User talk:Lineagegeek

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


Contents

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)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open![edit]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-17#MiG-17.2FJ-5_aerial_combat_victories_in_the_Vietnam_War_1965-1972[edit]

602 ACS and 606 ACS are both listed in this table, and while I could follow the data at the page entries (eg 602 SOS), I can see by your edits that sometimes they're incorrect. Would you please take a look, and if you'd like to check comparable tables at MiG-21 and MiG-19 that might be a public service. All warmest - best wishes for the Christmas hols!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any A-1 losses in air to air combat during the war. Both the victories in the article are unreferenced and one in particular might be marked dubious.

The Douglas A-1 Skyraider article notes a loss of an A-1 on 29 August 1964, but from the 1st Air Commando Sq and near Bien Hoa, which is pretty far south in Viet Nam for a MiG to be flying. So that loss would be to ground fire.
The 602d Air Commando Squadron flew A-1s primarily over Laos. Probably some rescue coverage over the DRVN, but this loss on the list is the one that matches the date in 1964.
The 606th Air Commando Squadron I know of from Candlestick operations. I'm not sure it flew A-1s in addition to its UC-123s and AT-28s. The nature of its operations was heavily associated with the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and I can't see it flying where the NVAF would operate before the NVA invaded after the US departed.
I would guess that any A-1s lost to MiGs would have to be Navy.
Merry Christmas! --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For improvements to the 303d Air Expeditionary Group - is it just a paper unit right now? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe so. At least, I have not been able to find any references indicating USAFE has used it. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Seconded!! Also, is the 409 AEG and the 409 AEOG the same unit? The 409 AEG is the Reaper/Predator UAV unit doing things from (including) Arba Minch and previously Victoria in the Seychelles. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you and Happy New Year as Well. I have been away visiting family for the holidays and have just returned for the new year. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

409th Group[edit]

As for the 409th, there never was, never will be (maybe) a 409th Air Expeditionary Operations Group.

If such a unit were a separate expeditionary unit, it would be the 409th Air Expeditionary Group
If such a unit were the operations unit for an expeditionary wing, it would be the 409th Expeditionary Operations Group

Changes coming starting with a move of the article. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks LG. As it seems to be a open-and-shut case (esp with you quoting the doco that mandates standard naming procedures for USAF groups) I have gone ahead and moved the page. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015[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) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

409th AEG: thanks!![edit]

Many thanks for your last edits at 409 AEG. Particularly helpful was citing the exact AF doco for the group's current squadrons. Would you mind, when you have time, checking the same records for the 404 AEG? Many thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

563d Rescue Group[edit]

I assessed the article as an easy B class even though you didn't request it on the assessment page. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just posting the request. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Oct - Dec 15 Quarterly Article Reviews[edit]

Wiki-stripe1.svg Military history service award
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 1 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period October to December 2015. Thank you for your efforts! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Do not put units straight into the World War II main cat, please[edit]

[3] this edit put the article straight into the U.S. military units in WW II main cat, which has 902 articles in it, many USAAF. It desperately needs articles moved into the subcats. Articles like this should be placed straight into the AAF unit size cat, which is part of that main cat. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree (I didn't even know there were subcategories to this category), but what subcategory do you think would be appropriate for an ASWAAF unit? (note this unit did not become a USAF unit in September 1947, and because it remained assigned to ASA and becajsed it had been branch transferred ("converted" as the CMH says) in 1946, it didn't become a SCARWAF unit) On a related issue, somehow the HOTCAT tool makes it easy to move items to subcategories on Wikimedia Commons, but the down arrow does not appear with the tool on English Wikipedia, so it has to be done manually. Sometime when I'm padding my edit count, it looks like there are a lot of articles to move. And I think WP:RCAT#Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category would call for tagging the WW II, rather than the current, designation in the appropriate subcategories. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks like no one does this, with only 4 units in the subcategory. (And 2 of them are ASWAAF units0. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Which subcat are you talking about? Cannot see it... On your last thought yes, the main WW II cat is *stuffed* with modern USAF designation which breach that rule... Buckshot06 (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
[[Category:Military units and formations of the United States Army Air Forces]] (which in turn has subcategories). I'm guessing some of these probably are categorized a couple of times on the same category tree. --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for recatting all those articles - a grand start!! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016[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) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

looking for Wright-Patt APTD lineage[edit]

Greetings,

You seem to be the go-to expert on US Air Force unit organizations and lineages. Do you know where I could find either the parent organization, or even better, seperate lineage and awards info for the "Aerospace Physiology Training Department, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH"? The APTD was my dad's first assigned unit (1971-'87).

