The following discussion is an archived discussion which lacked consensus for the proposed merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Instead of following the WP:edit revert discuss consensus policy, User:Lineagegeek decided to use the sequence 'WP:BOLD revert then 'cut/paste instead of move' that disconnected the article history from the content (which I reverted until a consensus is/isn't reached): 30 SW ( talk) 20:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Actually in January, updated the lineage section of this article. Because the updated lineage called for a move to the 99th Range Group and that move (an apparently uncontroversial one) was blocked by the previous existence of the article, the cut and paste was the only alternative to a simple move. I note that in that article there have been reversions that do not comply with the cited WP:edit revert discuss consensus policy -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 03:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• That's an admission of doing the cut/paste edit contrary to WP:MOVE ( and without discussing, per the ERDC policy, before doing the second move)--which started the edit war. Now the false claim "the updated lineage called for a move" appears to be fabrication (more apparent bad faith since the edited text never said anything about a move.) 30 SW ( talk) 20:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge - United States Air Force unit designations and missions change all the time. The 23d Intelligence Squadron no longer flies Spads as a Pursuit unit and it is no longer the 135th Aero Squadron, but it is the same unit. Under any of its designations, the 99th Range Group has never had any "standardizaiton/evaluation units" although it has had standardization evaluation as a staff function in Group Hqs. Its subordinate squadrons have been RBS units or range units. The group had designations before and after its designation as the 1st CEVG, but it is the same group. Lineagegeek ( talk) 22:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Lineagegeek has already identified the 1st Combat Evaluation Group and the electronic warfare group were not the same when he wrote that they were different units when they were split: "stan/eval function was separated" from the former and was not part of the later! Clearly he is aware of the "reliable sources" that they were not the same unit (i.e., the split created the latter new unit). 30 SW ( talk) 17:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• I did not write that there were different units, I wrote that a function was part of the headquarters function for part of the time the unit was active. Apparently the difference between these is is not clear to all editors, so I would suggest reading ^[1] Chapter 2 to understand the difference. Note the reference to preparation of Lineage & Honors documents by the Air Force Historical Research Agency elsewhere in this document. Among the material deleted in February was extracts from and references to the official L&H history of the unit prepared by the AFHRA. Splits or unions of functions do not create new units in the United States Air Force Lineagegeek ( talk) 21:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• You did too write "stan/eval function was separated", so that is identifying the differences between the 1CEVG and ECRG; which is indeed writing they were different units. Also, your false denial appears to be additional bad faith. 30 SW ( talk) 20:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• WP:MOS does not prohibit separate article for a notable and different unit. 30 SW ( talk) 20:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Although User:30 SW insists (with no support from reliable sources) that the 1st Combat Evaluation Group is a different unit, that is quite simply not true. There has only been one unit, which has held five different designations during its lifetime. These redesignations were sourced. WP:MOS calls for articles about a unit to be placed under the most current name of the unit. The prior merger (not move) was done without opposing comment. Lineagegeek ( talk) 22:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Lineagegeek has already identified the 1st Combat Evaluation Group and the electronic warfare group are different when he wrote that the "stan/eval function was separated" from the former and was not part of the later: none of the units for B-52, SR-71, KC-135 stan/eval were included in the EW group, so for him to now deny that they are "different" units and that the differences are "quite simply not true", appears to be false merge rationale of bad faith. 30 SW ( talk) 17:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• See my entry concerning units above. I point our again there never were "units" for B-52, SR-71, KC-135 stan/eval in the 1st CEG (later CEVG), there were staff functions. I will assume that unfamiliarity with USAF organizational terms underlies the accusation of bad faith in the previous post. I also assume it will be withdrawn once this editor understands USAF organization. Lineagegeek ( talk) 21:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• The "B-52, SR-71, KC-135 stan/eval...functions" you've identified explicitly indicates each function is a "member of a military organization", so as a result there will be no such withdrawal. Additionally, the personal attack regarding my knowledge is both false (I understand "USAF organization") and an additional case of apparent bad faith. 