This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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)

	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)

File: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

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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the German retreat from France in 1944 Op-ed: TomStar81 on empires of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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

• On the 409th Air Expeditionary Operations Group page, your edit caused a URL error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

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)

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)

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

• On the 89th Airlift Squadron page, your edit caused a URL error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

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)

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)

		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)

[1] 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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Jefferson Davis; Hawkeye7 on Australia's war in Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses British World War I conscription Timeline: This month in World War I

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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

The article 563d Rescue Group you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . 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)

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

• On the 323d Expeditionary Operations Group page, your edit caused a broken reference name ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 Timeline: This month in World War I

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

• On the 563d Rescue Group page, your edit caused a broken reference name ( help) and a cite error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)
• On the 323d Expeditionary Operations Group page, your edit caused a cite error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

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)

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)

The article 563d Rescue Group you nominated as a good article has passed ; 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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-Class content Book review: Hawkeye7 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 Timeline: This month in World War I

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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in World War I

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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of World War I

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)

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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Imperial Force Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at disease control and defence satellites Op-ed: TomStar81 on the rise of air power Timeline: This month in World War I

Please add to my defence /info/en/?search=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)

	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)

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

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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on Nazi terror and covert warfare Op-ed: Hawkeye7 looks at Australians on the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

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)

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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank Timeline: This month in World War I

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)

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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at two new books on the US military Interview: A chat with our new project coordinators Review essay: Nick-D discusses recent works on the British and Australian Armies in World War I Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of the Battle of the Somme Timeline: This month in World War I

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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at America's nuclear capability at the start of the Cold War Review essay: Hawkeye7 on the Manhatten Project suite of articles Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses leadership changes in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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.

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

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 [2] and [3] 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)

		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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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 ( talk • contribs) 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)

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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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)

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)

Hello Lineagegeek,

Can you please see if the 4th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron is connected to 4th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron, I been looking at [4] 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)

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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

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)

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)

[5] 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)

		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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

Could you please help me track down the lineage for this org? I'm looking at creating an article for this squadron.--v/r - T P 13:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Its lineage (although not current) is at [6] -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 22:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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)

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)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

Believe I've fixed a typo here. Cheers and thanks for all your hard work!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

While there actually have been a couple of units activated before being consituted, e.g. 475th Fighter Group, I don't believe this is one of them. ;-) -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 21:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Lineagegeek, before I restore the 3 Special Operations Squadron page back to its previous version, do you have any newer references that would supercede the official USAF HRA page dated 10 Aug 2016? 'Cheers, Loopy30 ( talk) 23:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

As per your reply posted to my talk page, AFI 38-101, dated 31 January 2017 would indeed be a newer reference, thanks. Loopy30 ( talk) 14:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. 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 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I was looking at your assessment of the above article. I note that the supporting materials requirement for the Class B assessment is marked "criterion not met". I did cite all sources when I wrote the original draft, and I listed my references at bottom. So what criteria do I still have to satisfy to gain a "B" for the article?

Georgejdorner ( talk) 02:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The page ought to have an infobox, diagram or more images. Although the standard does contain the word "or", a single photo of an O-1 is a bit lean for a B rated article. Looking at the article, I see that two paragraphs are tagged for no reference (and two others have none, but are not tagged). That would need to be corrected to return B1 to a yes. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 20:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. When I last looked at it, this article was fully cited...but you're right. Additional graphics can be found. I rather doubt the utility of an info box for what was not even an official USAF unit. Georgejdorner ( talk) 19:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the 60 ERS. Are you prepared to speculate at all about its relationship with the 449th AEG? Also, the 313th (especially) and 406th AEWs have a bit of a thin lineage. Does your AFOSCR access cover the period of the 313th AEW for OOD at Moron? Cheers and very many thanks for your continuing hard work, Buckshot06 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

First, the AFOSCR is issued in two forms. The first is issued monthly and is unclassified. The second is issued by month on an as needed basis and is classified (my memory is that it is limited to Secret, so a very few organizations would never appear on the report at all). I would expect the 60th's information to be in the classified report. As for expectations, on the plus side, the 449th appears to be the daddy bear for USAF operational units in Djibouti, there are also rescue units there, and a group seems a little small for an operation with 3 operational squadrons (if the rescue units weren't transferred to the 1st ERG). -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 22:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

