Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,928) • only work on referencing and citation (43,222) • work on coverage and accuracy (124,313) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,909) • work on structure (32,017) • only work on structure (339) • work on grammar (8,295) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (33,072) • only work on supporting materials (1,290) • assessment (168) • assessment as lists (0) • project tags fixed (2) • assessment checklists added (16) • assessment checklists completed (124) • task forces added (2) • attention to task force coverage (654)

Military history WikiProject
Main project page + talk News & open tasks Academy
Core work areas
Assessment Main page  → A-Class FAQ  → B-Class FAQ  → A-Class review requests  → Assessment requests  → Current statistics  → Review alert box
Contests Main page  → Contest entries  → Scoring log archive  → Scoreboard archive
Coordination Main page + talk  → Handbook  → Bugle newsroom talk  → ACM eligibility tracking  → Discussion alert box
Incubator Main page  → Current groups and initiatives
Special projects Majestic Titan talk
Member affairs Membership Full list talk  → Active / Inactive  → Userboxes Awards Main page talk  →A-Class medals  →A-Class crosses  → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves
Resources Guidelines Content Notability Style Templates Infoboxes  → Command structure doc · talk  → Firearm cartridge doc · talk  → Military award doc · talk  → Military conflict doc · talk  → Military installation doc · talk  → Military memorial doc · talk  → Military person doc · talk  → Military unit doc · talk  → National military doc · talk  → Military operation doc · talk  → Service record doc · talk  → Militant organization doc · talk  → Weapon doc · talk Navigation boxes doc · talk  → Campaignboxes doc · talk Project banner doc · talk Announcement & task box  → Discussion alert box  → Review alert box Template design style doc · talk Showcase Featured articles 1509 Featured lists 149 Featured topics 32 Featured pictures 544 Featured sounds 69 Featured portals 5 A-Class articles 687 A-Class lists 40 Good articles 5,561 Automated lists Article alerts Most popular articles New articles Nominations for deletion
Task forces General topics Fortifications Intelligence Maritime warfare Military aviation Military culture, traditions, and heraldry Military biography Military historiography Military land vehicles Military logistics and medicine Military memorials and cemeteries Military science, technology, and theory National militaries War films Weaponry Nations and regions African military history Asian military history Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history Balkan military history Baltic states military history British military history Canadian military history Chinese military history Dutch military history European military history French military history German military history Indian military history Italian military history Japanese military history Korean military history Middle Eastern military history Nordic military history North American military history Ottoman military history Polish military history Roman and Byzantine military history Russian, Soviet and CIS military history South American military history South Asian military history Southeast Asian military history Spanish military history United States military history Periods and conflicts Classical warfare Medieval warfare Early Muslim military history Crusades Early Modern warfare Wars of the Three Kingdoms American Revolutionary War Napoleonic era American Civil War World War I World War II Cold War Post-Cold War
Related projects Blades Espionage Firearms Pritzker Military Museum & Library Piracy Ships
edit · changes

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This WikiProject was featured in the WikiProject report in the Signpost on 29 October 2012.

This project has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: David Stahel (18 July 2018). "The Battle for Wikipedia: The New Age of 'Lost Victories'?". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Retrieved 1 April 2019. Noam Cohen (September 8, 2021). "One Woman's Mission to Rewrite Nazi History on Wikipedia". Wired (magazine). Retrieved September 9, 2021.

Hi WikiProject Military history, I’d like to invite anyone interested to join the WikiProject Unreferenced Articles #NOV24 Backlog Drive. There's already been an impressively large reduction in the number of unreferenced military history articles over the last months, but in case you want to apply any more of that energy to the drive, you can quickly access a list of remaining ones here. The drive runs through November, and any help adding reliable sources is welcome. Thanks! Turtlecrown (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been suggested I draw attention to this Talk:War reserve constable both on here and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement in the hope someone with better skills and ideas than myself can sort out an inaccuate section (they says only 3 WRCs were killed 'in the line of duty' when that's clearly not the case. Many thanks to anyone willing to have a look! Rhillman (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:5.56×45mm NATO#Requested move 29 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 01:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)#Requested move 6 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haile Selassie has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be welcome at Talk:Eric Braeden#Wilhelm Gustloff. Thanks for participating! Renerpho (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Project Military History. Advertising 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. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 wars, etc. MinorProphet (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.⇒SWATJester 23:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Donner60 (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Houthi missiles. ⇒SWATJester 17:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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." ⇒SWATJester 20:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 "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 sending a B2 to bomb Houthi bunkers.) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. ⇒SWATJester 05:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Donner60 (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's now an open RFC, where people who have previously participated in discussion can now come to restate their opinions. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PhotogenicScientist: isn't that RfC asking a different question? Ally =/= combatant unless I'm missing something Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The belligerents are Hamas and Israel, the lists say allies, no matter what the parameter is called. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You stop repeating yourself and I will. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@87.212.79.61: keeps adding 350,000 (August/Septermber) in the infobox but fails to cite it to a reliable source, any suggestions? Keith-264 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. ⇒SWATJester 21:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Keith-264 (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. ⇒SWATJester 23:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had hoped that the editor would have been ready for dialogue. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps another tactic would be to find a reference, Google Books has:

