panzer_Division_Hermann_G%C3%B6ri/vrVmEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Gruppe+Schirmer%22&pg=PT80&printsec=frontcover this source], "Kampfgruppe Schmid" was simply a name for the elements of the Herman Goering division present in Tunisia at the time of the battle, with Gruppe Koch being a sub-unit of that (and possibly Schirmer's men were part of Gruppe Koch?) which would resolve the above discrepancies (though it wouldn't answer the question of which German officer was actually in direct command at Steamroller Farm), but it would be nice to have sources saying so. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 09:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

== Convoy PQ 18 order of battle ==

[[Convoy PQ 18 order of battle]] would ''Luftflotte'' 5/''Luftwaffe'' torpedo-bomber unit experts have a look at the table for the ''Luftwaffe'' please as I lack the sources to do it justice. Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 13:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

== Talk:Russo-Circassian War ==

I am looking at an edit request made on [[Talk:Russo-Circassian War]], asking for the Balkar and Karachay volunteers to be moved from the pro-Russia side of the conflict (in the infobox) to the pro-Circassian side of the conflict. It appears (from the context of the article itself) that both groups may have started on the Russian side, but switched sides(?) somewhere mid-conflict. I do not know anything about this and am requesting someone that does please look into it. If they did switch sides mid-conflict, I assume they should be listed under both sides in the infobox with a note? Thank you. - [[User:Adolphus79|Adolphus79]] ([[User talk:Adolphus79|talk]]) 03:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

== [[Battle of the Frontiers]] ==

{{ping|87.212.79.61}} keeps adding ''350,000 (August/Septermber)'' in the infobox but fails to cite it to a reliable source, any suggestions? [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 19:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:Revert, try to get them to discuss at the talk page, if they still refuse to do so, make a request at [[WP:RFPP]] or [[WP:ANEW]] as appropriate. Wikiprojects don't have the scope or remit to handle editor disputes of this type. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 21:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::I've run out of reverts (I think) but someone else has reverted it and the editor has put it back. I've left a couple of comments on his talk page. I'll see what happens tomorrow. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 22:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::FWIW, I would not think of reverts as an allotment that you get, and can run out of (except in the rare exception of 1RR cases, in which case it's a binary "you did it or you didn't.) Edit warring can occur well before a user hits the 3RR limitation (see [[WP:EW]]) and can be a two way street even when justifiably on the side of "right" as there are only a specific number of enumerated exceptions to the edit warring policy. So if you find yourself dealing with an IP who just won't listen, don't put yourself at risk by running the counter up on your own reverts. Not suggesting you did anything wrong per se, just some helpful advice to avoid any possible blowback. In any event, I've semi-protected the page for a short time, and blocked the IP for edit warring for a slightly longer period (to ensure they don't immediately resume when the protection ends, given their history of having done this across multiple articles as their only contributions to the project thus far). So the immediate problem should be resolved. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 23:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks, I had hoped that the editor would have been ready for dialogue. Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 09:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

:Perhaps another tactic would be to find a reference, Google Books has:
:*{{cite book |last=Ferro |first=Mark |author-link=Marc Ferro |date=2001 |title=The Great War: 1914–1918 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qD-VBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA45 |location=London |publisher=Routledge |page=45 |isbn=978-0415267359}}
:{{xt|"French losses of 329,000 men in August and September 1914 far exceeded those for any other two-month period of the entire conflict , including the Battle of Verdun in 1916".}}
:[[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 16:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::Now added to the infobox. Does anyone have a ref for British casualties, quoted as 29,597 (seems very precise). [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 13:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Hastings (''Catastrophe'', p 548) gives BEF casualties for August-December of 16,200 killed, 47,707 wounded, 16,746 captured and missing. But page 495 gives aa Aug-Nov total of 89,964! Hmm. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 13:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

::::There is a wonderful document produced by the War Office in 1920: [https://ia800503.us.archive.org/31/items/statisticsofmili00grea/statisticsofmili00grea.pdf Statistics of the military effort of the British Empire during the Great War, 1914-1920] that has all sorts of useful facts and breakdowns for the war.  On page 253 it lists casualties of the BEF by month of the war.  For August 1914 it lists 88 officers & 1,073 other ranks killed in action, 15 officers and 204 ORs died of wounds, 2 officers died of disease, 147 officers and 3,115 ORs wounded in action and 219 officers and 9,546 ORs missing (including 8,190 taken prisoner); for a total of 14,409 casualties.  September's totals are there also to 15,189 total.  Combined this is 29,598 casualties, very close to the figure given in the infobox.  I suspect that this is where it comes from.  Actual casualties for the period of the battle (which is stated as ending on 6 September), will be lower - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 14:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::I see that the BEF figure now has a ref and note, so this seems to be... [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 13:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{resolved}}
{{od}} Apropos ''Statistics....'' some of the data is inconsistent and other items have been challenged.....[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 13:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

== RNAS Kai Tak ==

Hi,

@[[User:Mikeyp72|Mikeyp72]] has created [[RNAS Kai Tak]], when we already have an well established article at [[RAF Kai Tak]] which is only at 11,359 bytes with plenty of room for expansion and we also have [[Kai Tak Airport]] at 63,310 bytes. According to the new article their was a Mobile Operational Naval Air Base (MONAB) VIII there only between 1945 and 1947, with the Royal Navy given lodger rights for Kai Tak thereafter.

Is it really necassary to have yet another article about the same airport which closed down in 1998? [[User:Gavbadger|Gavbadger]] ([[User talk:Gavbadger|talk]]) 20:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:I believe [[RNAS Kai Tak]] should be merged into [[RAF Kai Tak]]. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 17:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Gavbadger|Gavbadger]] For the avoidance of doubt. The article [[RNAS Kai Tak]] is intended to explicitly be standalone about the MONAB that was formed up and subsequently situated at [[Kai Tak Airport]] alongside [[RAF Kai Tak]], just after the conclusion of the Second World War. It was initially intended to be called HMS ''Nabstock'', however, investigation showed there was a second later commission, HMS ''Flycatcher'', therefore, to cover all it was simply titled RNAS Kai Tak. The approach is to compliment the RAF Kai Tak article and not be a complete duplication about the same airport. All Royal Navy units that used the lodger facilities after the Air Section decommissioned should be added to the RAF Kai Tak article (in progress), with nods to each others existence via sentence with a link.
:I would question, while you state RAF Kai Tak is well established as an article, is it only it's length of time of existence that makes you express that? My point is - it has a eleven year old "verification lack of citation notification" and to be fair it is poorly referenced, with each section either a bullet point list or table, with no real encyclopaedic approach. [[User:Mikeyp72|Mikeyp72]] ([[User talk:Mikeyp72|talk]]) 11:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Mikeyp72}} To be fair to Mikey, he's written a rather good article. Is the RAF article good enough to merge with the RNAS? [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 12:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
::: (1) Yes the article Mickeyp72 has just written *is* better than the old and thin RAF Kai Tak article, but that does not change the fact that the FAA was there for about three years before disappearing; (2) If Mickeyp72's intent was to properly cover HMS ''Nabstock'' or HMS ''Flycatcher'' the correct textbook article title is [[HMS Flycatcher (roman numeral)]]; possibly [[HMS Flycatcher (start date - end date)]] (both with correct italics in the titles); or [[HMS Flycatcher (Hong Kong shore establishment)]]. (3) RAF Kai Tak, because of its length of service and greater notability, remains the primary topic. [[WP:SIZERULE]] would be the applicable guideline, in my view, to determine whether ''Flycatcher'' [1946-1948] would be merged into RAF Kai Tak. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 15:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
::::My intent was indeed point no. 2. Absolutely agree with points nos. 1 & 3, which are undisputable facts.
::::Reading through and with hindsight I suspect HMS ''Flycatcher'' (Hong Kong shore establishment) [to distinguish from the two other stations commissioned as ''Flycatcher'' in the UK] probably would have been the better approach and included HMS ''Nabcatcher'' (''Nabstock'' was my mistake), rather than leading with RNAS Kai Tak.
::::I could use the Move function to effectively change RNAS Kai Tak into HMS ''Flycatcher'' (Hong Kong shore establishment). I've not previously attempted to use this functionality, but 'moving' into a completely new page appears straightforward.
::::I'm not clear how RNAS Kai Tak would be merged into RAF Kai Tak. Not a task (merge into an existing article) I have ever attempted.
::::Guidance and consensus appreciated here... [[User:Mikeyp72|Mikeyp72]] ([[User talk:Mikeyp72|talk]]) 17:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Mikey the RNAS and RAF Station articles together are easily merge-able. What I do when I merge articles is to open the edit window on the article to be merged, pick up and copy over the text, open the merge-to article, Ctrl-V the text into the merge-to article, adjust the headings (=== === etc) and then tidy up. But most people are looking for details about the RN / FAA in Hong Kong, I tend to think, not starting by looking for the MONABs, a thoroughly obscure concept known only to enthusiasts (anoraks). So that would tend to suggest merge to RAF Kai Tak; redirects and links at MONAB, Flycatcher, Nabcatcher etc. Especially if we are not sure the title "RNAS Kai Tak" was official, which the data appears it was not, we should not use it - stick with Nabcatcher/Flycatcher. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 17:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thanks @[[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]], you make a good point about anoraks (and I tar myself with that brush!). I will follow your approach as described and use 'Ctrl-C - Ctrl-V' to move the text from the RNAS Kai Tak article to the RAF Kai Tak page, ensure headings are correct etc. and then ensure the redirects and links are appropriate, as suggested. I'll put something on the talk page (RNAS Kai Tak page) for completeness and then, when completed, I'll reply here so it can be verified. [[User:Mikeyp72|Mikeyp72]] ([[User talk:Mikeyp72|talk]]) 18:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Oh many many of us here are anoraks, and I certainly am!! I'll look over your merger (as no doubt Gavbadger will) and give you the chance to untangle the minor issues yourself so you learn for the future. Cheers!! [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 18:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]], @[[User:Gavbadger|Gavbadger]], I believe I have completed the merge! As discussed, I simply copied and pasted the text and made the necessary adjustments with headers etc. plus amended any relevant redirects including the RNAS Kai Tak page. Any feedback greatly appreciated. @[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] I noticed your edits too in RAF Kai Tak and will take note of your changes, especially the aircraft names and links, removing the manufacturer from the prose, for future approach and again any feedback appreciated! [[User:Mikeyp72|Mikeyp72]] ([[User talk:Mikeyp72|talk]]) 17:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} It's always a pleasure to help make good work a bit better. I've hummed and aahed about omitting the manufacturer of military aircraft for ages so I'm not committed to it and am happy for anyone to change it if preferred. Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 17:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
: Thank you everyone particularly Mikeyp72, the article is really looking considerately better. The RAF side definitely needs a lot of work to bring it up to par.
: Regarding naming of aircraft manufacturers and models, is their an actual policy regarding this? I've spent a fair bit of time adding manufacturers to articles especially in WW2 Eighth and Ninth Air Force USAAF units at RAF stations. My position is that the aircraft manufacturer should be included in the first instance along with a link to the article, using the most appropiate manufacturer name for  the variant being discussed. [[User:Gavbadger|Gavbadger]] ([[User talk:Gavbadger|talk]]) 19:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:: I have been following Gavbadger, spending a considerable amount of time adding manufacturers to aircraft designations wherever I see them. My thought was that we should use the WP article title, not any short version, at least on first reference.