As for the APTD's parent organization, there's several possibilities which I have tried to look into, all without success:

  • My first thought was a 2750th Medical Group (which I suspect eventually became part of today's 88th MDG) but I can't find the existance of any such unit (and I don't see an entry for the 88th MDG on afhra.af.mil to check).
  • Another thought is that it might of been part of the Aerospace Medical Division (what later apparently became the 311th Human Systems Wing as I found out about from some of your editing, so I thank you).
  • yet another possibility might be some predecessor organization of either the Wright Laboratory or the Harry G. Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, both of which became part of the Air Force Research Laboratory but I haven't found any clear info on those prior to the merger in the '90s.
  • I also wonder if one of the subordinate components of what is now the 711th Human Performance Wing would be the parent unit (ie the Human Effectiveness Directorate, the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Human Systems Integration Directorate) as those all seem plausible, but I can't find clear info prior to their 2008 amalgamation into the new 711 HPW.

I know he was also connected to the hyperbaric (hypobaric?) medicine department at Wright-Patt both before and as it was being established as a seperate organization at somepoint within that timeframe, so whatever organization it sprang from, would seem to of been his parent unit.

Thank you for any info. Gecko G (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Departments are almost always part of a larger organization and have no separate lineages. Although there were a few separately numbered Physiological Training Flights prior to 1969, physiological training was usually part of the base medical unit. At Wright Patt, that would be:
  • Designated as the 2790th Station Medical Squadron and organized on 1 August 1948
  • Redesignated 2790th Base Medical Complement c. 1 November 1948
  • Redesignated 2790th Medical Group c. early 1949
  • Redesignated 2750th Medical Group c. 4 November 1949
  • Redesignated 2750th USAF Hospital c. 15 February 1954
  • Redesignated USAF Hospital, Wright-Patterson c. 1 July 1960
  • Redesignated USAF Medical Center, Wright-Patterson 1 July 1969

(I have a gap in my information during the late 1980s, when USAF did a lot of renumbering and renaming of medical units, so I don't know it the following is a redesignation or a new unit)

  • 645th Medical Group redesignated or activated c. 1 October 1992
  • Redesignated 74th Medical Group 1 October 1994
  • Redesignated 88th Medical Group 20 October 2004 (not related to another 88th Medical Group active in the reserve from 1949 to 1951) --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
wow! An extremely helpful, thurough (and fast) reply, thank you very much! Searching from information that you provided above, I was able to find a document about the 1st century of Wright-Patt AFB that lists sequential names of the unit's there and that confirms that the 645th was a continuation of the same unit (though it does say the last and current designation is the 84th Medical Group rather than 88th- I'm presuming that's a typo).
It would make sense for him to of been under the relevant base Medical Group since his second assignment (1987-'92) was to 15th Medical Group @ Hickham AFB (though he was actually "detached" on a joint service assignment at the Navy APTD at NAS Barbers Point for the duration)
If an airman is part of a "Department" which is subordinate to a "Group" (or apparent equivalent in this specifc case), they would share in a unit award (ie an AFOUA) awarded to the Group, right? I ask because I notice that "USAF Medical Center, Wright-Patterson" is listed as having an AFOUA from during his time of service at the Wright-Patt APTD
Gecko G (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
That would normally be true. The only exceptions I'm aware of are for training units when assigned students have been excluded from the award. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I figured that was the case but I wasn't 100% sure where "Department" level falls on the unit organizational hierarchy. Gecko G (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

542 CCTW[edit]

Sorry LG I don't understand this. It needs to be in a root category, 'X wings of the United States Air Force'; it can't just be in mil-units-and-formations-formed-in-x category, nobody will ever be able to find it thru the category structure... Buckshot06 (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I totally don't get what you're saying. Anyone who looks in the date category gets directed to its most recent name. In the training wings category, it's listed by the last name it had as a training wing, so it gets found there. What's the difference that makes one a root" category? --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 563d Rescue Group[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 563d Rescue Group you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Concertmusic -- Concertmusic (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Air Force fact sheets have moved[edit]

