User talk:Lineagegeek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE!
Leave me message·My archive

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Lineagegeek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Pinkstrawberry02talk 13:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Inactivate versus deactivate[edit]

In a recent reversion of the terminology, the action was not without some deliberate thought and after research, delving into etymology, before making any reversions. If you are saying that "inactivate" is the proper military terminology, that is news to me as the process of deactivating a base or unit is to make it "inactive". See:<http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/MayJun08/deactivate_review.html> Even the dictionary definitions of the terms do not support the use of "inactivate" as most style guides refer the author/reader to "deactivate" as the proper use. There are even writers that claim that the adjective: "inactive" is proper while the verb: "inactivate" is not. FWiW, no style guides support the use of "inactivate" as it is seen as an example of an affectation or even "made-up" word. Bzuk (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) I think WP:JARGON may apply. While 'inactivate' may well be the official terminology, 'deactivate' is what's commonly used. Since it isn't wrong, per se, using the term more people will recognise might be preferable. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that "deactivate" (or the noun "deactivation") is more commonly used than "inactivate", although I would be happy to see support for this. (see below) I also disagree that the word "inactivate" is either jargon or more difficult to understand than "deactivate." "Inactivate" (with respect to US Army and Air Force units) also has the benefit of distinguishing what was done from other terms like "disband" or "demobilize" that "deactivate" does not do.
I would also be surprised to see the distinction between the words made in style guides with regard to military units. I did a little Googling in response to the style guides issue and did find one flat assertion [1] that "inactivate" should never be used. As for actual usage (and response to whether "inactivate" is really a word), there is one response that the Corpus of Contemporary American English (not familiar to me) gives 88 examples of "inactivate" and 102 for "deactivate" (indicating actual usage is fairly even) while another response indicated 8,180,000 Google results for "deactivate" and 17,600,000 for "inactivate. [2] (speculating specifically that the results may be skewed by military (and scientific) usage).
I have refrained from changing the term with regard to bases, although I believe in that case the simple word "closed" is approprate in about 7/10ths of the cases. I also refrain from changing the term when it appears with non-USAF units. (Although it would be appropriate for US Army and inappropriate for US Navy units) Finally, if I knew anything about your senses of humor, I would make a closing remark, but experience tells me that humor in emails, blogs, or whatever frequently is misunderstood and never in favor (or favour) of the one who believes he is being humorous.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I can't speak for the Buschman (not an Aussie as far as I can tell, but an aficionado of the bang-'em-up sport), but my sense of humour is definitely (Note the Canadianism, I is Canajan, and sometimes classified for whatever purposes, as an official historian of the Royal Canadian Air Force, so that alone has to be accompanied by a sense of impropriety, at least) out-of-whack. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC).

Not sure what google results you have, but on my basic search of terms, "deactivate" is overwhelmingly the more common usage, by a factor of 7X or more. "Inactivate" is most often associated with a biological or medical term, and does not appear in the DOD Dictionary of Military Terms, although "inactive" does, as well as "deactivate." Just sayin', Bzuk (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I was following the statement on the linked page concerning Google. Trying it myself got about what you did (to 15,200,000 to 2,630,000), although using the past tense of both verbs (because it would be more frequent in references to military units evens things out, even giving a slight edge to "inactivate" (1,640,000 to 1,800,000). I seem to have stored my copy of the OED so well I can't find it despite searching for several days, but other dictionaries seem to add military use as well as the scientific use you cite in entries for inactivate.
First meaning listed: Release from military service or remove from the active list of military service
  • Websters Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged)
Second meaning listed: to remove a military unit from the active list without disbanding.