== Confederate officer biography lead sentences ==

Could someone from this task force take a look at edits like [[:Special:diff/9mm.trilla/1254891019|this]] changing the lead sentence of articles like [[:Joseph E. Johnston]]? I came across the edit via [[:WP:THQ#Correct guidelines for "Confederate" or simply "American" generals for American Civil War (1861-1865) articles]] and the change has been boldly made in several articles in addition to the Johnston one. This seems like something that should be sufficiently discussed somewhere (perhaps here) per [[:WP:CAUTIOUS]] since it likely affects lots of articles. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 10:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:That could be a problem. Will look further to see how far along we are. Thanks! [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 21:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::I can say, as someone who's been here as long as anybody, discussion in these cases is that the oft-applied modifier "American" is entirely accurate and non-controversial in the lede sentence. When we reduce the lengthy service careers of longtime US Army officers like Johnston and Jackson to the few years of their rebellion, it supplies an incomplete summary of the subject, and focuses unduly on partisan rancor. Both were US and well as CS officers. Both American. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 21:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::: I was going to post a longer reply here, but I agree with BusterD who summarizes it better than I was going to. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 21:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree mostly w/ BusterD here but I would get there in a different way. The Confederacy never achieved legitimacy, as an unrecognized breakaway state whose rebellion failed. At all times the nationality of the CSA officers was "American", even when they were committing treason against the United States. As such, I would agree that "American" is entirely accurate and non-controversial in the lede, but I would also split the difference when relevant and try to include words to the effect of "who fought for the Confederate States Army" in the introductory sentence of the lede (or whichever sentence it is that also uses the descriptor "American" if not the first). In cases where the person's confederate service is not highly relevant I would not include it in the lede at all and simply go with "American." For example: [[Mark Twain]], who briefly served in the Confederate militia for about two weeks but whose notability is wholly unrelated to their military service, is described as: "Samuel Langhorne Clemens ...<name/birth stuff>..., was an '''American writer''', humorist, and essayist" and his confederate service is not mentioned in the lede at all. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 23:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I won't link to discussions but I remember hammering this out case by case at first until we came up with language that nobody reverted. User:Swatjester's rationale dovetails with mine. In cases like Jackson and Johnston, IMHO their notability arises from their leadership during the rebellion, so a lede sentence should contain such linkage.  [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 12:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::And of course Wikipedia [[The Private History of a Campaign That Failed|includes coverage of Clemens's two weeks of service]], because he wrote about it, thank goodness. The story reminds me a bit of the manner in which Wikipedia's Military History project operated for the first year or so. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 12:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

== Should the U.S. be considered a combatant in the [[Israel-Hamas war]], in the infobox? ==

Hello Project Military History. Advertising [[Talk:Israel–Hamas_war#Add_America_to_Israeli_Allies|this discussion]] to a wider audience, on a use case of the "conflicts" infobox - should the U.S. be considered a combatant in the [[Israel-Hamas war]], in the infobox? 

Thanks. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 19:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

:No, in the way the US was not considered an actual combatant in the [[Vietnam War]] for some time, although the CIA was definitely never involved, ever. All to do with grunts on the ground and body bags coming home with full military honors, I believe. [[Proxy war]]s, etc. [[User:MinorProphet|MinorProphet]] ([[User talk:MinorProphet|talk]]) 00:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

::With the deployment of a U.S. THAAD battery, staffed by U.S. troops to the region -- a uniformed, conventional forces, combat arms branched element tasked with the mission of providing defensive fires (THAAD interceptors) -- one could make a colorable argument that the U.S. is a now a combatant. But the correct place to seek and achieve that consensus is on the [[Israel-Hamas war]] page, which is so tainted with toxicity and drama that I'm not touching that shit with a 20 foot pole.[[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 23:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Until U.S. troops are actually in combat, I cannot see adding them as a combatant in the infobox. By such logic, every country that ever sold weapons or supplies or provided material help of some sort to a combatant in a war, could be listed in the infobox for that war even though the country selling supplies was never engaged. Such listings would make infoboxes about combatants meaningless. [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 02:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::There is a significant difference between selling weapons or providing supplies, and deploying a company-level combat-arms unit solely for the purpose of providing direct defensive fires against an attacker who is shooting ballistic missiles in your direction.  Let's not conflate two very different things here. As a comparison point, we absolutely consider U.S. Navy ships in theater to be combatants when they're tasked solely for the purpose of providing direct defensive fires against [[Red_Sea_crisis|Houthi missiles]].  [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 17:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Personally, I don't see the US' participation rising to the level of being listed as a combatant. The only combat action I'm aware of them initiating is the bombing of Houthi rebels in Yemen - which was done not in direct support of the war in Gaza, but because they keep shooting missiles at international shipping lanes. Setting up troops in defensive positions and shooting down incoming missiles (especially in the context of Israel, which sees missiles being fired into its territory from various directions quite regularly) is not what I would call engaging in combat. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 19:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::DoD considers it combat for pay, benefits, and decorations purposes; and land deployments to Israel since 2002, as well as Saudi Arabia since 2019, are eligible for hostile fire/imminent danger pay; and soldiers "personally present and under hostile fire" in those batteries (which can include from indirect fire) would be entitled to combat awards such as Combat Action Badge. I'm not personally suggesting we list it, but I'm saying there's a colorable argument to be made that deploying uniformed, conventional combat-arms troops to engage in what we already define as "combat" may rise to the level of making one a "combatant." [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 20:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think that represents a full and complete picture of what being a "combatant" in a war entails. For one, one definition of "combat" is [https://www.oed.com/dictionary/combat_n?tl=true "a fight between opposing forces"]. Now I know that in some schools, if a bully hits a kid who then defends himself, both of them get in trouble for "fighting" - but I personally would only call the bully a fighter. In a slightly more accurate metaphor, if a bully is throwing rocks at some kid, and a 2nd kid steps up with a shield to stop the rocks, I certainly don't consider that 2nd kid a "fighter." I feel like initiating any kind of combat action is a prerequisite to being called a "combatant." (exactly like [https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/16/politics/us-strikes-iran-backed-houthis-yemen/index.html sending a B2 to bomb Houthi bunkers].) [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 21:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I think between a metaphor about school bullies, and what the DoD internally considers to be definitionally combat, the latter is far more compelling for a Wikiproject on military history, and certainly more compelling as to "what being a combatant in a war entails." But that's just my take, as someone who's been a combatant in a war. Other interpretations may vary. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 05:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC) 
:I think that the US is a combatant in the [[Red Sea crisis]] but not in the [[Israel-Hamas war]] (which does not for example include Iranian attacks on Israel). [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 21:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
::I agree. The U.S. Navy certainly has been engaged with the Houthis but has not been a combatant in the Isreael-Hamas War. So the distinction is reasonable. [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 02:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} There's now [[Template_talk:Israel–Hamas_war_infobox#RfC:_Should_the_US_and_UK_be_added_as_allies_to_Israel_in_the_infobox?|an open RFC]], where people who have previously participated in discussion can now come to restate their opinions. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 17:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{Ping|PhotogenicScientist}} isn't that RfC asking a different question? Ally =/= combatant unless I'm missing something [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::They're asking to put the US and UK in the infobox, under the heading "Belligerents", in the parameter "combatant2." It's not a mere question of whether or not those countries are allies of Israel. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 17:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::The belligerents are Hamas and Israel, the lists say allies, no matter what the parameter is called. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::::You don't need to repeat yourself everywhere. As I said at the RFC, the subheading of "ally" under the heading of "belligerents" is very obviously meant to be read as "belligerent allies." The listing of supporting countries with which combatants have military alliances is, as I've said, deprecated.[[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 17:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::You stop repeating yourself and I will. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Hmmm, yes... That does then appear to be trying to backdoor it in against consensus. It has since changed to a new bespoke term "Allies in other theaters" which I am confident will annoy the regulars here as much as it does me... [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