As you may know, I am working on the GA review for 563d Rescue Group. Progress is slow but steady. Having said that, I had no issues yesterday, but starting just about 15 minutes ago, the links in that article to the Air Force fact sheets are all broken, as it appears that the Air Force has just moved fact sheets to another location. This may have a far-reaching impact for many of your articles. If you would be so kind as to have a look at this particular article, and to fix those links; at a glance, not only did the location change, but some of the actual fact sheets have changed as well. That would allow me to carry on with the review as quickly as possible. I am sorry if I am the bearer of bad news! --Concertmusic (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I see the ones you're talking about (thankfully, not the AFHRA ones -- they changed a few years back). These appear to be from base sites, so I'm hopeful the Wayback Machine will help me take care of this. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks less serious than appears, archived links given for two D-M pages. More disturbing is that the web site with AF Pamphlet 900-2, Volume I [sic] has split it into two "books." I work from paper copies of 900-2 and don't use the link, just provide it because it's available. All links work now. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 563d Rescue Group[edit]

The article 563d Rescue Group you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:563d Rescue Group for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Concertmusic -- Concertmusic (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Please advise whether I should keep on hold for a few more days, or fail, the GA nomination for 563d Rescue Group, as it has been quite a bit longer than than the noted 7 days that the review has been on hold. I know that you had been traveling, but I think we need to close this review out next week. Please advise - thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Per the 'rules of engagement' for GA reviews, I was supposed to have passed or failed this review some time ago - actually about 2 weeks ago. Given that some works remains, especially on references, which could still take you some time, I recommend that I fail the review for right now. However, when you believe that you have finished this article and incorporated all of the requested items, I would then recommend that you start a new GA review, and if you ping me, I will take it on as soon as I can, hopefully within just a week or two after the new review is started, to get it passed. Thoughts? Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


Reference errors on 26 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016[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) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Final edit request before passing[edit]

Please see this post on the GA review page for 563d Rescue Group - thank you!

I just went over the above GA review notes, and am finding that there really is just one final item left, which needs to be done across all of the sections under Lineage. It has to do with the fact that you cannot have an overarching reference just on the final bulleted item in a bulleted list - as it then appears that just that row is being referenced. Therefore, if you could have a quick introductory sentence under the header of each section that describes the section, and then hang the reference off that sentence (inside the colon) - that will get this item taken care of.

The intro sentence could be as little as "Assignments of the 563d Rescue Group from 1944 to present:", and then have Reference 50 at the end of that sentence. Specifically, for the Lineage section, you could either do the intro sentence, as described, and add Reference 50 at the end of that sentence, or you could add Reference 50 at the end of each of the 3 bullets.

For the Assignments sections, you need to have that intro sentence, and hang Reference 50 off it - the only other choice is to add the reference to each bullet, which is a mess. It is then also made clear that reference 50 is for the entire section, and Reference 51 is for just that last bullet.

Same for all of the other sections except Detachments, which is fine the way it is. If that can get done, I believe we can pass this article as a GA!

Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: I made the suggested edit myself, figuring that it's the last and final item needed for passage of this article as GA. Please review to make sure that you are ok with it - but something along those lines is needed to take care of that final item. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I made one more change (in aircraft). I've been thrashing around to find a RS for the various series of HC-130 without success, so I've removed them, adding a note and the post 2013 use of the UH-1N. Thanks for the help. I've had a longstanding uneasiness with the best way to cite lineage items without citation bombing. Your solution is one of the best I've come across. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations - this article is a GA, and is is well deserved! --Concertmusic (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 563d Rescue Group[edit]

The article 563d Rescue Group you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:563d Rescue Group for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Concertmusic -- Concertmusic (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016[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) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

26th NOG and 26th TRW[edit]

Should I amalgamate the later into the former? Is the lineage at 26th TRW correct? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the group, but what happened to the 26th TRW/IW? It seems to have dropped off the planet; I cannot find out its history since 1991. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
2006, apparently. I don't see that the Tac Recce is any more notable that the Strat Recce or WW II periods, so I think it needs moving. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016[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) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

46th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron[edit]

Good Evening Lineagegeek,

I wish to add information to Wikipedia regarding the 46th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron, currently it links to 46th Fighter Training Squadron but I see we also have a 46th Reconnaissance Squadron article is their anyway you can check to see if the unit is a rebrand of the Fighter Training Squadron ? If it does I want to move the Fighter Training Squadron article over to the Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron name.