Lineagegeek (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Inactivation[edit]

Please look at the two edits I made prior to this if you have time. I have two copies of The United States Air Force Dictionary. Deactivate is in it with this note: ""Deactivate" is not considered good usage in the AF. See activate." Inactivate, inactivated and inactivation are listed as the preferred United States Air Force usage. Would you like a copy? Thank you for your service to our country. Welcome Home! GBU. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on a couple of different sources. I have made the same change frequently, but confine myself to units (although I think facilities should usually be "closed" rather than "deactivated.") I usually mark the changes as minor copyedits if I do nothing else to the article. But at any rate a .pdf or .doc of the dictionary would be a useful reference.--Lineagegeek (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The two copies of The United States Air Force Dictionary I have are books, not files. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Inactivated vs deactivate[edit]

My bad. Deactivate tends to be a NATO term and figured it was the same for the USAF. Gotta love the jargon. Just don't tell me you cal UAVs 'uninhabited aerial vehicles' because then we just can never be friends...at all. lol Superfly94 (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The 443d Operations Group (and the 443d Military Airlift Wing)[edit]

Hi, Lineagegeek,

I needed to start a “new” section for a unit that we haven’t mentioned yet, I don’t believe.

In this “new” discussion, I will be talking about two units actually… first, the 443d Operations Group with just a brief tie-in to the 443d Military Airlift Wing. Then, in my “P.S.” I will be talking more about the 443d Military Airlift Wing.

Starting with the Wiki article for the 97th Bomb (Operations) Group, I found… In the first sentence of the “lead’s” fifth paragraph, I happened to click on the link for the 443d Operations Group. It redirected me to the 443d Troop Carrier Group. OK, I guess.

According to this article, in the “lead,” it was last inactivated on 8 January 1953. Yet, in the “Lineage” section, it says “1 February 1953.” (A “minor” issue right now.)

Nevertheless, where is the 443d Operations Group? I can’t find it on AFHRA, either. If it’s an inactive unit and has been “pulled” from their web site, maybe I need to ask Mr. Haulman for the “Lineage and Honors History” that is on a Word document?

An aside: in searching AFHRA, I have seen that “this or that” unit was indeed assigned to the 443d Operations Group, such as, “443 Operations Group, 1 Oct 1991.” But, I just can’t find the Group itself.

Staying in the lead’s fifth paragraph for the 97th Operations Group, the Group absorbed “…the personnel and aircraft of the 443d Operations Group at Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma.” OK, fine.

But, the 97th Operations Group could not have “absorbed” a unit that was last inactivated in 1953, right?

Perhaps this is a “bad” link for the 443d Operations Group? I dunno. Apart from the possibility of a “bad link,” once more, where is the 443d Operations Group, either on Wiki or AFHRA? Or, is this all just a “typo?” The author did not really mean 443??

In the “Lineage” section for the 443d Troop Carrier Group, shouldn’t the 443d Operations Group show up some time? That is, wasn’t the Troop Carrier Group ever redesignated as the Operations Group?

Lastly, I found (on Wiki) the article for the 443d Airlift Wing (last inactivated on October 1, 1992). OK, fine. In “Components/Groups,” it lists “443d Troop Carrier Group: June 27, 1949 – January 8, 1953.” But, there is no 443d Operations Group. Shouldn’t it be there?

Again, where is the 443d Operations Group? (Once more, I can’t find it on AFHRA, either.)

Please let me know your thoughts when you get a chance, OK?

Thanks in advance, Rob

P.S. Now, for the second unit… in the Wiki article for the 443d Airlift Wing, in the “Lineage” section, it says that the wing was inactivated on October 1, 1992.” OK, fine.

But, it also says that personnel and equipment were redesignated 97th Air Mobility Wing. That sure doesn’t sound right, does it???

On the “flip side,” in the 97th Air Mobility Wing’s “Lineage” section, there is no 443 listed anywhere, as expected, of course.

Yes, the 97th was redesignated as the 97th Air Mobility Wing on 21 August 1992 and activated on 1 October 1992. But, the 97th AMW was not redesignated as such following the 443d, right? The 97th AMW was redesignated as such following the 97th Wing, right?

An aside: in the narrative (last sentence of the second paragraph, under “History”), it says that the 443d Military Airlift Wing was inactivated on June 8, 1953. Yet, the “Lineage” section says January 8, 1953. (Hmmm.)

Another aside: should the article’s name itself be changed to include the word “Military?”

Please let me know your thoughts about this unit, also, when you get a chance, OK?