== Commons Category question ==
{{commons category|Canada}}
Just realised that I haven't put one in for the articles I've been working on recently.  Had a go by guesswork and got red on it, looked in here [[Template:Commons category]] and am none the wiser. I'm trying to add them for the PQ convoy series like [[Convoy PQ 18]], any suggestions? Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 23:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:If you see Commons under the 'In other projects' menu for an article, you can just add {{tl|commons category}} with no additional value and it'll work. If not (or you just want a different one), you can add it manually with a pipe character and the name of the category - eg <nowiki>{{commons category|Canada}}</nowiki> will get you what's on the right. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 23:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks, I'll hide my blushes. ;O) [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 23:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

== [[Russo-Caucasian conflict]] ==

Came across this newly minted article by a newly minted editor. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 01:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I find something strikingly peculiar about the article? [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 04:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

== Pic question ==

<nowiki>[[File:B-24 Liberators at low altitude.jpg|thumb|upright|left|B-24s bomb the [[Ploiești]] oil fields in August 1943.]]</nowiki>
I see that some pics these days have thumb and upright. I thought that upright was for altering the size of the pic that takes account of the different sized screens that people use. Is there a reason for combining thumb and upright that I've missed? Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 10:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Keith-264}} You should always combine these. Thumb allows for the normal presentation of images on-wiki, including captions, while upright scales with the size of the device a person is viewing the article with (as you noted). Non-thumbed images [[Help:Pictures#Plain_pictures|are rare]]. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 08:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

== Tables question  ==

[[Operation Stonewall]] I'm changing lists to tables and wonder if there's a way to thicken some of the horizontal lines to separate groups of ships? Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 16:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]], it's a bit fiddly but you can assign each of the four borders of a cell to a different style.  I've done an example below for the first line of a table from the article you linked - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 09:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

{|class="wikitable"
|+TF.21.
|-
! scope="col" width="120px"  |Name
! scope="col" width="140px"  |Flag
! width="140px" |Type
! |Notes
|-
|style="border-left:2px solid; border-top:2px solid" align="left"|{{USS|Card|CVE-11|6}}
|style="border-top:2px solid" align="left"|{{naval|US}}
|style="border-top:2px solid" align="left"|{{sclass|Bogue|escort carrier}}
|style="border-top:2px solid; border-right:2px solid" align="left"|Task Group.21.14
|-
|style="border-left:2px solid" align="left"|{{USS|Decatur|DD-341|6}}
|align="left"|{{naval|US}}
|align="left"|{{sclass|Clemson|destroyer}}
|style="border-right:2px solid" align="left"|Task Group.21.14
|-
|style="border-left:2px solid" align="left" |{{USS|Leary|DD-158|6}}
|align="left"|{{naval|US}}
|align="left"|{{sclass|Wickes|destroyer}}
|style="border-right:2px solid" align="left"|Task Group.21.14
|-
|style="border-left:2px solid; border-bottom:2px solid" align="left" |{{USS|Schenck||6}}
|style="border-bottom:2px solid" align="left"|{{naval|US}}
|style="border-bottom:2px solid" align="left"|{{sclass|Wickes|destroyer}}
|style="border-right:2px solid; border-bottom:2px solid" align="left"|Task Group.21.14
|-
|style="border-left:2px solid" align="left"|{{USS|Core|CVE-13|6}}
|align="left"|{{naval|US}}
|align="left"|{{sclass|Bogue|escort carrier}}
|style="border-right:2px solid" align="left"|Task Group.21.15
|-
|style="border-left:2px solid" align="left"|{{USS|Belknap|DD-251|6}}
|align="left"|{{naval|US}}
|align="left"|{{sclass|Clemson|destroyer}}
|style="border-right:2px solid" align="left"|Task Group.21.15
|-
|style="border-left:2px solid" align="left"|{{USS|George E. Badger|DD-196|6}}
|align="left"|{{naval|US}}
|align="left"|{{sclass|Clemson|destroyer}}
|style="border-right:2px solid" align="left"|Task Group.21.15
|-
|style="border-left:2px solid; border-bottom:2px solid" align="left"|{{USS|Goldsborough|DD-188|6}}
|style="border-bottom:2px solid" align="left"|{{naval|US}}
|style="border-bottom:2px solid" align="left"|{{sclass|Clemson|destroyer}}
|style="border-right:2px solid; border-bottom:2px solid" align="left"|Task Group.21.15
|-
|style="border-left:2px solid" align="left"|{{USS|Block Island|CVE-21|6}}
|align="left"|{{naval|US}}
|align="left"|{{sclass|Bogue|escort carrier}}
|style="border-right:2px solid" align="left"|Task Group.21.16
|-
|style="border-left:2px solid" align="left"|{{USS|Bulmer|DD-222|6}}
|align="left"|{{naval|US}}
|align="left"|{{sclass|Clemson|destroyer}}
|style="border-right:2px solid" align="left"|Task Group.21.16
|-
|style="border-left:2px solid" align="left"|{{USS|Barker||6}}
|align="left"|{{naval|US}}
|align="left"|{{sclass|Clemson|destroyer}}
|style="border-right:2px solid" align="left"|Task Group.21.16
|-
|style="border-left:2px solid" align="left"|{{USS|Paul Jones|DD-230|6}}
|align="left"|{{naval|US}}
|align="left"|{{sclass|Clemson|destroyer}}
|style="border-right:2px solid" align="left"|Task Group.21.16
|-
|style="border-left:2px solid; border-bottom:2px solid" align="left"|{{USS|Parrott|DD-218|6}}
|style="border-bottom:2px solid" align="left"|{{naval|US}}
|style="border-bottom:2px solid" align="left"|{{sclass|Clemson|destroyer}}
|style="border-right:2px solid; border-bottom:2px solid" align="left"|Task Group.21.16
|-
|}
{{clear}}

:It is a bit fiddly isn't it? I'll have a play over the weekend, thanks ;O) [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 09:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::Ooh-er, I've chopped and changed your notation but can't underline USS Schenk to separate TG 21.4, then do the same to the other TGs. Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 12:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I've edited the table above to reflect what I think you want.  Hopefully that gives you a model to apply it - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 17:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::::One thing to say this won't make sense if the tables are sorted eg. by name so you may want to turn off sorting (I have done so above)- [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 17:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
{od}} I'd worked out that I'd have to repeat the four lines at each change of TG but I couldn't stop entries skipping cells. Thanks. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 20:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

== Discussion at [[Talk:Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg#Buhl-Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg?]] ==

Your input would be welcome in the discussion about the real name of the former German Minister of Defense, [[Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg]]. Thank you! [[User:Renerpho|Renerpho]] ([[User talk:Renerpho|talk]]) 03:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

== Luftflotte 5 ==
I'm looking for better sources on this air fleet, any suggestions? Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 10:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:I found [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UmwwBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA227 ''Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis'' (pp. 225-230)] which may help. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 15:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:Also [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oeskCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA6 ''Luftwaffe over Finland'' (pp. 5-6)] [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 15:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:: Oh well, how about Axis blockade runners? [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 23:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} Thanks, I'll have a butcher's. I'm looking for more info on its anti-shipping operations. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 16:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Took a peek at Wiki de and there's an OOB lifted from Niehorster that should come in handy, I've copied it into [[Convoy PQ 15]] talk, for convenience. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 11:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

== I think I have found a hoax ==

See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Greene, North Carolina]]; while I can find evidence of a "Camp Green" from 1917-1919, I cannot find support for the specific claims. The article claims to be about a US Army fort in North Carolina active since 1890. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 23:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

:I also came across this one during the [[WP:NOV24]] drive and found nothing.  You may also be interested in [[Camp Carlisle, Virginia]], which appears to have existed at least - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 23:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

== Conversation on Vital Articles about adding and removing several types of military aircraft.  ==

I have created a discussion on [[Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/STEM]] that discusses adding/removing several types of aircraft, with an emphasis on removing some U.S. planes due to them being over represented and adding non-U.S. aircraft. Please feel free to join the conversation. [[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:grey">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:grey">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

== Discussion at [[Talk:Cramlington Aerodrome]] ==

Myself and another editor have reached an impasse regarding a trivial detail in this article. A third opinion would be welcomed.
Synopsis;
* Cramlington Aerodrome was created in 1915 as a response to Zeppelin raids
* At this time the British Army and Royal Navy were still arguing over who was responsible for Home Defence.
* When the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) took charge, was the airfield name changed to reflect this?
* When the Royal Air Force (RAF) came into being, was the airfield name changed to reflect this?
* Logic suggests that on both occasions, the name of the establishment should change, but is this supported by any evidence?
* Two sources are cited as support for a change of name - but is either of them a ''reliable source''?