Gavbadger (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This unit isn't related to the 46th Fighter Training Squadron. I have edited the redirect page for 46th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron to redirect it to 46th Reconnaissance Squadron. It appears the squadron may have been renamed the 46th Expeditionary Reconnaissance and Attack Squadron, but I have no RS for this. USAF is in the process of renaming its MQ-9 units from reconnaissance to attack -- not sure how far along they are with this. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, they was a video posted today by Yahoo at a secret base in the Middle East and the crew were wearing 46 ERS patches yahoo link, I've also found this heraldry link. Gavbadger (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016[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) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

56th and 71st[edit]

Are the next wings on the copyvio hit list; not sure whether you noticed the listings. Thanks for all your hard work on the 63rd, 66th, and 67th. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, the 97th Air Mobility, formerly Bombardment Wing. Firstly, which is more notable, given there's two entries; the one that fought in combat during World War II, or the one that SAC had in peacetime 1947ish-1991? I tend to go with the one that actually fought in combat, which would mean a redirect change of target. Second, there's massive chunks of text uncited. Are you ready for this one to be Bwmoll3- copyvio-listed or would you prefer me to wait a little, for any reason? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The 97th Air Mobility Wing has 68 years of existence (45 as the 97th Bombardment Wing), plus credit for two campaigns and one expeditionary streamer and nineteen Air Force Outstanding Unit Awards (including one from back in the when they really meant something). The WW II wing has credit for 6 campaigns and no decorations and although the article could certainly be expanded I think the Air Mobility wing wins as the most notable 97th Bombardment Wing. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, will go with your judgement on this. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I've also just listed the 96th Test Wing - huge chunks uncited. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Particularly in editing the 56th, the potential copyvios were concentrated in a single section. Most of the cutting and pasting in these articles is from stuff in the public domain, and lack of citations in these cases does not translate to copyright violation. It will be universally true that anything pasted into the infoboxes in these articles will not be long enough to violate copyright and material pasted into Lineage, Assignment, Components, Stations, and Aircraft will almost always be copied from public domain documents or websites of AFHRA. I believe sections can be tagged for deletion for copyvios as well as articles and think that is the appropriate action in these cases. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
What I've been doing is marking articles for copyvio concerns; I haven't always been the one deleting them. What you may not be aware of, with your suggested remedy, would be the need for every revision in the previous history, since Bwmoll3 started inserting large chunks, to be manually marked for rev-deletion. This is a big job. What might be a middle course is for you, should you wish to revise/recreate the wing articles, to copy the key material, still accessible in the article history, to the /Temp page, as recommended by the redraft procedure. Then the entire tainted article can be deleted, and the new one moved into its place. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I presume Talk:56th Fighter Wing/Temp will be renamed. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I've just moved '363 AEOG' to 363 EOG; would appreciate you doublechecking the lineage section especially. I cannot locate an AFHRA factsheet for the group's l&h. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Had to tag this for a citation needed. lack of either RS or access to primary source at time the group was converted. I believe it spent a couple of months as the 363d Air Expeditionary Group before the wing was activated at Prince Sultan. The dates given are good for the wing, but it strikes me that this article has a bit of presumption in it. I don't know if one of the Freeman works is the source for the erroneous date for the original conversion to a reccce unit, but one of the other presumptions in the lineage (that the wing and group were both inactivated in 1949) is just wrong and contradicted by both Maurer and Mueller. --Lineagegeek (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Overnight thoughts on 363d Expeditionary Operations Group This is unsourced and base[d] on experie[n]ce, but the lineage for this article is almost certainly incomplete. When the 363d wing was withdrawn from provisional status in 2007, the standard procedure would have bveen to withdraw all the subordinate "363" units as well and redesignate them. Although I lack a source, I would be surprised if the 363f Expeditionary Operations Group was not withdrawn from provisional status and redesignated 363d Operations Group on 25 March 2007. The lack of sources for this is probably due to the fact it hasn't been active under this name. A comparative unit is 435th Operations Group. Off the top of my head, the 363d and 435th are the only wing level units made into provisional units, then withdrawn. --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm angry. I've just checked the Maurer ref given, and the date was wrong (27 Aug 48 given, Maurer at p.246-47 says June)!! For the moment I've changed that piece of data and removed the remainder of the lineage. When you dig up a solid source, we can reinsert it. I'm really appalled!! Any/all of the key historical dates/data (lineage; redesignations) in any AF article may be wrong!! Buckshot06 (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

94th Airlift Wing[edit]

