Talk:Air supremacy

un-redirecting

I saw that this page once had an article but was then merged and redirected to air superiority. I think that air supremacy needs its own page not just because of it's significance, but more importantly because civilians often make the mistake of thinking the two are the exact same thing, which they are not. While they both relate to control of the skies, air supremacy is a completely different level of control and hopefully having its own page will help show this. JW 02:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

decimated

The word "decimated" is misused here. "Decimated" comes from Roman times where victorious armies would punish the losers by killing every tenth soldier. It is often misused when someone is trying to describe a crushing defeat -- five out of six in this case -- when in fact it only means 10% losses were inflicted.

Requested move

Air supremacy → Levels of air dominance — I think it would be better to move the contents of this page and that of air superiority into a single article, Levels of air dominance. Both of these articles are about different levels of a single concept. Also, I think that the third level in the hierarchy, the as-yet uncreated air parity, will probably not yield enough content to form a viable standalone article like the other two. Its content would probably be best as a section in another article. 01:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Air superiority → Levels of air dominance

• Oppose/close this is a merge request, not a move request. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment the article that should replace these two has not been created yet, so it is a move and a merge. You could make the same argument if it was listed in the merge section, that you're not merging one article into the other, but moving them to a new article.-- 12:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Stepping aside from the procedural question, I would prefer not to have a merge. Air superiority and air supremacy are the actual terms which our readers will be looking up; they will be better served by an article on the subject than by the same wording in a section. A reasonable compromise would be to write a stub, essentially a disambiguation page saying that there are three levels, and linking to it from the top of each article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's true that almost everybody looking up this subject will look up either "air superiority" or "air supremacy" instead of "levels of air dominance". However, redirects would make this a non-issue. Having one single article would more clearly show that these two things are different levels or air dominance, and that the terms are not interchangeable. When you look at the articles themselves, I think they would be better suited for being sections within a parent article rather than separate articles. Consider:

1. The article on air supremacy is fairly short. On top of this, references to its distinction with air superiority and air parity are thoroughly mixed in with the article, straying from the topic of air supremacy.
2. The article on air superiority is longer. However, most of the "history" section contains references of fighters which would most likely be more appropriate in the air superiority fighter article (also, take into account that an air superiority fighter would be more than capable of also being used for air supremacy). When you take these references out, it is about the same length as the article for air supremacy
3. The article for air parity hasn't even been created yet. It is highly unlikely that there will ever be enough information for it to warrant its own separate article, but if air superiority and air supremacy have their own articles, then it would follow that air parity would have to have its own article as well

For the above stated reasons, I still strongly support a merger of these two articles into a single new article.-- 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• You've requested to move two articles to the same name that's impossible. This is a merge request, not a move request, because of that. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: for the sake of simplicity, this discussion should be continued exclusively on the page Talk:Air_superiority#Requested_move from this point forward--Witan 16:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)