[[User:WendlingCrusader|WendlingCrusader]] ([[User talk:WendlingCrusader|talk]]) 00:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

== Good article reassessment for [[Joseph McCarthy]] ==
[[Joseph McCarthy]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Joseph McCarthy/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 02:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

== Requested Page: CARDOM-T ==

There is already a [[Cardom|page]] on the standard CARDOM. Is the upgraded T-variant different enough to create a new article for it, or could it become a sub-section of the existing page? [[User:Tylermack999|Tylermack999]] ([[User talk:Tylermack999|talk]]) 14:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:It's a variant, so it should ''probably'' be added as a subsection to the existing page. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 07:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::Understood, I can start that subsection on the Cardom page. Should I remove it from the requested articles or leave it there? [[User:Tylermack999|Tylermack999]] ([[User talk:Tylermack999|talk]]) 14:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at [[Talk:Burn notice (document)#Requested move 8 November 2024]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a requested move discussion at [[Talk:Burn notice (document)#Requested move 8 November 2024]] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 16:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

== [[Draft:Israel–Hamas war spillover in Syria]] ==

I need help here.. so
The current Israel-Hamas war has spillovers is many countries in the region obviously. In [[Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)]], every theatre is [[Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)#Events by country]] has a main, more in-depth article except [[Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)#Syria]]. I wanted to create an article detailing the spillover from strikes, statements, and especially the [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/israel-says-it-conducted-a-ground-raid-in-syria-and-seized-a-syrian-citizen-connected-to-iran Recent ground operations], [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwrvw7x8j9o.amp Israeli military constructions within Syrian territory] (whcih also included resulted in some [https://www.syria.tv/إحدى-جبهاتنا-السبع-نائب-رئيس-الأركان-الإسرائيلي-يدخل-عمق-الأراضي-السورية?amp notable news]). 
at the same time, I want it to be coordinated, and sure to be justified and in-form of the general Wikipedia mode of publication/operation.
I created it as a draft and I was directed here by the Wikipedia Help Desk to seek help. I'm sure my draft is not the best it can be yet. Can people interested in the matter help? [[User:RamiPat|RamiPat]] ([[User talk:RamiPat|talk]]) 20:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

== [[Attack on Mers-el-Kébir]] ==

Does anyone have sources for the FAA squadrons embarked on Ark Royal? Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 19:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]]
:800 (Skua), 810 (Swordfish) and 818 (Swordfish) squadrons. Source: {{cite book |last1=Sturtivant |first1=Ray |title=The Squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm |publisher=Air-Britain |year=1984 |isbn=0 85130 120 7}} pages 155, 198 and 237 respectively. [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 19:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks very much. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 19:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

== Mini-drive on Category:Military history articles needing attention only to structure ==

I recently asked for help here on assessing articles in [[:Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials]].  Contributions by {{u|Chipmunkdavis}}, {{u|Hawkeye7}}, {{u|Matarisvan}}, {{u|Pickersgill-Cunliffe}}, {{u|Zawed}}, {{u|Hog Farm}} and {{u|Sturmvogel 66}} brought down that category's backlog by 50 or so and helped make progress towards our B-class target (we nudged up 0.1% on the target over the period, but not all of this will be down to the new articles generated from the drive).  

I thought I would try to replicate this success in another area.  These articles in theory need only attention to structure ie. section headers and lead paragraph.  Same procedure as before:

Look at one of the articles below and either:
*If you think it passes all of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class|B-class criteria]] and you haven't been involved in writing the article, assess it as B-class on the talk banner template
*If you think the article requires improvement against another of the B-class criteria, assess it as so on the talk banner template
*If you can improve the article to meet all of the B-class criteria, do so and then list it at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests]] for formal assessment

When you have done one of these actions strike through the article name and sign against it on the list below

Thanks in advance everybody - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 15:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

{{div col|colwidth=24em}}
;Classical
*<s>[[Battle of Coronate]]</s>Added lead plus bit of tidy. Fails B2. Improvement suggestion on talk page. [[User:Monstrelet|Monstrelet]] ([[User talk:Monstrelet|talk]]) 18:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Valens Thessalonicus]]
*[[Damasithymus]]
*[[Over Burrow Roman Fort]]
*<s>[[Later Roman Empire]]</s>Assessed as B-class.  The lead has been expanded since it was last assessed - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 22:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

;Medieval
*[[Siege of Bursa]]
*<s>[[Battle of Wels]]</s>
*<s>[[Battle of Lobregal]]</s> Coverage of actual battle is weak, though this seems to be due to lack of detailed sources.  No supporting materials so fails B5 [[User:Monstrelet|Monstrelet]] ([[User talk:Monstrelet|talk]]) 11:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*[[Desiderius Rátót]]
*[[Guy II, Count of Saint-Pol]]
*[[Giroie, Lord of Échauffour]]
*[[Byzantine–Serbian War (1090–1095)]]
*<s>[[Floris I van Haamstede]]</s> The classification needs attention - wiki central classification has this as a stub and it isn't.[[User:Monstrelet|Monstrelet]] ([[User talk:Monstrelet|talk]]) 16:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

;Early Muslim
*[[Ikrima ibn Amr]]
*[[Siege of Tomar]]
*[[Neboulos]]

;Early Modern
*[[Sydnam Poyntz]]
*[[Søren Norby]]
*[[William Killigrew (1606–1695)]]
*[[HMS Warspite (1666)]]
*[[Sefer Reis]]
*[[Pasquino Corso]]
*<s>[[Capture of Valkenburg (1574)]]</s> b2=no, doesn't feel complete.  Open to reassess if that is all that is known about the event - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 16:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Siege of Lier (1582)]]</s> b2=no - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 16:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

;American Revolutionary War
*<s>[[Raid on Charles Town]]</s> B-Class. [[User:Zawed|Zawed]] ([[User talk:Zawed|talk]]) 06:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
*[[Samuel Elbert]]
*<s>[[Thomas Overton]]</s> citing/coverage issues, downgraded to start. [[User:Zawed|Zawed]] ([[User talk:Zawed|talk]]) 08:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC) 
*[[The Radicalism of the American Revolution]]
*[[Davidson's Fort]]

;Napoleonic
*<s>[[John Piper (military officer)]]</s>b1=n, I rescued a broken ref but a couple of citations still needed - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 11:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Sir William Beauchamp-Proctor, 3rd Baronet]]
*[[Richard Valentine Morris]]
*<s>[[Kitty (1800 ship)]]</s> b1=n, couple of missing refs
*[[Henri Victor Roulland]]
*[[Henry Frederick Campbell]]
*[[George de Grey, 3rd Baron Walsingham]]
*<s>[[British Tar (1804 ship)]]</s> b2=no - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 15:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

;American Civil War
*<s>[[Silas H. Stringham]]</s> B class. Added section headings; added additional text and citations to American Civil War section. [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 07:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Edwin H. Webster]]</s> B class. Added to lede, separated text into more sections, added a little information and another reference. [[User:Donner60|Donner60]] ([[User talk:Donner60|talk]]) 03:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Augustus A. Chapman]]
*[[John Lawrence LeConte]]
*[[Madame Turchin]]
*[[David Wallis Reeves]]
*[[Walter Goodale Morrill]]
*[[Gettysburg Museum and Visitor Center]]

;World War I
*<s>[[John Sydney Lethbridge]]</s> B-Class. [[User:Zawed|Zawed]] ([[User talk:Zawed|talk]]) 07:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Robert Bridgeman, 2nd Viscount Bridgeman]]</s> b1=n, better source needed tag added - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 08:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[German War Graves Commission]]
*<s>[[Charles Justin Bailey]]</s> b1=no - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 08:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Short Folder]]</s> b1=no - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 06:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[Commander-in-Chief, South Atlantic]]
*<s>[[Leander-class cruiser (1882)]]</s> Reassessed as start, issues with sourcing plus large chunks of text expressed as quotes. [[User:Zawed|Zawed]] ([[User talk:Zawed|talk]]) 07:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[HMS Syren (1900)]]</s> expanded lead, assessed as B-class - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 20:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

;World War II
*[[List of Allied airmen from the Great Escape]]
*[[Moscow Conference (1942)]]
*<s>[[War Shipping Administration]]</s>B3 met, but B1 no. [[User:Zawed|Zawed]] ([[User talk:Zawed|talk]]) 09:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
*[[Yank, the Army Weekly]]
*<s>[[USS Araner (IX-226)]]</s> reassessed as start, as both B2 and B3 are a no. [[User:Zawed|Zawed]] ([[User talk:Zawed|talk]]) 07:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*[[Harold Redman]]
*[[Keep Calm and Carry On]]
*<s>[[Hans Stark]]</s> b1=no, has a fails verification tag already - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 08:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

;Cold War
*[[South Vietnamese Popular Force]]
*[[Project 58/58A]]
*[[David Peel Yates]]
*<s>[[John Grover (British Army officer)]]</s> Structure seems okay. Expanded intro. B-class. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 18:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Peter Harding (RAF officer, born 1940)]]</s> structure OK, but B1, B2 no. [[User:Zawed|Zawed]] ([[User talk:Zawed|talk]]) 09:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
*[[Đông Hà Combat Base]]
*[[Adrian Nance]]
*<s>[[Vladimír Nedvěd]]</s> Looks OK for B class to me - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 08:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