Thanks in advance, Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

First, be bold when you find an obvious discrepancy (like the dates that don't match). Go to a reliable source, get the right answer and make the appropriate edit.
Second, when one unit is inactivated and replaced by another unit, it is not at all uncommon to see someone saying it was "redesignated." That even includes "official" sources for several reasons (as outlined in Ravenstein, Charles A. (1975). Lineage and Honors Histories: Their Parts and Problems in Preparing. Maxwell AFB, AL: Albert F. Simpson Historical Research Center. ). That will almost always be wrong, as here.
Third, WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME calls for articles on units to be under the most current name of the unit in most cases, so the solution is to move the page. The most recent L&H history for the 443d Ops Gp was probably prepared when it was activated in 1991. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

OK, I will try to be more “bold” in certain cases. I have been that way “here and there” as I have been gaining the confidence to do so. I have also been adding some photos (already uploaded on Wiki) here and there. (Please see “P.S.” below.)

Yet, as you saw in this “New section,” the two (443d) articles seemed very “sketchy” to me. And, I had little-to-no info or confidence in changing anything.

However, one “bold” thing that I recently did was to change the wording in the “Lineage” section for the 443d Airlift Wing. On the last line, I changed “redesignated” to read “assumed by the new” 97th Air Mobility Wing. I really think that the new wording is much more accurate. (As you know, on October 1, 1992, the 443d was inactivated, not redesignated.)

Also, because of your work with the 443d Operations Group, in the Wiki article for the 443d Airlift Wing (Components/Groups), I added “443d Operations Group: October 1, 1991 – October 1, 1992.”

An aside: When I looked at the “Lineage” section, I saw what a very “short life” the 443d Operations Group had, no? (Just one year. No wonder it may have gotten “lost in the shuffle.”)

Your recent work on the 443d Operations Group was most helpful. I do agree when you say that articles on units are to be under the most current name of the unit in most cases. I clearly see you that you said in most cases.

Yes, in Wiki’s article on the 97th Bomb (Operations) Group (first sentence of the “lead’s” fifth paragraph), I had indeed noticed that the “link” for the 443d Operations Group took me to the “OLD” unit (443d Troop Carrier Group), not the new one or the latest one. In this case, the link was “backwards” or “outdated,” so to speak. Thanks for fixing that!!

Yet, I still might want to request the “Lineage and Honors History” for the 443d Operations Group. I would really like to see the exact inactivation dates of the 443d Troop Carrier Group in 1953… 8 January, 1 February or 8 June?! The dates may affect the assignment dates, too.

Oh, when scrolling the Operations Group article just now, it “hit” me… what about the aircraft from October 1991 to October 1992? Should I “follow the lead” of the Airlift Wing? That is, in the Wiki article (“Aircraft Assigned”) the Wing had C-5s and C-141s until 1992. (Via the 56th and 57th Airlift Squadrons, respectively.)

Actually, this article (443d Operations Group) needs some more work/updating, no? (Starting with the very first sentence and the Infobox.) I suppose that I will exercise some more “boldness” here, eh?

And, I may still need the “Lineage and Honors History” for the 443d Airlift Wing to get this unit’s exact inactivation dates in 1953… January 8th or June 8th? The dates may affect the assignment dates, too.

I also wonder if there is any direct connection between the 443d Operations Group and the 443d Airlift Wing concerning their inactivation dates. That is, apart from the Group additionally listing 1 February 1953 as one of its possibilities (!!), both articles list January 8th and June 8th, 1953.

I had previously wondered if the name of the Wing’s article itself needed changing, from “Airlift” to “Military Airlift.” (See the first sentence and the unit patch.) But, today, I noticed on AFHRA here and there that “Military Airlift, Training Wing” indeed became “(later Airlift Wing).” So, I guess the article’s name is correct, just “Airlift Wing.” But, I still would like to know when that re-designating was made. Oh, I reckon the “Lineage” section would need to reflect such, also, no?

And, I suppose that the first sentence needs changing/updating as well. (Delete the word “Military” and the “M” in “MAW.”) Heck, I may be “bold” and go ahead and change that, too.