• Ferro, Mark (2001). The Great War: 1914–1918. London: Routledge. p. 45. ISBN 978-0415267359.

"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".

Alansplodge (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now added to the infobox. Does anyone have a ref for British casualties, quoted as 29,597 (seems very precise). Alansplodge (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a wonderful document produced by the War Office in 1920: 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 - Dumelow (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the BEF figure now has a ref and note, so this seems to be... Alansplodge (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Apropos Statistics.... some of the data is inconsistent and other items have been challenged.....Keith-264 (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently asked for help here on assessing articles in Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials. Contributions by Chipmunkdavis, Hawkeye7, Matarisvan, Pickersgill-Cunliffe, Zawed, Hog Farm and 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 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 - Dumelow (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

@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? Gavbadger (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe RNAS Kai Tak should be merged into RAF Kai Tak. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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. Mikeyp72 (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikeyp72: To be fair to Mikey, he's written a rather good article. Is the RAF article good enough to merge with the RNAS? Keith-264 (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(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. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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... Mikeyp72 (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @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. Mikeyp72 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!! Buckshot06 (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06, @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. @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! Mikeyp72 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Keith-264 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Gavbadger (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Could someone from this task force take a look at edits like 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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a problem. Will look further to see how far along we are. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. BusterD (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to post a longer reply here, but I agree with BusterD who summarizes it better than I was going to. Hog Farm _Talk 21:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. ⇒SWATJester 23:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. BusterD (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And of course Wikipedia 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. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for better sources on this air fleet, any suggestions? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis (pp. 225-230) which may help. Alansplodge (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Luftwaffe over Finland (pp. 5-6) Alansplodge (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, how about Axis blockade runners? Keith-264 (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a butcher's. I'm looking for more info on its anti-shipping operations. Keith-264 (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Keith-264 (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 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 - Dumelow (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TF.21.

Name	Flag	Type	Notes
USS Card	United States Navy	Bogue-class escort carrier	Task Group.21.14
USS Decatur	United States Navy	Clemson-class destroyer	Task Group.21.14
USS Leary	United States Navy	Wickes-class destroyer	Task Group.21.14
USS Schenck	United States Navy	Wickes-class destroyer	Task Group.21.14
USS Core	United States Navy	Bogue-class escort carrier	Task Group.21.15
USS Belknap	United States Navy	Clemson-class destroyer	Task Group.21.15
USS George E. Badger	United States Navy	Clemson-class destroyer	Task Group.21.15
USS Goldsborough	United States Navy	Clemson-class destroyer	Task Group.21.15
USS Block Island	United States Navy	Bogue-class escort carrier	Task Group.21.16
USS Bulmer	United States Navy	Clemson-class destroyer	Task Group.21.16
USS Barker	United States Navy	Clemson-class destroyer	Task Group.21.16
USS Paul Jones	United States Navy	Clemson-class destroyer	Task Group.21.16
USS Parrott	United States Navy	Clemson-class destroyer	Task Group.21.16

It is a bit fiddly isn't it? I'll have a play over the weekend, thanks ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Keith-264 (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the table above to reflect what I think you want. Hopefully that gives you a model to apply it - Dumelow (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)- Dumelow (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Keith-264 (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you see Commons under the 'In other projects' menu for an article, you can just add {{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 {{commons category|Canada}} will get you what's on the right. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll hide my blushes. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[[File:B-24 Liberators at low altitude.jpg|thumb|upright|left|B-24s bomb the [[Ploiești]] oil fields in August 1943.]] 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 Keith-264 (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 are rare. Ed  08:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]