;Post-Cold War
*[[USS North Dakota (SSN-784)]]
*[[2008–2009 Garamba offensive]]
*[[Sinjar Resistance Units]]
*[[La vita non perde valore]]
*[[2011–12 in the Mexican drug war]]
*[[Syriac Military Council]]
*[[2013 Yemeni hospital attack]]
*<s>[[2014 Radda bombings]]</s> b2=no - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 15:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
{{div col end}}

== More eyes needed on [[Phoenix Program]] please ==

More eyes needed on [[Phoenix Program]] please. [[User:Mztourist|Mztourist]] ([[User talk:Mztourist|talk]]) 05:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

== [[Operation FB]] question ==

I have done another table under Other independent Soviet sailings (blanked for the moment) but the scholarly apparatus has appeared to its right. I though that putting <nowiki>{{clear}}</nowiki> under it would help but alas not. How do I do the table longways instead? Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 21:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

* The cells are aligned to the left, and the <nowiki>{{div col|colwidth=40em}}</nowiki> code seem to be pushing everything to the left too much, imo. [[User:Fnlayson|&#45;Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 21:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::Sorted it out, I'd left the colwidth in from when it was a list. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 08:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::* Alright, good deal. [[User:Fnlayson|&#45;Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 14:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

== Widespread fictitious reference problem ==

I've reported it as an incident on the admin noticeboard but people here probably need to be aware since the articles (I've spotted) that are affected tend to relate to military history. Maybe someone can help look for and fix this stuff?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Fictitious_references_introduced_by_User:XXzoonamiXX_around_2014 [[User:Fangz|Fangz]] ([[User talk:Fangz|talk]]) 21:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

== Austrian WW2 helicopters ==

Reposted from [[WT:AIR]] where it drew no response: So while getting back into things checking various categories and such, I came across the [[Nagler-Rolz NR 54]], a truly bizzare early helicopter. What caught my eye, though, was the fact the aircraft is universally described as "Austrian", categorised as a "1940s Austrian helicopter", and so on. The thing is...well, at the time it was built and flown, there ''was'' no Austria, as it was after the [[Anschluss]] and before the end of WW2, or even the [[Moscow Declarations]]. So I'm wondering if this should be left as "Austrian", or changed to "German" to reflect the geopolitical reality of the time it was manufactured and flown? - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 03:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

:Sources seem to agree that while the designers of the NR 54 were Austrian, the craft itself was German and is so listed by history. Indeed, the extant Smithsonian source notes "Country of Origin: Germany". Some other works from Internet Archive:<br/> Heinz Nowarra, ''Die Deutsche Luftrüstung 1933 1945'' [https://archive.org/details/epdf.pub_die-deutsche-luftrstung-1933-1945-bd4-flugzeugtypen-miag-zeppelin/page/21/mode/2up?q=%22Nagler-Rolz+NR+54%22]<br/>Smithsonian, ''The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum directory of airplanes'' [https://archive.org/details/smithsoniannatio0000unse_f6c1/page/212/mode/2up?q=%22Nagler-Rolz+NR+54%22]<br/>Eiichiro Sekigawa, ''German Military Aircraft in the Second World War'' [https://archive.org/details/aireviewsgermanm0000eiic/page/122/mode/2up?q=%22Nagler-Rolz+NR+54%22]<br/> 
:[[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 10:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

== Strategic bombing of Germany articles ==
{{ping|Elrondil}} User Elrondil appears to be doing a wholesale conversion of articles about the strategic bombing of Germany from imperial to metric weights and measures and imposing Use Oxford spelling|date=December 2024 conventions without discussion or notification. I have left a message to discuss this as he appears to be a new user and would appreciate additional scrutiny. Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 03:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping |Keith-264}} I have responded to your message. [[User:Elrondil|Elrondil]] ([[User talk:Elrondil|talk]]) 06:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Elrondil}} Thanks babe. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 09:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

== British Army ==

I think some of the articles about the British Army need some big cleanup. Does somebody fancy to help me? [[User:Mr.Lovecraft|Mr.Lovecraft]] ([[User talk:Mr.Lovecraft|talk]]) 11:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:It might be a good idea to tell us which ones, and then (on their talk pages) identify the issues. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]])

== ''The Bugle'': Issue 223, November 2024 ==

{| style="width: 100%;"
| valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" |
{|
| [[File:The Bugle.png|250px|link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News|alt=Full front page of The Bugle]]
| width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div>
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
* Project news: ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/November 2024/Project news|From the editors; awards and honours; contest results]]''
* Articles: ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/November 2024/Articles|Last month's new featured and A-class content]]''
* Book review: ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/November 2024/Book reviews|Hawkeye7 looks at battles of Operation Veritable in 1945]]''
</div>
|-
|}
|}
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
''The Bugle'' is published by the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history|Military history WikiProject]]. To receive it on your talk page, please [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Members|join the project]] or sign up [[User:The ed17/Sandbox3#Non-members who want delivery|here]].<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from [[User:The ed17/Sandbox3|this page]]. Your editors, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose|talk]]) and [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 12:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
</div>

== [[HMS Unruffled|HMS ''Unruffled'']] ==

I would appreciate some input from members of this project over at [[:Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Unruffled]].  I would like to salvage this article and prevent it from getting rejected due to a non-RS. Any help would be greatly appreciated. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 21:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

== article about a conflict that doesn't exist ==

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_conflict

"''The South Atlantic conflict was a series of crises, undeclared wars, and other conflicts between Argentina, the United Kingdom, and later Chile (on the British side) in the Southern Atlantic Ocean.''"

basically this article claims that a series of incidents between these 3 nations over the 20th century are actually part of a single long-running conflict. None of the sources used in the article say this. this conflict simply doesn't exist. 

note: I'm not accusing the author of making things up, acting in bad faith, etc. In fact, at least one historian has tried to frame some of these incidents into one single, long running conflict before. in 1988, an article was published in the ''memorial del ejercito de chile'' (chilean army quarterly magazine) about overlapping territorial claims in Antarctica. in this article, titled "''Chile y el desafío antartico internacional''", the author discusses what he calls ''la guerra de las bases'' (war of bases), a term he invented to refer to a period of time in which all 3 countries were rushing to build military installations in Antarctica in an effort to legitimize their territorial claims there. There were several violent incidents in the ''guerra de las bases'' (Hope bay incident, deception island incident, and others- these already have their own articles) the author also claims this ''guerra'' started in 1947, and ended in 1959 when the Antarctic treaty was signed. It's definitely an interesting concept, but I'm not sure the source is good enough to justify creating an article about it, and as far as I'm aware, no other authors have used the term la ''guerra de las bases'' since.

this article should probably be deleted. [[User:Bob meade|Bob meade]] ([[User talk:Bob meade|talk]]) 21:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

:I have [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Atlantic conflict|nominated the article for deletion]]. Discussion can be held there. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 22:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks! [[User:Bob meade|Bob meade]] ([[User talk:Bob meade|talk]]) 10:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

== Criticism of the Pakistan Armed Forces ==

There is an active proposal to merge [[Criticism of the Pakistan Armed Forces]] into [[The Establishment (Pakistan)]]. Please share your thoughts on this. Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/109.204.231.244|109.204.231.244]] ([[User talk:109.204.231.244|talk]]) 11:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

== I need help with Cyprus Military ranks ==

[[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Cyprus military ranks]]

i wanted to edit the visual on the military ranks to make them as the Hellenic Armed Forces, Cyprus army has 2 ranks for each NCO rank, one permanent and the other contracted-volunteer (SYP-EPY)* (Corporal and Lance corporal only have 1 design)

<nowiki>*</nowiki>Sergeant rank has 3 different variants (Permanent, SYP-EPY and SYOP) {Efedros Lochias is different sergeant and is not on the same visual)

(Warrant officer not to be modified) [[User:Asd3131|Asd3131]] ([[User talk:Asd3131|talk]]) 17:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

== Does nobody like Gwyn Jenkins? ==

General [[Gwyn Jenkins]] is the only [[Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff (United Kingdom)|Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff]] ever not to be knighted, dating back to at least 1954. He is also the first Royal Marine full general to not be knighted since 1914. Are we missing something from his article or is there not an identified reason for this? [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 18:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

:One opinion I've heard is that knighthoods generally come towards the end of a 3* general's period in appointment.  Jenkins was promoted straight from 2* to 4* for the VCDS appointment (as the marines don't usually have lieutenant-generals or higher any more, I think) so perhaps he's short circuited it a bit.  I expect he would have had been in line for one (and maybe still is) relating to his appointment as [[National Security Adviser (United Kingdom)|National Security Adviser]], as all permanent holders of that post have also been knights.  Maybe he's already had his letter for the New Year's Honours? - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 10:03, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::Having a look at the [[:Template:British_honours_lists]] the number of armed forces KCBs being granted recently is very small. Four have been nominated in the new years and birthday honours this year, of which two were 3-star Royal Marines! No RAF 3-stars knighted since 2022. There's maybe hope for Jenkins yet, as Tony Radakin wasn't knighted until he was Admiral and First Sea Lord in 2021. &mdash;[[User:Simon Harley|Simon Harley]] ([[User talk:Simon Harley|Talk]]). 13:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:::All sounds reasonable. We'll see what the New Year brings! [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 22:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, a knighthood used to be pretty much automatic for three-star officers (and some two-star officers, like the Director of Infantry and the GOC London District). That's sadly no longer the case. Many now have to wait until they reach four-star rank. I would be surprised if Jenkins wasn't knighted, however. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 15:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

== [[Operation Stoneage]] ==

Doing the OOB in tables but I can't find the right ensigns for the SAAF and RAAF, can anyone help? Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 13:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
: I've fixed both of them for you. [[User:Gavbadger|Gavbadger]] ([[User talk:Gavbadger|talk]]) 13:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC) edited [[User:Gavbadger|Gavbadger]] ([[User talk:Gavbadger|talk]]) 13:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks Babe. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 16:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

==Discussion at [[:Talk:List of attacks on the United States#Merge proposal|Talk:List of attacks on the United States §&nbsp;Merge proposal]]==
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Talk:List of attacks on the United States#Merge proposal|Talk:List of attacks on the United States §&nbsp;Merge proposal]].  [[User:Bobby Cohn|Bobby Cohn]] ([[User talk:Bobby Cohn|talk]]) 14:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->

== How are the SVGs for War Maps made? ==

I am curious if there is a standard, program, or script used to generate the SVG maps from the detailed maps as seen in:
[[File:How_war_map_templates_and_modules_work.png|300px]]

I assume it is either generated by a script that reads the data from the detailed map then adjusted by hand in a vector art program; however, I would not be surprised if it was entirely done by hand based on the detailed map. If it is not generated, I would also like to know how the colors and other conventions of the map making are determined because I have noticed discrepancies between some war template maps like how the Syrian one is different than the Myanmar (Burma) one. [[User:Sir Ross|Sir Ross]] ([[User talk:Sir Ross|talk]]) 16:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

== Egyptian airport images ==
Can anyone suggest free-use useable copies/sources for these images of [[Almaza Airport]] at this page - 2 maps and a picture? https://biggles.fandom.com/wiki/Almaza_Airport
{{u|Gavbadger}} [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 10:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:I can offer you [https://maps.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/egypt/txu-pclmaps-oclc-6559596-cairo.jpg a 1941 1:100,000 US Army map] - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 21:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

::[https://maps.lib.utexas.edu/maps/world_cities/txu-oclc-47175049-cairo3-1958.jpg This] is your 1958 one that your source uses, also US Army so PD - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 21:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you both very much!! Both added to Commons and Almaza Airport. [[User:Gavbadger|Gavbadger]] ([[User talk:Gavbadger|talk]]) 22:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[James Edward Edmonds]] ref question ==

The newspaper reference (''Gazette'') has a harv warning but I don't know how to resolve it, can anyone else? Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 22:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:I added a <code>|ref=none</code> card. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 22:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks. Typical that I know how to do that but didn't think to. ;O) Regards [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 22:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

== George Washington ==

The following question is rather subjective but of the wars that George Washington, which were the most famous/iconic? Asking this to improve the [[Outline of George Washington]] article. Thanks! [[User:Atakes Ris|Atakes Ris]] ([[User talk:Atakes Ris|talk]]) 08:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

:Didn't he only serve in the French and Indian War and American War of Independence?  Or do you mean battles? - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 22:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah I kinda meant battles but still [[User:Atakes Ris|Atakes Ris]] ([[User talk:Atakes Ris|talk]]) 06:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Depending on how fast and loose one wishes to get, as Commander in Chief he also commanded US forces as the sitting POTUS during the Whiskey Rebellion. If memory serves (and it could indeed be misremembering) this makes Washington the only sitting US POTUS to personally command troops in the field during a conflict. The WR wasnt exactly a long or bloody conflict, but that is still a neat "fun fact" in GW's military resume. [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 07:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Story goes that [https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2008/aug/20/madison-led-his-troops/ Madison led troops in action] at the [[Battle of Bladensburg]] in the War of 1812. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 08:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::So what battles that George Washington took part in were the most famous/iconic in your eyes? Thanks! [[User:Atakes Ris|Atakes Ris]] ([[User talk:Atakes Ris|talk]]) 09:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's best if you look for some reliable sources that list or discuss his iconic battles, rather than asking editors. I would expect his biographers to be the best place to start. [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 12:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks! [[User:Atakes Ris|Atakes Ris]] ([[User talk:Atakes Ris|talk]]) 13:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

== Anyone who likes British naval history need a DYK project?  ==

Hi all. I just knocked off a quick stub on [[Thomas Fenner (sea captain)]] earlier today after creating a disambiguation page at [[Thomas Fenner]]. Naval history is not really my thing, but if anyone wants to work on expanding this beyond a stub, there was a lot more on this man in his ''[[Oxford Dictionary of National Biography]]'' entry. I would imagine there would be lots of coverage in google books. He was [[Francis Drake]]'s second-in-command during some major Elizabethan era Royal Navy events. Probably could make a good hook from this. Best.[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 15:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

== Spanish translators needed to help improve a S. American project page ==

[[Ángel Pacheco (general)]] is a page that has been around for quite some time, transported over via Google translate from Spanish Wiki. While not one of the figures from the South American post-revolutionary period that has retained the most noteworthiness, his contemporary importance was undisputed. While at a quick glace his current page looks rather impressive as a Start grade page, a glaring issue is an extensive Bibliography with exactly 0 in-line citations. Ive done what I can to improve grammar and try to better structure certain information, but I cannot do much more without being able to verify if remaining information is even accurate or cited somewhere, much less if it is or is not worth including on the page.

If someone with access to the referenced Spanish language sources can spend even a small amount of time verifying at least some of the likely easier to cite claims, that would be fantastic at improving the page. I have spent some time on and off looking for English language sources...but to date have found exactly none. Seems in the Anglo-sphere he is/was all but unknown to potential interested scholars (as is the unfortunate case for many figures of South American history), but if English sources are found that would be wonderful as well. Id love to see this page reach C grade. [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 18:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:(Note to admins: If this is the wrong space for this, please move to wherever is more appropriate. I was unsure where exactly this sort of request should be posted. I assumed here was best, but could be wrong. If I was correct in leaving it here, then help me confirm that by removing this reply comment. Thank you!) [[User:TheRazgriz|<span style="color:red">Razgriz, the Red Wizard</span>]] ([[User talk:TheRazgriz|talk]]) 18:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[Action of 11–12 December 1917]] ==

Been tabling again and wonder if anyone can recommend sources to fill in the gaps? I'm short of two destroyers in the Covering force table, 4 colliers in the Lerwick–Immingham convoy table and 2 trawlers in the Armed trawlers table. Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 00:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC).

== Merging WW2 RAF / Free French squadrons into native air forces ==

Following on from this [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 169#Should the RAF/RNoAF squadrons 330-334 have separate or unified articles?|discussion in January 2023]] on the MILHIST talk page. A large number of other countries squadrons have been merged/moved to their native air forces. Looking at the French series, [[No. 326 Squadron RAF|326]], [[Escadron de Chasse 3/11 Corse|327]], [[No. 328 Squadron RAF|328]], [[No. 329 Squadron RAF|329]], [[No. 340 Squadron RAF|340]], [[No. 341 Squadron RAF|341]], [[No. 342 Squadron RAF|342]], [[No. 343 Squadron RAF|343]], [[No. 344 Squadron RAF|344]], [[No. 345 Squadron RAF|345]], [[No. 346 Squadron RAF|346]] & [[No. 347 Squadron RAF|347]], i've put merge notices on the correct French Air Force squadrons that i've found but my knowledge of the French Air Force is poor and knowledge about their Naval Air Arm is non-existent.

Is anyone able help to connect up the WW2 RAF squadrons with their native air force squadrons? [[User:Gavbadger|Gavbadger]] ([[User talk:Gavbadger|talk]]) 00:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

== Wikimojo ==

Does anyone know what this < hr > means? Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 10:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:Horizontal rule; same as <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext" inline="1">----</syntaxhighlight> wiki-markup.
:—[[User:Trappist the monk|Trappist the monk]] ([[User talk:Trappist the monk|talk]]) 14:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::Aah thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 17:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[Arthur Christie]] ==

This stub has been unsourced for 20 years. Can we do something about this? [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 02:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:Looks like you just volunteered! [[WP:SOFIXIT]]--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 09:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

== FMA 21 Requested Page ==

Is the "FMA 21" worthy of its own page? It just seems like the designation for the [[Dewoitine D.21]] built under liscence in Argentina by [[Fábrica Argentina de Aviones|FMA]]. [[User:Tylermack999|Tylermack999]] ([[User talk:Tylermack999|talk]]) 13:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:It's worthy of a redirect, but nothing more substantial.--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 09:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::Agreed, I’m going to remove it from requested pages. [[User:Tylermack999|Tylermack999]] ([[User talk:Tylermack999|talk]]) 11:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::Actually, upon further review, it does seem that the FMA 21 is its own aircraft. My confusion was with the fact that the French Dewoitine D.21 was also used by the Argentine Air Force, but the FMA 21 is a different aircraft. According to the [[I.Ae. 22 DL]] (or FMA 22) page, it was developed from the [[North American NA-16]]. I will start the new page for the FMA 21 as I.Ae. 21 DL to be consistent with the existing [[I.Ae. 22 DL|page]] of its successor. [[User:Tylermack999|Tylermack999]] ([[User talk:Tylermack999|talk]]) 14:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