I'm going to put section-needs-references tags throughout this article, recognizing your earlier complaints. Please address them in a reasonable amount of time - say two to three weeks. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work on the transport squadrons. When you do a four digit squadron, would you please add the appropriate MAJCOM category - squadron, group, or wing, as well? Thanks. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
More than I thought had articles. Plus 44th Air Transport Squadron and 58th Air Transport Squadron were totally (well, maybe not totally) inaccurate. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016[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) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello! Thank you for your recent contributions to 302d Airlift Wing. I did have one note for you. I am working on a maintenance project to clean up Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this: |image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]], instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do: |image=SomeImage.jpg. There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recetly added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks!! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Didn't realize I'd left the thumb tag on the image. However, I disagree with your edit, which inappropriately resized the image. What I intended to do (and have edited to do is use the form [[File:Someimage|290px]] --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
That works too! Just an FYI you can also do |imagesize=290px. Both work though. Also a reminder that if you are responding on your own talk page to someone else it is super helpful if you use {{ping}}, so for example {{ping|zackmann08}} just in case they aren't watching your talk page. Take care! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016[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) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

They think I'm a sockpuppet[edit]

Please add to my defence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeneral28#Suspected_sockpuppets. Have I not been a great contributor to many defence articles especially to 319th Missile Squadron? Cantab1985 (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your sterling work on Draft:1st Expeditionary Rescue Group. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I found it through a link -- another editor appears to have abandoned it. I need to finish up WW II, then get an admin to move it to mainspace (there's a redirect there now).

And what, relating to the Second World War, are ASWAAF and SCARWAF? AAF sure, but what? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

ASWAAF is the only term that would be accurate for WW II. SCARWAF refers to the same thing after USAF became an independent arm.
ASWAF=Arms and Services with the Army Air Forces
SCARWAF=Special Category Army with the with the Air Force

These terms refer to units from other branches (other than Air Corps) that were assigned to the AAF or overseas Air Forces. Few were assigned to combat units at the group level or below (perhaps some Chemical Companies, Air Operations) after 1943 (for a short time tactical groups had an Ordnance Company, Aviation assigned or attached). They were assigned to service or depot groups. At Wing level and above, just about every headquarters had some sort of signal company. Common units were Quartermaster Truck Companies, Aviation; Ordnance Supply & Maintenance Companies, Aviation; Signal Companies, Service Group; Engineer Aviation Fire Fighting Platoons; Engineer Aviation Battalions; Military Police Companies, Aviation (Overseas only after 1942 -- the ones in the US were converted to Air Corps units as Guard Squadrons). I believe the last of these went out around the mid-1950s at Wolters and Beale Air Force Bases when the last Engineer Aviation units inactivated.

Big Spring Army Air Field, 1945: did the USAAF, correctly, "inactivate" an airfield? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not up on installation terms, but I shudder when I see anything to do with activating an airfield. I would prefer closed in most cases if I were writing the articles. Since there were a number of things that could happen, I'd prefer to see more exact terms used if the sources permit. Some of these installations were placed on some kind of standby, others were returned to governmental entities that had sold or leased them to the War Department, others turned over to the War Assets Administration or to the Corps of Engineers. The 1945 date for Big Spring's "inactivation" could be the date the 2605th AAF Base Unit was discontinued (although it appears on a station list for 15 December 1945). --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Milhist coord election[edit]

G'day Lineagegeek, I'd like you to consider nominating as a coord this year. You've been around the project for long enough, know how things work, and are a prolific content contributor. No pressure, but we could do with some new blood keeping the wheels turning. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I might try it for a while. Worst case[?] I'll be overwhelmingly defeated. Peacemaker67

Adding defining categories[edit]

When you create new redirects, would you please mind adding the defining category, in accordance with WP:CATDEF? For example, with 2d Liaison Flight, I added Category:Flights of the United States Air Force, and would have added Cat:Liaison Flights of the United States Air Force if that category existed. Cheers and thanks, Buckshot06 (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was such a category. Gave it a little more population. I doubt there is a need for [[Category:Weather Flights]] Only one member, with no particular notability (doesn't seem that different from at least 55 others), and the main source is a site with access only for official government business. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks (and yes, re Weather Flights a category with under three members is not encouraged by WP:SMALLCAT). Every unit and redirect should be categorised in one of the Flights, Squadrons, Groups, Wings, Divisions, NAFs of the USAF etc categories, or the specific type categories (eg Category:Fighter squadrons of the United States Air Force) if such category exists. This is the 'definitional' category referred to by WP:CATDEF. Sorry if I'm repeating the obvious. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016[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) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited I Bomber Command, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charleston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

Coordinator of the Military History Project, September 2016 – September 2017

In recognition of your first ever successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project, I have the great honor of presenting you with these co-ord stars. I wish you luck in the coming year. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016[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) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 8th Intelligence Squadron, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages FOIA and Hollandia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

8th Fighter Wing[edit]

Hello,

Even after referring to Edit history, I don't recall the reference. Perhaps, with a bit more info to spark my memory, I might be able to oblige. Did I mention the book title? author's name? or the like?