Thanks for correcting my incorrect correction. I see that I am not the first person to be confused by this issue. I propose that "inactivated" should be linked to a wiki-dictionary entry that consists of the following: A USAF procedure which ends the organizational existence of a military unit, "when its mission ceases to exist and all resources are withdrawn," while still preserving its legal existence (unit is not disbanded). "An inactive unit retains its lineage, history and honors and is available for activation when needed again." (citing to the USAF procedure you provided me). I have never posted on anyone's talk page before, so I hope I have not violated any Wikipedia etiquette rules. Just wanted to contribute. -- WPatrickW ( talk) 22:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Nope, that's what talk pages are for. If you are new at this, I presume you let Wiki automatically put this page on your watchlist (you can click on the blue star at the top of the page to remove it), so you'll get a notice that I responded. If not @ WPatrickW: does the job. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 23:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey there! How can I help out on the 84th Airlift Flight page? Chefmikesf ( talk) 17:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It's short on citations. There appears to be material from Haulman, 84 Airlift Flight, that could be cited. The World War II material is more detailed, looking for material in Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1983) [1961]. Air Force Combat Units of World War II (PDF) (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN  0-912799-02-1. LCCN  61060979. Retrieved December 17, 2016.'s entry for the 437th Troop Carrier Group, could flesh this out. That source may have some material on Korean War service as well, but either Endicott, Judy G., ed. (2001). The USAF in Korea, Campaigns, Units and Stations 1950-1953 (PDF). Maxwell AFB, AL: Air Force Historical Research Agency. ISBN  0-16-050901-7. Retrieved December 17, 2016. or Futrell, Robert F. (1983). The United States Air Forces in Korea 1950-1953 (PDF). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN  0-912799-71-4. Retrieved December 17, 2016. would have more on that (it was part of one of only two reserve wings that deployed to the theater during the Korean War), while Cantwell, Gerald T. (1997). Citizen Airmen: a History of the Air Force Reserve, 1946-1994 (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Air Force History and Museums Program. ISBN  0-16049-269-6. Retrieved December 17, 2016. would flesh out its mobilization and the changes in the reserve program that led to its 1957 inactivation. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 19:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I was reading your assessment of this article. You make a considerable fuss about the inaccuracy of the sourced material I used for the article, yet you give no source for your objections. How can you justify your personal opinion as being more accurate than the source? If you have some source I am not aware of, could you please tell me so I can use it in the article? Georgejdorner ( talk) 19:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

First, Haas does not tie the crash rescue boat inactivation to the creation of Air Rescue Service (ARS). His note tying the activation of ARS to the 1947 creation of the USAF as a separate service is flat wrong. An organization that was already around [7] could not have been created by an action that did not occur until 1947. (And that is fact, not 'personal opinion".) This footnote is merely to point out that rescue boats were not part of ARS, not to state ARS' lineage. In addition, although Haas is a little vague, the context makes it clear that he is talking about boat operations in Japan, not Air Force wide (the last of the USAF boats had been put in dry storage for shipment back to the United States). He also is clear about Detachment 1 (and the Det was not activated on 7 July, but "shortly thereafter." [8] dosuments the squadron's existence with a detachment on Okinawa. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 20:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, most interesting. I shall exploit these sources when I have time. Many thanks for the references. Georgejdorner ( talk) 19:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I meant no insult by referring to opinion above. It's just that when I write for WP, I consider information as opinion until the source is supplied. Then it's a proven fact. Again, thanks for the facts. Georgejdorner ( talk) 00:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Please take another look. Although it turned out I did not cite the sources you so generously shared, I did use them in editing the article. Georgejdorner ( talk) 00:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

46th Bomb Squadron says one thing while List of MAJCOM wings of the United States Air Force says another. Just thought I'd check what you thought.. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll check this (I feel fairly confident that I introduced the inconsistency). Perhaps this will lead to an explanatory note ;-). I looked at Caldwell on my most recent editing and he says "Flying", but the terminology of the 1950s should call for "Pilot". Plus, there were a couple of "Navigator" training wings in the reserves at the time and Caldwell may have lumped them all together in his use of "Flying". (not looking at sources, but memory says one at Scott and one at Ellington). Lineagegeek ( talk) 00:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea how to edit Wikipedia but FYI the 430th bomb sq was reactivated Apr 1st of 2015 as the 44th Reconnaissance Squadron. It’s on the AF historian webpage now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.52.227 ( talk) 04:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I know you are an experienced editor so I was surprised to see material added that matched a site clearly marked as subject to copyright. Do you think I missed something? -- S Philbrick (Talk) 13:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. As stated in the edit summary the edit used the existing Wikipedia article under the earlier name of the unit 822d Tactical Missile Squadron. Note that the parts I changed (Infobox) are sourced and do not duplicate information on [9]. Moreover, that site's claim to copyright for all material following "Lineage" is invalid, as it repeats information in Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1982) [1969]. Combat Squadrons of the Air Force, World War II (PDF) (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN  0-405-12194-6. LCCN  70605402. OCLC  72556. Retrieved December 17, 2016., which is of earlier date. Your removal of the entire edit, as opposed to questioning the one paragraph that duplicates material on the link you provided, is overkill. I'll be restoring my edits and adding the one preempted by your reversion. I'll be editing other sections (including the History) sequentially. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 14:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Clued in by the inaccurate "inactivated in 1949 due to budget restrictions" (a favorite of a former user), I see that the web site you mention expressly states it was copied from the Wikipedia article on the 822d. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 14:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)-- Lineagegeek ( talk) 14:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Halifax Explosion of 1917 Timeline: This month in World War I

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 02:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Lineagegeek, I hope you had a great Christmas and New Year and your New Year is starting well. I hope you, your loved ones, your other family and friends are all doing well.