== Ship Characteristics lacking uniformity ==

So I'm just a kid basically and don't know what I'm talking about.  However, there are a lot of ships on here that I often find myself at, and it is strange there isn't a formal way to set up the stats of the ships.  Some include cost, some don't.  some include ship badge, some don't.  ship mottos, classification numbers, consistent displacement(some include full load and regular, others don't specify).  I feel like it would make sense if not to standardize it at least advise for certain info to be included [[User:Mlayap|Mlayap]] ([[User talk:Mlayap|talk]]) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Mlayap}} Part of that is because we can only include the information we can find in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Some ships are much better covered than others. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 16:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

== Just FYI for American Civil War editors ==

If you're ever doing map research and find anything that would qualify for [[:Commons:Category:Old maps of plantations in the United States]] it would be wonderful if you could please add them to the category. ACW maps are one of the best sources for plantation maps which is often very connected to American slavery research...so it would much appreciated! TIA [[User:Jengod|jengod]] ([[User talk:Jengod|talk]]) 16:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

== Archiving [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input]] ==

Is someone able to set-up automatic archiving of the above after say 30 days?  Sorry, I don't have the technical know how - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 09:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:I just went through and pruned it, including for closed discussions, but some level of auto-archiving would be preferred. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 16:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have added archiving, and moved the deleted entries to the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input/Archive 1|archive]]. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 17:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::* Good move. That'll help with entries that are readded to the main page. [[User:Fnlayson|&#45;Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 19:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

== Aviation experts needed! ==

Hi all.  I am working through [[:Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials]] with a view to eliminating its backlog (as almost every article should be able to have an image or infobox).  I'm coming across quite a few articles on prototype or low-production aircraft models. Most have an infobox or image so should be B class, however they feel a little short to me.  I know next to nothing about aircraft so wondered if someone would mind having a look to see if they contain enough to satisfy the coverage aspect of B-class.  A sample below:
{{div col|colwidth=24em}}
*<s>[[Aichi AB-2]]</s>
*<s>[[Albatros D.IV]]</s>
*<s>[[Albatros W.3]]</s>
*[[Armstrong Whitworth Armadillo]]
*[[Austin Greyhound]]
*<s>[[Aviatik (Ö) C.I]]</s>--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 21:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*<S>[[Bernard H 110]]</s> Assessed as B - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 17:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Bernard SIMB AB 10]]</s> Assessed as B - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 17:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*[[BFW M.22]]
*[[Blériot 195]]
*[[Blackburn Blackburd]]
*[[Boeing Model 64]]
*[[Bristol Type 159]]
*[[Christopher AG-1]]
*<s>[[Dewoitine D.770]]</s> Assessed as B - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 17:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*[[DFW R.I]]
*<s>[[Fairey S.9/30]]</s> B1=n - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 17:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Farman F.140 Super Goliath]]</s> assessed as B - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 17:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Focke-Achgelis Fa 225]]</s>--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 21:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Fokker G.I]]</s>--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 21:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Folland Midge]]</s>--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 21:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Handley Page H.P.51]]</s>--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 21:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Hawker P.V.3]]</s>--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 21:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Hollandsche Vliegtuigenfabriek Avia]]</s>--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 21:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Horten H.XVIII]]</s>Has an image, but was improperly credited with b1=y and b2=y--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 21:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Ilyushin DB-4]]</s>
*<s>[[Ilyushin Il-1]]</s>
*<s>[[Kaproni Bulgarski KB-11 Fazan]]</s> B1=n - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 17:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*[[Kawanishi K-11]]
*[[Kawanishi K8K]]
*<s>[[Kondor D 7]]</s> assessed as B - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 19:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Kondor E 3]]</s> assessed as B - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 20:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Koshiki-2 Experimental Fighter]]</s> assessed as B - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 20:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Latécoère 611]]</s> b1=n, one uncited paragraph - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 20:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Latham Trimotor]]</s> Expanded lead and assessed as B class - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 20:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[LFG Roland D.XV]]</s> b1=n - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 21:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.4]]</s> assessed as B - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 21:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.5]]</s> assessed as B - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 21:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.6]]</s> b1=n - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 21:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[Marinens Flyvebaatfabrikk M.F.7]]</s> assessed as B - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 23:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*[[Mitsubishi Ka-8]]
*[[Mooney TX-1]]
*[[Nakajima B3N]]
*[[Nakajima Ki-62]]
*<s>[[Nieuport-Delage NiD-120]]</s> assessed as B - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 23:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*[[Nikitin PSN-1]]
*[[Nikitin PSN-2]]
*[[Parnall Prawn]]
*<s>[[Pfalz D.VI]]</s>
*<s>[[Pfalz D.VII]]</s>
*<s>[[Potez 27]]</s>
*<s>[[Potez 220]]</s>
*<s>[[Potez 230]]</s>
*<s>[[PWS-5]]</s>
*<s>[[PWS-22]]</s>
*<s>[[Rohrbach Ro IV]]</s>I'm just updating the template, not reassessing them--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 15:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*<s>[[RWD 22]]</s>
*<s>[[Sablatnig SF-1]]</s>
*<s>[[Schütte-Lanz D.VI]]</s>
*<s>[[Schütte-Lanz D.VII]]</s>
*<s>[[Short S.45]]</s>
*<s>[[Siemens-Schuckert B]]</s>
*<s>[[Siemens-Schuckert R.I]]</s>
*<s>[[Slingsby T.20]]</s>
*<s>[[SNCAC NC-600]]</s>
*<s>[[SNCAO 200]]</s>
*<s>[[Sopwith Gunbus]]</s>
*<s>[[Sopwith Swallow]]</s>
*<s>[[SPCA 10]]</s>
*<s>[[SPCA 30]]</s>
*<s>[[Spijker V.3]]</s>
*<s>[[Stampe et Vertongen RSV.22]]</s>
*<s>[[Sukhoi Su-15 (1949)]]</s>
*<s>[[Supermarine Type 391]]</s>
*<s>[[Timm AG-2]]</s>
*<s>[[Tupolev ANT-41]]</s>
*[[Vought Corsair Junior]]

{{div col end}} [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 17:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

* I suggest you post this at [[WT:WikiProject Aircraft]] (or link to this discussion there) also. Regards [[User:Fnlayson|&#45;Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 17:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thankyou.  I've just dropped a post there, asking for help - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 17:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Some of those overlap with [[:Category:Aviation articles needing attention to supporting materials]] as they have no images. There is also [[:Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of aircraft]], I went through this category recently using a script that could tell if an article had images but the 'image needed' parameter had not been changed to 'n' on the talk page. [[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] [[User talk:Nimbus227|<span style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus</span> <span style="color:#708090;">nimbus</span> <span style="color:#A9A9A9 ;">floats by)</span>]] 19:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::An infobox counts as supporting materials, so the absence of a picture doesn't fail b5.--[[User:Sturmvogel 66|Sturmvogel 66]] ([[User talk:Sturmvogel 66|talk]]) 21:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[Military asset]] ==

Is this notable and thus should be saved, or not and should be nominated for deletion at [[WP:AfD]] or merged elsewhere. Let’s decide one way or another. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 20:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:It seems to me to be impossibly vague and [[WP:DICDEF]]-y. I've [[WP:PROD|prodded it]], if that doesn't work I'd probably AFD it. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 21:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:* This article was deleted yesterday (14 December) via Prod. [[User:Fnlayson|&#45;Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 20:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

== NA-class ==

Does this project have categories for NA-class pages? These are usually for pages which are not articles and do not have a separate category. We currently have non-existent categories like [[:Category:NA-Class North American military history articles]] which are filling up. This is due to some changes we are making in the meta banner, but most projects already have these categories set up, so I'm just wondering why this one doesn't &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 22:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

: The [[Template:WikiProject Military history]] has a field called "no-task-force=" that seems to fit this need. Add "|no-task-force=yes" for images and such. [[User:Fnlayson|&#45;Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 17:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:Looking at a few, they are talk pages for files that have been moved to Commons. They ''should'' be IMG class and therefore in [[:Category:File-Class military history articles]]. Looking at [[File talk:Capt. Della H. Raney, Army Nurse Corps, who now heads the nursing staff at the station hospital at Camp Beale, CA - NARA - 535942.jpg]], it is correctly rated FM in the banner shell. Accordingly, it is correctly in [[:Category:FM-Class military history pages]]. However, it should be in [[:Category:FM-Class military logistics and medicine articles]] and ''not'' in [[:Category:NA-Class military logistics and medicine articles]]. I do not know where the NA is coming from. I could create categories for NA-class p[ages, but we shouldn't have any. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 21:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::Okay, I can partly explain this. So there was a CfD and all the FM-class categories got moved from [[:Category:FM-Class military logistics and medicine articles]] to [[:Category:FM-Class military logistics and medicine pages]]. If that category does not exist then it will fall back to NA-Class category, which is what it's doing here. I'm not sure why your categories weren't included in the CfD, but if I move them manually, then it should sort itself out &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 21:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::Hang on. According to [[Template:WikiProject Military history/class]], your project does not even use FM-class. I need to do more digging ... &mdash;&nbsp;Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 23:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think FM, like FA and FL, is EnWikipedia-wide. When you look at, say [[:Category:FA-Class military history articles]], you can see it is there. I don't think we created the categories for all the task forces. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 23:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::They all look like FM-Class. But creating the missing subcategory does not move them out of NA-class. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 23:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