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Not surprising after a year. You added two references to "Rowley", with page numbers in the 290s. Perhaps USAF FAC Operations in Southeast Asia? --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Interview for the November Bugle[edit]

Hi Lineagegeek, every so often the editors of the Milhist newsletter, the Bugle, run an interview with members of the project. For the November 2016 issue, we'd like to present a chat with the first-time coordinators from the September elections. We'd love you to participate -- the interview page is here. We always like to get the Bugle out by the 7th of the month, so allowing for some tidy-up before despatch, if you could complete your answers within two weeks, i.e. around 2nd November, that'd be great. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016[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) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

102d Intelligence Wing[edit]

Hi Lineagegeek! I noticed that you had changed the assessment of 102d Intelligence Wing from A-Class to C-Class by removing the |A-Class= parameter from the template. Unfortunately, doing it this way causes an error to be flagged by the A-Class tracking function built into the template, since it looks as though there's a phantom A-Class review that's not properly listed in the assessment. I've restored the parameter for now; if we want to demote the article, the clean way to do it would be to create a (new) re-assessment A-Class review and then close it with |A-Class=demoted.

(I think the article is also listed as a GA; that should probably get re-assessed as well if we drop the A-Class rating.) Kirill Lokshin (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Always happy to do it the right way. Could you point me to the articles that show me how to do it, Спасиво. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The process should be exactly the same as listing the article for a normal A-Class review; the only difference is that a different result needs to be set when the review is closed. The step-by-step instructions are at WP:MHR. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Lineagegeek. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016[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) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon![edit]

US-O11 insignia.svg 6 Star.svg
Milhist coordinator emeritus.svg

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Happy New Year, Lineagegeek![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Lineage and Honors[edit]

I was trying to fix up the 786th Security Forces Squadron ; where have the AF L&H sites gone? Best & Happy New Year Buckshot06 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

They are at [4] and [5] and similar. The 786th isn't there, though (and I don't think it ever was). I don't know if it had any prior history before activating at Sembach on 26 Feb 1999. AFAIK there has never been a 786th Air Police, Security Police, or Combat Defense Squadron. (AFHRA has had some WW II Guard Squadrons reconstituted, so the 1086 or 1186 Guard Squadons could be predecessoprs. BTW, Not all of the "new" L&Hs are the most current, though. For some reason, AFHRA has loaded some that were not the most current versions. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks LG!! Would you be able to put some source notes at your talkpage complaint for what the actual L&H status is for the CRG and its' squadrons? Then I can use those links to fix things up, and you can get on with things that actually need your expertise. (British rather than U.S.) but Tally Ho!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Great!! The Air Force Organization Change Status Reports seem to be the real helpful official documents. But I'm not going to be able to get to Maxwell for a while. Do you have scans or notes for August 2002 and May 2012? I'm interested in getting a better handle on the 332d Air Expeditionary Wing. Many thanks & Tally Ho!! Buckshot06 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
My coverage for the AF OCSR is mostly from 2004-2010. Also, the Report is published in two versions. One, published monthly and cumulated annually is For Official Use Only. The other (which I do not have) is published by month as needed and is classified Confidential or Secret. Expeditionary unit actions in combat zones are usually in the second category. May 2012 did not contain any reference to the 332d in the FOUO section. Also the AFHRA List of Active USAF Organizations, as of 31 December 2002 does not list expeditionary units. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response LG. Maybe I should focus first on the 786 SFS, and then some more open wings and groups. Do you have a priority list of organisations you are working through, that I could help with? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I have several lis . . . (look, there's a squirrel!) I have found that since becoming a coordinator, I spend more time Wikignoming. I had been working my way through Air Divisions (finished most numbered over 300) and Air Refueling Squadrons (finished those numbered over 900), but I'm currently trying to restore or add links to citations in articles tagged by InternetArchiveBot as adding archived links, working numberically downwards. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. Would it help if I started working numerically down on the wings from the new 600-series JB ABWs? I'd like to do things a little more current than air divisions that are gone... Buckshot06 (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Been looking at the 600-series wings. 628 ABW may need some fixes, which I will get to. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Oct to Dec 16[edit]