The 1701 ATW was a production of Bwmoll3 and has little sourcing. As a rare MAJCON wing with proper history, I am loath to do anything to it. Would you mind, please, adding it to your list of articles to check? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for fixing that so quickly!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting to see the sources that Mr Moll used but did not credit. In particular, the ones he interpreted as saying the wing was a redesignation of an AF Base Units (some commands did that in 1948) and to presume the wing moved to Brookley and remained active until 1957. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 21:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

For my future reference, which particular sources did he use without crediting? Many thanks again, Buckshot06 (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

In this case (and many others), he used the abstracts of historical reports at [10]. There is one abstract at this page that appears to establish continuity between the 1445th AAFBU abd the 1701st ATW. For some reason (my estimate is laziness and cut and paste) in this index the abstracts of the histories of the 1703d ATG all contain a remark: 1703d Air Transport Group, 1701st Air Transport Wing, Continental Division MATS through the discontinuance of the 1703d in 1957. Mr Moll apparently took that to mean that the 1701 ATW moved to Brookley, where the 1703d ATG was stationed, and remained active until 1957. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 15:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at tropical medicine and Operation Market Garden Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on US Army doctrine in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hey, I noticed you marked yourself as a member of WikiProject Wikify and you are currently listed as active. I was wondering if you would be able to assist with our current backlog reduction plan. While traditional drives are more structured month-long sprints by WikiProject Wikify members, there is currently lacking activity within the project and in order to significantly reduce the incredible backlog, members are encouraged to review all articles marked with the Underlinked Template Message - {{ underlinked}} - a list of which can be found here - to analyze the worthiness of the template message on the given article. Articles that have nothing to link or are have had wikilinks sufficiently added should have the template removed to clear the backlog and make it easier for editors to find articles in genuine need of wikification. This can be done by any editor; however, all editors should consider joining if they haven't done so already. Thank you!

The Novac ( talk) 07:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up a Free French Air Force unit, 03.003 Fighter Squadron "Ardennes". It mentions an attachment to No. 338 Wing USAAF in North Africa in 1944. Did either a 338th Fighter Wing or 338th Bombardment Wing exist? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The form (No. 338 instead of 338th) leads me to believe this is an RAF unit. the List of Wings of the Royal Air Force indicates II/3 Escadre de Chasse (Free French) was attached to No. 338 Wing. The highest numbered AAF wing in World War II was the 325th Photographic Wing. I've never found a wing numbered 324, but all the other numbers, 1-100, 301-325 are accounted for at least once. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 20:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Mediterranean Allied Air Forces article lists No. 338 Wing RAF in a chart, but I wanted to check with someone who would know the USAAF wings/USAF air divisions. Many thanks for your help!! Buckshot06 (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I am going to delete and recreate the 45th Reconnaissance Squadron article, removing the dubious sections. I'll give this about 24 hours though. Any comments or thoughts, sing out - feel free... Buckshot06 (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I am removing the global security copy/paste material from the page. (If I find anything that can be usefulle added with proper paraphrasing, I'll put in a footnote). I think the rest of the article can stand unless you come across something else. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 16:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Unfortunately it's still in the page history, so will delete/recreate. Will give you another 24 hours or so for any final changes you wish to make. Cheers and ever upwards!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Does the 732d Operations Group have lineage dating from the 732d Air Expeditionary Group? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Not unless we can talk AFHRA into consolidating them. The Ops Group was constituted on 9 August 2012, so there would not be temporal overlap. However, the 332d Air Expeditionary Wing is active again, so AFCENT may want to keep hold of the number. (under the "rules" a 732d group could be assigned to either the 332d or 432d Wing (as well as a hypothetical 32d or 532d.) -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 21:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