30 SW ( talk) 20:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Do not merge - per WP:MOS 1st Combat Evaluation Group is a distinct topic from 99th Range Group (e.g., 1CEVG never handled Nellis Range Operations). Also, 1st Combat Evaluation Group did not become the 99th Range Group -- the 1CEVG was split and its aircrew/aircraft standardizaiton/evaluation units never were part of any of the Range Groups, and User:Lineagegeek acknowledges 99th Range Group only had a portion of what had been the 1CEVG unit--which is why the 1CEVG name wasn't kept -- the new range group's mission was significantly different. 30 SW ( talk) 20:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• don't merge these [1cevg & 99tth RG articles). I saw the box recommending the merge weeks ago, but then it disappeared, then recently saw their was note on range group talk page that said there was this discussion. I was at Barksdale when the 1CEVG split was a 8AF coordinator for bomb comp among other things and worked with 1cevg pilots/navigators in the groups standardization and the evaluation divisions. they weren't part of the new electronic group created from the scoring division when cevg was broken up, so it is correct that the 1cevg and the subsequent elec/range grps were different. not sure how the guy who says hes from cevg and was a squadron commander could claim that isnt true as the split created a difference which is obveus--and hes eeven identified they were diff. same deal as when ADC broke up decades before--pieces went elsewhere and just a part stayed with norad. different mission, organization, and set of people as well as different name create a big difference wich is common at end of the cold war …Billy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.214.242 ( talk) 22:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• There may have been differences between the 1st Combat Evaluation Group and the 1st Electronic Combat Range Group in terms of mission and personnel, but the article[s] are about a unit. Units retain their lineage and honors through all redesignations per Air Force Instruction 38-101, Manpower and Organization, 16 March 2005, para 5.7.3. The fact that pilots and navigators assigned to one of the group's divisions were not part of the group when its mission changed does not affect the group's lineage, since personnel transfers do not affect lineages, per Air Force Instruction 84-105, Organizational Lineage Honors and Heraldry, para 2.1.2. Talk:99th Range Group has a reprint of the unit's lineage prepared by the Air Force Historical Research Agency, who is charged with making these decisions. (See AFI 84-105, Para 1.2) I find it interesting that you repeat the "hes eeven identified they were diff" claim made above, which was addressed before your post.-- Lineagegeek ( talk) 03:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - The opposition to this merge is correct, the ECRG didn't assume any of the personnel and equipment of the KC-10 branch, the B-52 branch, the SR-71 branch, etc. of the 1CEVG, so the ECRG and 1CEVG were very different units. The 1CEVG wasn't "redesignated" --if it had been redesignated the unit before and after the redesignation would have been the same unit and not missing a whole directorate (functionally half) afterward. Also, the split, broken up, etc characterizations are accurate. Since 1CEVG wasn't redesignated, the claim that "Units retain their lineage and honors through all redesignations" doesn't apply even if AFI 38-101 says it (doubtful). Perhaps the lineage guy will provide a quote from the AFI paragraphs with the policy text about the personnel transfers, different units, etc. to support his statements and the fallacious claim that the 2 notably different groups aren't to have different Wikipedia articles? Just look at the 2095s of the 1CEVG people who were re-addressed to the new ECRG unit, that is, the folks under the DC of RBS) - that documentation shows the 1CEVG & ECRG are separate units. [I'm a member of combatevaluationgroup talk at Yahoo] 168.244.11.3 ( talk) 23:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • combatevaluationgroup member, do you have any info about the ceremony held when 1CEVG was deactivated (e.g., who was the director of the RBS division?) 30 SW ( talk) 20:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I have a change of command ceremony booklet in storage, and IIRC the head of the RBS director became the ECRG commander (I'm confident there was no "redesignation" and all the ECRG personnel transferred from the different CEVG unit.) I suspect the archives are at Barksdale. 168.244.11.2 ( talk) 18:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply