# Talk:Operation Matterhorn

A map or maps would be helpful; show locations of bases in China, targets in Japan, supply routes. The article refers to all. — Otherwise, the article is B-class. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Operation Matterhorn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218201259/http://www.intergate.com/~sandcrab/China_Bases.htm to http://www.intergate.com/~sandcrab/China_Bases.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213230558/http://www.intergate.com/~sandcrab/ to http://www.intergate.com/~sandcrab/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050311211933/http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/hittinghome/hittinghomepg5.htm to http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/hittinghome/hittinghomepg5.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps readers and editors interested in this topic might be able to help improve RAF Chengtu, which seems to have emerged from one of the based around Chengtu. Klbrain (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Hawkeye7 please explain how my edits don't comply with MOSNUM, when numbering is used inconsistently across this page. For example you changed "It took 63 minutes to get them all in the air." to "It took sixty-three minutes to get them all in the air." But the preceding sentence reads "Of the 112 bombers that were readied for the mission, 98 took off from India." Why is that? Similar inconsistencies occur across the page.
You have restored various duplicate links like Hankou, Sortie etc.
In relation to MOSMILITARY there seems to be a bigger issue to resolve. All the pages for different ranks of General and Colonel use capital for the first word and small for the second, so if that's how it's done for all the master pages, why are you using caps for both words? Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Using caps for both words in military ranks is correct when used as titles, as is lower case of the second word in article titles on ranks. MOS:MILITARY: "Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under § Titles of people, below. For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general."
The article on brigadier general should start with a capital letter. MOS:TITLECAPS: "For Wikipedia article titles that are not the titles of works and are not in other languages, the English Wikipedia uses sentence case."  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
That doesn't address the issue. The Brigadier general page isn't Brigadier General, why is that? Why every time do you need to make the link Brigadier general | Brigadier General? Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
"Brigadier General" is used when it is the title of a person. Otherwise we use lower case except when starting a sentence or an article title, when it is sentence case. Because the article title has a lower case "g" and a disambiguation in parentheses, I use a redirect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
MOS:NUMERAL: "Generally, in article text: Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words. Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred). When written as words, integers from 21 to 99 that are not multiples of 10 are hyphenated (including when part of a larger number): fifty-six and fifty-six thousand, but five hundred and five thousand.". Consistency is not required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Inconsistency, particularly in the same paragraph is jarring and frankly ridiculous. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Words are generally preferred over digits, which most people find jarring. I deliberately switch when the context changes to avoid confusion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
I have done a pass through the article and ensured that the repeat links have all been removed. MOS:DUPLINK: Link a term at most once per major section... Major sections are generally detailed sections with a level-2 heading" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)