Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 174

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 170←Archive 172Archive 173Archive 174

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. 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. Loafiewa (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Great start!! I've made some additions and copied in H I Sutton's page. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

USS Texas (BB-35) A-Class reappraisal

Reposted from coordinator talk page for greater coverage. 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 dry dock for repairs. There are several issues (article version):

  • A1: The citation style is inconsistent. There are refs (including some bare URLs) mixed in with {{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 {{third-party inline}} as of Sept. 2012). There's also a valid {{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, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I've nominated this for GAR as well: USS Texas (BB-35) (nom). voorts (talk/contributions) 01:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

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 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, 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 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 (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. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 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 of course be lowercase, though a minority of books cap it. Specific qualification badges can be capped. 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. 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. 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. AA (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi 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 - 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 :) AA (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! - 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 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. 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 Keith-264 (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I've edited the infobox but wonder now if it's the right one? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

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) 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? AA (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 - 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). Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Field force 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. AA (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, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Added. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: y'all may also be interested. Ed [talk] [OMT] 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!) Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

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. Back in 2018, there was a proposal that we move away from long term goals towards more short-term goals. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Looks like this is being tackled at WT:MHCOORD#Suggestions. Ed [talk] [OMT] 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. 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. :-) Ed [talk] [OMT] 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 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. {{short description|German withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line, 1917}} ('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.... Keith-264 (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
You turned on the syntax highlighter.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll get rid. Keith-264 (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
@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. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

No thanks, too fussy. 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. 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 Historyguy1138. Thanks! Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Ed. (: 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 {{infobox military unit}} 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.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

According to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG which is one of WP Guidelines, 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. 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. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@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, Germany, Romania or 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 replace 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.
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? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
NO I do not think they do, but do often cause a lot of hassle. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Flags are like adjectives and adverbs, the less the better. Keith-264 (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Leslie Controls

When I created the article Leslie Controls (before I knew what sources were 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.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

At the very least, you'd need to add whatever exactly it supplied to the military.--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 here.
However, I was hoping this source would be approved. It gives a little more detail. I don't want to type the quotes myself.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 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 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 QF 18-pounder gun, or an 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 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, 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. 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 Regiment of Artillery and List of regiments and corps of the Indian Army#Artillery. Thanks for your help. 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.--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 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. Supplement to London Gazette, 10 July 1946) From 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 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? 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 - 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 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

Classical
Medieval
Early Muslim
Crusades
Early Modern
Three Kingdoms
American Revolutionary War
Napoleonic
American Civil War
World War I
World War II
Cold War
Post-Cold War

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 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. —⁠ ⁠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?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. Dicklyon may have been at least partly mistaken in his edit summary ten years ago. Apparently, Leavitt was an engineer who worked at the E. W. Bliss Company, and the person named E. W. 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. SMcCandlish may have some expertise on this question. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I found one source referring to "the Bliss-Leavitt Company", but the article about the E. W. Bliss Company does not say the company ever had that name, and I suspect it did not. —⁠ ⁠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. 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. 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).

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).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 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: Starmer accepted tickets to Taylor Swift gig 6 months ago!" "CIA and MI5 cuddle up again!" "Still no British planes on our aircraft carriers!" "Bake Off goes underground: Strictly filmed in nuclear bunker!" I'll keep you in mind. 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-wide November 2024 unreferenced article backlog drive? If so 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 - 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.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 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! - 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 reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

'the JsonConfig extension'

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

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

Ship templates question

What's the difference between {{sclass| and {{sclass2|? Thanks 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 destroyers, as there was no member of the class named HMS Battle). Parsecboy (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Aaah, thanks 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 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? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, i've sorted out the redirects to the correct unit articles. 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 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.

Many of them included the national guard at the very least, If we stop there what about 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. Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say leave them out. Intothatdarkness 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. (: 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. Intothatdarkness 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? Slatersteven Horse Eye's Back Intothatdarkness
Under these guidelines I do not think we could include 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 German Coast Uprising.
Should we maybe add a note on this on the list? What do you guys think. (: 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). Intothatdarkness 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 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. Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
As do I, this changies nothing. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
No. 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. (: 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. 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. 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? Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't see a compelling reason to include any of them, regardless of national origin. Intothatdarkness 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 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. (: 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? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Just using the dictionary definition. 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. Intothatdarkness 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, 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. 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. Intothatdarkness 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. 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. Intothatdarkness 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. 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. Intothatdarkness 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. 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree to an extent. Like I said to Slatersteven I definitely would not include the Tong Wars or 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 Pirates (not sure if the USA actually fought them or not. I think the 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 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 Blair Mountain and just have it under the header as (part of the coal wars)? What do you think? (: 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? 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. 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. Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
It still wouldn't be a war... These simply are not wars. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No. Even when there was some violence, "war" is used only as a metaphor. 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 @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 Rebellion. 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. Horse Eye'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 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 should be included on the list and not the full war. Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I find your logic peculiar and remain unconvinced. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. As I mentioned to 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. 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. Donner60 (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

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

There's currently a 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! 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. 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 (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?

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. Intothatdarkness 16:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
For the US Army at least, we have an 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 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. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
@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?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.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 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-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. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 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. 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. Intothatdarkness 12:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
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. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Not sure why you pinged Lineagegeek here as they haven't participated in the discussion. Intothatdarkness 15:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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. 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. Intothatdarkness 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 Buckshot06 (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@Buckshot06
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.
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. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 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 Lineagegeek 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. 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 Keith-264 (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Matter resolved, thanks Nthep. Keith-264 (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing for events at Kamal Adwan Hospital, Gaza

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kamal Adwan Hospital sieges § Over-use of Al Jazeera. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

What do we do?

Hi Buckshot06, why the change to the Project's main page - [1]. 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. 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. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Very droll. For you Buckshot, the war is over. 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 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 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:

  • 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.
  • David Rolf in The Bloody Road to Tunis credits Gruppe Koch with this attack, and shows Schmid as attacking further north. Indeed, 5th regiment seems to have been part of Kampfgruppe Koch. This is pretty convincing, but...
  • 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".

Based on 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. 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 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. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Battle of the Frontiers

@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)

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 Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 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. 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. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I had hoped that the editor would have been ready for dialogue. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Resolved

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

RNAS Kai Tak

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)

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

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)

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)
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 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)

That could be a problem. Will look further to see how far along we are. Thanks! 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. 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. Hog Farm Talk 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. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 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. BusterD (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
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)

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

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)

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)
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 Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 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. 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 Houthi missiles. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 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. 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." ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 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 "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)
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 Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 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). Horse Eye'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. Donner60 (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)
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)
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)
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)
You stop repeating yourself and I will. 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... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Commons Category question

Wikimedia Commons has media related to 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 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 {{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)
Thanks, I'll hide my blushes. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Russo-Caucasian conflict

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

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

Pic question

[[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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

{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. 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! Renerpho (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Luftflotte 5

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

I found Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis (pp. 225-230) which may help. Alansplodge (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Also Luftwaffe over Finland (pp. 5-6) Alansplodge (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh well, how about Axis blockade runners? Keith-264 (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. 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. Hog Farm Talk 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 - 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. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 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?

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 reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_174&oldid=1258752748"