== Loc map question ==

I've been trying to put Polyarny on this loc map File:Outline Map of Murmansk region.svg

using this formula <nowiki>{{Location map+ |???? |width=300 |float=right |caption={{centre|location map}} |places=
{{Location map~ |???? |lat=69.2 |long=33.46 |label=Polyarny naval base |position=right}}}}</nowiki> but can only get the version marking it on the whole of Russia. I'm getting the loc map field wrong but don't know why, can anyone help? Thanks [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 14:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]].  Sorry I am not 100% clear on what you are looking for, is it the below? - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Location map+ |Russia Murmansk Oblast |width=300 |float=right |caption={{centre|location map}} |places=
{{Location map~ |Russia Murmansk Oblast|lat=69.2 |long=33.46 |label=Polyarny naval base |position=right}}}}

:Yes but Gog the Mild had a go earlier, it didn't occur to me to mention it here, apols. [[User:Keith-264|Keith-264]] ([[User talk:Keith-264|talk]]) 23:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

== Updating Queen Elizabeth Class Displacement  ==

I'd like to update the Queen Elizabeth Class Displacement in the infobox of 65,000 tonnes which is the empty load displacement as confirmed in this FOI answer from the Royal Navy 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691861/2018-01338.pdf

To Est. 80,6000 full load which is stated in Jane's Fighting Ships 2023-2024 p. 886.

This will allow a better comparison between other aircraft carriers which use full load displacement (US Nimitz and Ford Classes and the French Charles de Gaulle as examples) [[User:SeaCeptor|SeaCeptor]] ([[User talk:SeaCeptor|talk]]) 20:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

::The concern I have here is that 1) the [https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/equipment/ships/queen-elizabeth-class official MOD website for the QE class] very prominently states the displacement (without qualification for load) as 65,000. It's unclear that Janes is the better or more preferable source here, and we're not consistent about the type of displacement that we use across infoboxes. I do not particularly strongly care either way if there's a Wikiproject consensus towards one or the other, but we should be cautious to avoid scenarios where we're discounting a manufacturer's official data for a product in exchange for a third parties, even one as reliable as Janes, when there's no question about the accuracy or reliability of the data but merely the categorization of it. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 20:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The Royal Navy, in a FOI answer, which is more reputable than the website, stated
:::"In response to your request, I can confirm that the empty displacement figure for both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales is 65,000 tonnes"
:::https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691861/2018-01338.pdf
:::We therefore know that the 65,000 tonne figure is the empty displacement.
:::From the US Navy Naval Vessel Register (NVR), that gives us Light and Full Displacements and their corresponding definitions for USS Nimitz, which has a full load displacement of 101196 tons (long tons).
:::https://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvr/getHull.htm?shipId=5151
:::So if you were to use the infobox as a quick reference tool for both classes of aircraft carrier, taking out the difference in units, a false impression would be given that the Queen Elizabeth Class displace circa 35,000 tonnes less than the Nimitz Class, whereas if you use the estimated full load figure that Janes provides, is closer to 20,000 tonnes.
:::If you look at other aircraft carriers, Wikipedia uses IISS for the displacement of the Chinese Type 003 aircraft carrier and an archived blog for the displacement of the French Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier. [[User:SeaCeptor|SeaCeptor]] ([[User talk:SeaCeptor|talk]]) 20:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

==Postnominal letters and infoboxes==
See [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#MOS:POSTNOM]] for discussion. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 15:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

== American Civil War medals and grenades ==

There is a discussion at [[Talk:Benjamin Jackson (sailor)]] that could use the attention of additional MILHIST editors familiar with the 19th-century US Navy - there are questions regarding how many medals the article subject received and if "grenade" is the best wording for an object that Jackson threw overboard. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 17:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

== Article for your attention ==

[[New Order (Nazism)]] is in a dire state and could really use some attention from experienced editors. I've started a discussion on the topic on the article's [[Talk:New Order (Nazism)#Serious issues with this article|talk page]]. Input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! [[User:CipherRephic|CR]] ([[User talk:CipherRephic|talk]]) 21:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

== [[155th Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine)]] ==

They completed training and have been sent back to Ukraine, and I'm seeing various Russian, Ukrainian, and French reports on the brigade, but can't make sense of what's going on. The article should use the highest quality sources, such as AP and Reuters, and they have given profiles on the brigade in the past, but haven't given an update since. [https://www.lavoixdunord.fr/1533644/article/2024-12-14/comme-un-donneur-d-organes-la-155e-brigade-mecanisee-formee-en-france-en-partie French source]. [https://www.kyivpost.com/post/43953 Ukraine source]. So should we wait until the highest quality sources comment on this? [[User:Harizotoh9|Harizotoh9]] ([[User talk:Harizotoh9|talk]]) 04:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

== Help needed for draft ==

I am currently working on a [[Draft:7th Marine Brigade|draft on the Chinese 7th marine brigade(more commonly known as the Jiaolong commandos)]], may I ask if anyone has any feedback or extra third-party sources on the unit?

Also the article already [[:zh:中国人民解放军海军陆战队第七旅|exists on chinese wikipedia]]. [[User:Thehistorianisaac|Thehistorianisaac]] ([[User talk:Thehistorianisaac|talk]]) 07:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

== AJ3 Tiger? ==

[https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-fresno-bee-flying-fortresses-find-ne/144356388/ This 1961 newspaper article] about the [[Harlow Fire]] mentions some firefighting aircraft, the last of which is described as "an AJ3 Tiger, a post war navy bomber". I'm baffled what that might be - neither the [[Douglas A-3 Skywarrior]] nor [[North American A-5 Vigilante]] (originally A3J) seem likely. Does anywhere here have any clues? [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 04:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
: The only references to "AJ3 Tiger" I'm finding on the Internet appear to originate with that newspaper article, so I think it's probably an error in the original reporting. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 04:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:: I'd suspect it was a [[AJ Savage]], as several were used as water bombers by AJ Air Tankers, first flying missions during 1961. "AJ Tanker" could easily be corrupted into "AJ Tiger" depending on the quality of the draft writing, with the 3 coming from a scribbled AJ-2? - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Pi.1415926535}} And looking at this more - seeing as the source describes it as "a post-war navy bomber", it's all but certain that yeah, it's a North American AJ Savage! - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub>[[User talk:The Bushranger|<span style="color: maroon;">One ping only</span>]]</sub> 05:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::* Good deal. That seems much more likely for a ''post''-war bomber to be in use around 1961. [[User:Fnlayson|&#45;Fnlayson]] ([[User talk:Fnlayson|talk]]) 05:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::*:@[[User:Fnlayson|Fnlayson]]@[[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]]@[[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]]: Thank you all for your help! That seems very likely indeed. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|talk]]) 02:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

== The state of A-Class Review ==

Based on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2024/Promoted]], the project has 23 promoted A-Class articles so far in 2024, with only a few days left in the year. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2023/Promoted]] lists 33, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2022/Promoted]] had 48, [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2021/Promoted]] had 61 if I counted right, and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2020/Promoted]] had 84. Part of this is just less nominating (I imagine the 2020 total is partially driven by all of the extra time a lot of us had during the COVID shutdowns), but this trend is a bit concerning. The robust A-Class has been a calling card of our WikiProject for years, and is a big part of why our project has historically been a leader in producing high-quality content.

I think at least part of this has been due to a decline in reviews - ACRs are often staying open for longer than in the past - I know that's caused me to skip ACR on a couple articles, and I imagine that's a factor for other potential nominators as well. This process has a strong peer-review value, especially for future FAC candidates. It's especially helpful to get subject-matter experts looking those articles over before a FAC. I know I've been remiss with my A-Class reviewing this past year, but I'm going to remedy that if my spare time holds up like I think it well for the next couple months. We've currently got an American admiral from both World Wars, a Cold War-era missile engine project, an early-20th century German warship, a battle from the Mongol conquests of the 13th century, a late-20th century radar system, and an American warship from the Civil War. It would be nice if A-Class could make a bounce-back in 2025. [[User:Hog Farm|Hog Farm]] <sub> ''[[User talk:Hog Farm|Talk]]''</sub> 20:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

== Two new Chinese stealth fast jets for Mao's birthday ==

(Copied from [[Wt:Aviation]]) We already have [[Chengdu J-36]]; just to double check that the fast jet guys around here are working on something for this [[Shenyang Aircraft Corporation]](?) product:
Yes, China Just Flew Another Tailless Next-Generation Stealth Combat Aircraft
https://twz.com/air/yes-china-just-flew-another-tailless-next-generation-stealth-combat-aircraft
Let's keep watching our sixes. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 06:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

== SLNS_Gajabahu_(P626) has 2 different launch dates ==

For [[SLNS_Gajabahu_(P626)]] the infoboxes repeat information under its different owners, but have different launch dates [[User:Vicarage|Vicarage]] ([[User talk:Vicarage|talk]]) 11:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)