Wiki-stripe1.svg Military history reviewers' award
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 1 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to support Wikipedia's quality content processes are greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017[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) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi thanks for the feedback & compliment on the ID. Thanks also for correcting my miserable mistake regarding the obs/aero squadron lineal connections. It took me all of 1 minute to confirm in Maurer what you were saying. I should've checked in the first place, but I made the mistake of generalizing information I looked at on the 104th Obs Squadron (which had no connection to the 104th Aero Squadron, as the wiki said) to the other observation squadrons. Thanks for undoing it and thanks even more for letting me know the source. A valuable lesson in not jumping to conclusions! Also a note re: Clay. I've found some of his information questionable. I suspect some of what he presents on the obs squadrons existed on paper but was not reflected in reality. I'm still researching it (for a book I'm writing on the MD ANG), so I can't say he's definitively wrong, but I would cross-check Clay with other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alltheuseridsiwantedweretaken (talkcontribs) 11:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Alltheuseridsiwantedweretaken:Clay is often good for exact dates where Maurer's crew gives the year only. He also discusses Regular Army Inactive units, which Maurer just treats as being inactive, even if they had reserve officers assigned. Another item in Clay that is not in Maurer is the flights of the 16th Observation Squadron that were active at various branch schools during years that the squadron headquarters was inactive. In the USAF lettered flights are not considered separate units, but they often are (or their equivalents, lettered companies, batteries, and troops) in the Army.
I believe part of the reason for the difference is that Clay used unit cards as his source material, and these sometimes contain errors or omissions. Maurer's researchers consulted primary sources (or at least unit histories) as well. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

42d Air Base Wing[edit]

Hello. You undo my changes on 42d Air Base Wing. Why you think it is WP:OVERLINK? --Aabdullayev851 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Aabdullayev851: The changes linked to articles that were linked previously in the 42d Air Base Wing article. If you check WP:OVERLINK, you will see that normally an article is linked only once, although an extra link in the lead is usual. The stations you linked are already linked in the History narrative. Also, the style [[Scott Field]], a redirect, is preferred to piping as in [[Scott Air Force Base|Scott Field]] (if it is available, It's better not to use [[Hamilton Field]], for example, because that would direct to a disambiguation page.) --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017[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) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Rollback?[edit]

For my own curiosity I decided to see who among the coordinators has admin/mass message rights. In the process of checking that out I noticed that you don't have the rollback right. If you like, I would be willing to add that to your list of user groups so you could gain access to the tool. Drop me a line if you'd like access to it, otherwise have a good evening (or morning, whichever the case may be). TomStar81 (Talk) 02:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I have had a few occasions to revert vandalism (or to find someone has beaten me to it) over the years, so I believe the tool would be useful. I presume a few test uses in my sandbox won't show up as misuse to revert good faith edits. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Corect. I've added the rollback tool to your list of user rights, you can read up on it here if you like. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

4th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron[edit]

Hello Lineagegeek,

Can you please see if the 4th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron is connected to 4th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron, I been looking at [6] and I don't think it is connected but I wanted to double check with you before I change anything.

Gavbadger (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The Lineage portion of the article appears accurate, although the History stops in 1949 and the article uses a number of different labels in various areas (Tactical Reconnaissance for article label, Reconnaissance for Infobox). They are the same unit. 4 Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron gives its lineage through conversion to expeditionary status. There's a color version of the emblem and an unofficial one on Commons,, as well. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Would it right to the change to 4th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron or to leave it at the current name? Gavbadger (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
The MOS calls for the use of the most recent name unless it was clearly more notable under one of its earlier designations (my paraphrase of the standard). It's seen action as an expeditionary unit and I see from the AF unit awards site that it's earned three MUCs as an expeditionary unit, so the move seems appropriate. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

324th Intelligence Squadron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Cham
7th Intelligence Squadron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hollandia
93d Operations Group (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Presidential Unit Citation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverts[edit]

Thanks very much for the correction to my date range edits in several articles. I was going by the old standard and didn't know it had changed. Note, however, that in your reversions you brought along several of my other edits to the articles. It is probably a better approach to just make the corrections to the problematic part, in this case the date range, instead of reverting.

With regard to the location of the unit emblem, I am following Template:Infobox military unit which reserves for the inbox's "image" field "[a]n image of the unit insignia (cap badges, tartan or colours), if available; other images may be used if this cannot be obtained."