I don’t think that I need a reply this time unless you have some pertinent info on the exact inactivation dates in 1953 for both units as mentioned above.

Take care, Rob

P.S. I would like to upload some of my Dad’s photos but I don’t really know who actually took them unless they are stamped on the back as official USAF photos, you know? So, I am “weak” on “author” and “source.” And, I doubt that Wiki would let me list them as “Own work.” Wish me luck, eh?

BeatlesVox (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If there's not individual Factsheet or Lineage & Honors statement, you can always use:

For groups prior to 1957

For squadrons prior to 1963

For wings prior to 1977 (although the preface has some selected information from 1981)

All are available in .pdf online. If you use the Ravenstein work for the 443, though, it has one of the rare errors in the book. It indicates the wing became non operational on 5 November 1958. This should read "1968." It became an Airlift Wing in August 1991 (I believe on 1 August, but the only documentation I have uses an "on or about" date. If you are your dad's heir or devisee, you should own the rights to pictures he took and can look for a permission based on that. Not sure whether "own work" qualifies for that.{{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}} works for USAF photos.--Lineagegeek (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

As to the 1953 inactivations, that's one of the rare instances when the wing and group were not inactivated together. The wing and all support elements were inactivated in January, but the group and its three troop carrier squadrons remained on active duty until February, when they were replaced by the 465th Troop Carrier Group and its three squadrons. I prefer to keep these flag changes out of the lineage entirely and put them in the narrative since they are not part of the unit lineage. The same would go for the wing -- when it was activated at Tinker it absorbed the resources of the 1707th Air Tansport Wing, and when the group and wing were inactivated at Altus and transferred their resources to the 97th (for the group I would mention that the airlift squadrons were reassigned, while the 443d Operations Support Sq was replaced by the 97th Operations Support Sq. --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Lineagegeek,

Thanks for your speedy reply and the info that you provided. Therefore…

For the 443d Airlift Wing...

  • I will make sure that all the inactivation dates (1953) will read the same… January 8, 1953. (As per the “Lineage” section, of course.)
  • The “Assignments” and “Stations” sections will remain unchanged. Great!!
  • In “Components/Groups,” the dates for the 443d Troop Carrier Group will remain unchanged, too. Great!!
  • I really hate to “fool with” the “Lineage” sections as I consider them “your babies.” But, based on what you wrote, and if you don’t mind, I will add a “bullet” and add “Redesignated 443d Airlift Wing in August 1991.”
  • As a result, in the first sentence of the article, I will delete the word “Military” and the “M” in “MAW.”
  • Oh, I just realized that the Wing also had a very “short life”... only one year as was the case with the Group. Gee, I wonder if there were ever any “updated” patches or emblems made. Hmmm. (Please see my “P.S.” below.)

For the 443d Operations Group…

  • I will make sure that all the inactivation dates for the 443d Troop Carrier Group read the same… February 1, 1953. (As per the “Lineage” section, of course.)
  • Thankfully, the “Assignments” section will remain unchanged. And, various entries in the “Components” section will remain unchanged. Also, the “Stations” section will remain unchanged. Great!!
  • Regarding the aircraft from October 1991 to October 1992… I will “follow the lead” of the Airlift Wing. That is, in its Wiki article (“Aircraft Assigned”) the Wing had C-5s and C-141s until 1992. So, I will add them to the “Aircraft” section for the Group.

As for Dad’s photos…

Apart from very few “official” USAF photos, the vast majority of what I have don’t tell me who actually took the photos of Dad and/or his bombers. Was it Mom, Dad himself, a friend, a buddy, a member of the bomber or ground crew, etc.?? So, perhaps I do need to write to someone at Wiki and find out how to proceed. Again, wish me luck, eh?

Well, thanks again for your time and attention with these two “443d” units. Unless you have any objections to my above plans, I will start making the changes, OK? Thanks.

Take care, Rob

P.S. My curiosity about emblems/patches really got “involved,” and, it got me into “trouble” once more. That is, I got totally “carried away” looking at the various “venues” for wing and group emblems and patches. I have already written more about my observations, with questions, but I will write about them next time, OK? I didn’t want to “clutter” this particular message. As I said, I got “involved.”  :-O

BeatlesVox (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Lineagegeek,

“Just a note” today…as you may already know, I went ahead and made the changes as listed in my last message concerning the Wiki articles for both the 443d Operations Group and the 443d Airlift Wing.

