WendlingCrusader

Hello, WendlingCrusader, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Tbennert (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Getting started

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

Finding your way around

• Table of contents
• Directories and indexes
• Department directory

Editing articles

• How to develop an article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help

• Frequently asked questions
• Cheatsheet
• Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
• The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
• Help pages
• Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

• Community Portal
• Join a WikiProject
• Follow Wikipedia etiquette
• Practice civility
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Hawker Hurricanes

Hello! I saw your note regarding commons about the essentially duplicate category on wikicommons. Those category issues can be a serious mess to understand. I requested deletion of the extra one and it was taken care of by someone who knew what to do. Thanks for bringing it to attention! Tbennert (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding my concern, sorting out the duplication issue, and kick-starting my user: talk page. When I first saw the Welcome to Wikipedia box (or should I call it a template ?) above, I didn't notice your user ID, and assumed it was a generic thing that popped up all by itself - I'm still learning, and clearly there is so much more to learn.

I have a further issue with the Hurricane categories at Commons, which would probably benefit from a discussion with somebody interested in aviation / categories. Is that you, or could you recommend somebody?

FYI at c:Category:Hawker_Hurricane there is a sub-category labelled c:Category:Albion_AM463_refueller which contains 10 photos of this vehicle, together with either a Spitfire (2 photos), a Hurricane (5 photos), or a Defiant (3 photos). Whilst it is very interesting, to me it seems slightly off-topic, unless there is a good argument for including a vehicle category on the Hurricane page, and not including it on either the corresponding Spitfire or Defiant pages.

But before you suggest I enrole with a Commons categories task-force, these are just two examples I have accidentally stumbled across, and I can quite happily tip-toe away from these problems without losing sleep. I'm just here to learn.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi! So sorry for the delay on responding. I missed a bit on my watchlist apparently. The short answer to this question is - I don't know. Wikimedia Commons is actually a sister project that handles all the media. I asked your question at Commons:Village pump#Category:Hawker Hurricane. Hopefully someone there can help. I would encourage you to create an account over at Commons, mostly to find a "buddy" that can help when you stumble across these issues. All the wikipedia projects rely on Commons, so correct and easy to use categories are important. I'm happy to help, and know just enough to proceed on basic things. When it gets into subjects I have no clue on, then we need to call in more experienced people. Glad to see you plugging along and improving articles! --Tbennert (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Thanks for contributing to the article RAF Alconbury. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes please, let's talk about this. Firstly a confession - I have first-hand memories of Alconbury from 1975-80, but I know well enough that doesn't count for much without verfiable sourcing, however it does mean that I can pull scraps of information together to tell a better story than the miserable offering currently passing as an article here. Those scraps can be a nightmare in terms of providing inline citations, and in other articles I have ended up adding a long sequence of citations to a single sentence. The end result is accurate, but not exactly pretty.(¹)(²)(³)...(¹¹)

I also am not a fan of re-inventing the wheel, and I didn't think that was Wikipedia policy either.

In essence, I believe that everything I have written is covered, either by existing sources already quoted within the article e.g. <ref*name=ABCT/> which is cited 19 times already, or within another related article e.g. note (a) 'Due to a shortage of space at RAF Sculthorpe...' i.e. see RAF Sculthorpe for more details.

So... please can you be specific as to which part(s) of my edit fail? This is a genuine request - I hope I do not come across as confrontational.

But there is also a part two, which I will lay out in a separate reply.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

(Part two) -

Still on the RAF Alconbury article, notice the section headed USAAF use

IMO it is overly long, and yet conveys so little information.

Five Bombardment Groups are listed, together with all their constituent squadrons. Why?

Notice also the same citations listed against each individual entry - is that really helpful? Or am I the one who is out of step here?

My proposed edit would reduce the listing to just the FIVE Bombardment Groups (because individual squadrons can be inferred from that alone). And an indication of the aircraft type would be soooo useful (B-17, B-24, B-52, something else?). And an indication of the era we are talking about, because not everyone will associate these entries with the second half of WWII (currently I am guessing, but before editing I will of course verify that fact). But if I add that detail, will I also have to justify it, beyond the existing references, and the fact each unit already has its own page on Wikipedia (containing this exact information)? I'm not arguing for Wikipedia self-referencing, but these pages do themselves contain verifiable sources. Must I re-invent the wheel here in the RAF Alconbury article?

WendlingCrusader (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)