Thanks again for bringing me up to speed on the date ranges! Ocalafla (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

As for the location of the unit emblem, the Insignia entry calls for "The unit's identification symbol (such as a patch, tartan, or tactical identification flash)" as well, which contains no alternative as does the Image parameter. The creation of a special parameter for insignia also implies this is the correct location that this is the proper location for insignia given the ambiguity of the infobox having two locations for the same item. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017[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) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 312th Aeronautical Systems Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bowman Field (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

1968 Kadena Air Base B-52 crash[edit]

Would you please mind taking a look at this new article and reviewing/expanding it as necessary? Would also much appreciate you taking a look at U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd eliminate the mention of the use of the Mk 28 on the Mace missile in relation to storage on Okinawa. The Mace wasn't operational in 1968.
I can't find a reference to "52 Pickup" in the cited source. "Spread like confetti" is in quotation marks. A reference to confetti exists in the cited source, but not this quotation. The individual statements in this source seem to be responses to a blog (and contemporary witness statements would have been attachments to the accident report -- not included with the link to the report) or from contemporary newssources.
The statement about where the plane would have ended up is speculation based on a statement by the navigator about what the pilot felt.
Note 1 and Note 3 link to the same article (one in archived form)
Note 6. The source needs to be identified as a press release by the Natural Resources Defense Council. (possible NPOV problem) I did not check the links from this page, but it does not support the statements about deployment of weapons or the use of the Mark 28.
Unfortunately, all the good stuff is redacted from the accident report (linked in reference 1/3), particularly what happened after S1. (Although I'd be interested in the party at the O-Club -- and why was that redacted?).

I've reassessed B2 because of some of this. Results in a downgrade for Milhist, but not for Aviation. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Joint Communications Support Element[edit]

This appears to be a TRANSCOM four-company sized rapid deployment long-range comms setup unit that does a lot of work for CENTCOM and SOCOM, at MacDill. At least two of its' four squadrons (244 [sic] (224 JCS, GA ANG) are air force. It's a gap we need to fill -- would you consider working on it with me? Buckshot06 (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that the 224th (I've seen 244th but believe it is a typo). already has a page 224th Joint Communications Support Squadron. Its lineage has a major hiccup in 1968. In this era (c. 1967-1972), the Hq USAF organization staff seemed oblivious to some things in the ANG. In 1968, they constituted the 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 244, 261 and 265 Mobile Communications Squadrons and allotted them to the ANG. Problem is, the units already existed under several designations. What should have been done, and what the GA ANG considers to have happened is the 224th Radio Relay Squadron was redesignated the 224th Mobile Communications Squadron. JCSE has been around for years and the 224th and 290th JCSS (at MacDill) have had the mission to support it since the mid 1980s. Speaking from memory, USAF support for JCSE was part of the 1928 Comm Sq mission prior to transferring it to the ANG. Were you considering articles on the 224th and 290th or on JCSE? --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes I'd seen and checked the 224 JCS page, that was part of the reason I mentioned it. I was considering an article on the JCSE, which would mean there was an overview article and redlinks could be established for any other key components. You can confirm it's part of TRANSCOM - a direct report to HQ TRANSCOM staff? I'll establish a short stub soon, at the very least. Many thanks, Buckshot06 (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
[7] indicates there is an intermediate command, Joint Enabling Capabilities Command (whoever thought that one up), at Navsta Norfolk. I believe JCSE is older than either this Hq or TRANSCOM, and used to come under TAC (AF elements, wearing one of its joint hats) and CINCLANT. --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
If it still exists. JECC was a earlier component of USJFCOM, and one of the ways they kept bits of HQ JFCOM. Not sure that still exists. Would have to check around. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Definitely still around, part of TRANSCOM. JECC page established as a separate page. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017[edit]

Wiki-stripe3.svg Military history service award
For your efforts during March Madness 2017, You are hereby awarded this barnstar. Thank you for your contributions. Cheers. Catlemur (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017[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) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

90th Information Operations Squadron now known as 90th Cyber Operations Squadron[edit]

Could you please help me track down the lineage for this org? I'm looking at creating an article for this squadron.--v/r - TP 13:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Its lineage (although not current) is at [8] --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 3d Troop Carrier Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burlington Municipal Airport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017[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) 03:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization of ranks[edit]

Please read and understand MOS:JOBTITLES and MOS:MILTERMS, then revisit 20th Fighter Squadron. Stars have nothing to do with the capitalization; if it is necessary to stress that he had four stars, you could say "as a four-star general". Chris the speller yack 04:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

4th Special Operations Squadron[edit]

Hi Lineagegeek. In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. Also, I noticed there's a broken citation in the article which I don't know how to fix. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I was mainly correcting the form and dead URL of the existing citation, although I did some minor editing to the text. The message on the broken citation is not helpful in showing how to fix it, but it resulted from" <ref><ref>" in the reference string. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017[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) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)