While doing so, I also “fixed” the “Active” dates in the Infoboxes for both the 443d Operations Group and the 443d Airlift Wing. I “split them up” as opposed to one "continuous block."

I also deleted the word “Military” from the very top of the Infobox for the Wing. (It now matches the lead’s first sentence that I had changed moments earlier.)

So, as stated, I just wanted to send you a note today to let you know of the changes that I went ahead and made for those two units' articles.

Take care, Rob

P.S. As I wrote before, I got “involved” (!!) with the units’ emblems and patches. But, for now, I will put them “on the back burner.”

P.P.S. As you may already know, the article for the 443d Operations Group needs some serious work, starting with the first sentence of the lead. It’s very oudated as it begins with the 443d Troop Carrier Group. And, the Infobox reflects the same. Also, the lead’s second paragraph needs to be moved, as a minimum, to the “History" section, which is basically blank. I’ll see what I can do soon fairly soon, OK? Take care!

BeatlesVox (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Lineagegeek,

Just an “update” today…

As I said in my “P.P.S.” last time… the article for the 443d Operations Group needed some serious work, starting with the first sentence of the lead. It was very outdated as it began with the 443d Troop Carrier Group. And, the Infobox reflected the same.

I also said that the lead’s second paragraph needed to be moved, as a minimum, to the “History" section, which was basically blank.

So, today’s “update” tells you that I have indeed…

• Updated the first two sentences of the article’s lead… replaced “443d Troop Carrier Group” with “443d Operations Group.” I also changed the inactivation date and location to read “1 October 1992” and “Altus…”

• Moved the lead’s second paragraph to the “History” section. (Note: it’s still kind of redundant when compared to the “World War II” section. I may “whittle it down” some. We’ll see.)

• Updated the “Infobox” appropriately… the unit’s name, “Active” dates and “Branch.”

• Made all kinds of minor changes throughout the article… commas, hyphens, spelling-out things, changing a “possessive” to a “plural,” replacing words with “better” ones without changing the meanings of the sentences, and the like.

The above changes reflect some of my most serious (“boldest”) edits. I hope that I did OK. (Fingers crossed.)

Take care, Rob

P.S. One thing that I’ve just really noticed… as I said above, the prior “History” section for the Group was “basically blank.” That is, the first and only line had read, “For additional history and lineage, see 443d Airlift Wing.” I wonder if that’s correct. That is, are they really “related?” (The USAF's “bestowed history program?”)

Then, on the flip side, when you look at the “History” section for the 443d Airlift Wing, its first line reads, “For additional history and lineage, see 443d Troop Carrier Group.” Here, too, I wonder if that is correct. That is, are they really “related?” (The USAF's “bestowed history program?”)

Nevertheless, in the meantime, my “gut” told me to change the "For additional history..." line to read Operations Group, the name of the latest unit designation as well as the name of the article. So, I went ahead and changed that one aspect just now.

Well, kind sir, please advise me on those very first, italicized lines in the two units’ “History” sections. Thanks in advance!

BeatlesVox (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Lineagegeek,

Just a quick follow-up to my “P.S.” above… of course, I know that the Group was assigned to the Wing on two different occasions (1949-1953, and, 1991-1992). So, I know that they were “related” in that regard. But, I wondered if they were “related” in any other way. Perhaps my use of the word “related” was poor.

As you know, what I was really trying to ask concerned those very first, italicized lines in the two units’ “History” sections. (“Referrals,” as I call them.) Should they be there in both “History” sections? Or, should only one of the units’ “History” sections have such a “referral?”

An aside: When I looked at two other closely related units (a group and a wing), I saw that the group had such a “referral” but the wing did not. Here, too, is that correct? Or, should both the group and the wing have such referrals? (Perhaps it depends on the units involved?)

Thanks! Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Do your worst and put it here, Bracketbot!

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)