So the 732 OG, part of 432nd Wing, is an entirely new unit, with no antecedents? Makes it easier for setting up a 732 OG page, though these lineage rules seem crazy sometimes. 132d and 232d are ruled out due ANG and AFRES respectively, yes? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The current rule is that "second" units assigned to a wing are numbered in the 700s with the ending digits the same as the wing. "Second" units assigned to a headquarters higher than a wing are numbered in the 600s. End digits duplicate those of the headquarters. So a 732d group (or squadron) could be assigned to any wing ending in 32,, while a 617th group would be assigned to Seventeenth Air Force. Not sure what might happen if the 132d Wing (ANG) had a second unit of the same type. Not a subject covered in the organization instruction. The only ANG examples I now of are in the rescue wings after they broke up the squadrons into 3 (fixed wing, helicopter, pararescue). In those cases (and in the reserves), new squadrons were created numbered consecutively with the existing squadron. My main curiosity in this esoteric era was who was it (and why was it) back in the 1960s that had a fondness for numbers in the thirties? For no apparent reason, and out of sequence, Tactical Groups were created numbered from 33 to 40 and when Rescue Centers were redesignated as wings, they were the 39 to 41 wings. It should not be surprising that personal choices enter into such matters (including mine). -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 23:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks LG. What's the organizational instruction that covers this, if only partially? Which document? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Air Force Instruction 38-101 Air Force Organization, Paragraph 5.3 Unit Number. The current version is 20 January 2017. I just noted that the numbers for the Air National Guard are officially 101-299. I do not know when that changed from 101-300, but I do know it was well after the only unit with the 300 number was activated (a reserve unit). I also do not see an exception for the 100th Fighter Squadron (AL ANG). -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 00:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

This is listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130819 2. I'm going to delete it to remove questionable content and history, but will recreate. Please comment and/or make changes or suggestions - happy to give you 48ish hours. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty much rewritten now. Except for the lead.-- Lineagegeek ( talk) 22:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Reading Owen, Purpose and Precision, pp. 86-7 and 139 (note 114), I have amended the details for the 313 AEW and copied some data over to the 406 AEW. Essentially it appears that the growing, improvised wing at Moron in March 2011 was simultaneously designated the 313 by AMC and the 406 by USAFE on the same day, clearly without too much coordination. The PA ANG brigadier general commanding just got on with the job as best he could. Soon afterwards - see top of pp. 87, 'settled in AMC's favor', and 139 note 114, '406 AEW existed only for a brief time' - it appears the double designation was rescinded by USAFE inactivating the 406 AEW. However, it does not explicitly state this. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

As Owen says, quite confusing with split control (not conting the NATO chop) and conflicting doctrine on what "operational control" means. I made an effort not to get too deep in the weeds on this. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 21:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I have noticed that you have been adding a lot of "lead too short tags", to a lot of articles, for a long time. I only ask that you would consider fixing the leads instead of consistently tagging articles with this tag. It seems as though you are systematically going through related articles and adding the tag to all of them. This is not helpful, because the odds of someone going through dozens of Airlift Squadron articles consecutively and expanding the lead on all of them is highly unlikely, especially considering many of these articles were created ~10 years ago. If you want to improve articles, please do so, but using a tag like this so consistently does not improve anything. I hope you understand. Thank you. -- ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, what I have been doing to USAF unit pages ismuch more focused on the referencing. In trying to get these added and formatted to comply with copyright. This frequemt;y involves editing the tags, and where appropriate I have added the lead too short tag. Editing the entire lead would add to the time needed and slow the rest of what I've been doing. Hoping that someone will take the hint when they visit the page. A lot of these pages have leads that have completely replaced earlier leads when a unit has changed, rather than adding to them. Regards to Ximena. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 20:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Often what can happen is the official-text "overview" can be wound into the lead, which I have done, coming after LG, on several occasions. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll look for that when it exists. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 20:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Napoleonic Wars and Hawkeye7 on World War II Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on generalship in 1918 Timeline: This month in World War I

	The Original Barnstar
	For all your hard work on WP, but presently, specifically, 35th Fighter Squadron.. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Does Ramstein need to be added to the temporary deployment stations list? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No the 7310th Tac Airlift Wg was a predecessor of the 322d Tac Airlift Wing at Rhein Main -- single deployment that ran over the replacement of the MAJCON wing with the AFCON wing. The 7310th had been an Air Base unit at Rhein-Main since 1955 before redesignating as a Tac Airlift Wing in late 1968. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 22:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, next question. Any way you can improve the data on when the 36th Wing was reassigned to Eleventh Air Force - before 2014, it seems. Can you generate any better data? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Next time I will assume better of the Air Force and check whether the fact sheet has been updated!! Buckshot06 (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Not entirely. Quite a few of the pages on their current web site are even older than the ones eliminated by the 2016 server change. Gor example, 37th Flying Training Squadron cites to an archived version of a 2015 L&H. while the current web page carries a 2007 L&H. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 20:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You may wish to consider looking at RAF Atcham. There's a bit of tangle between the 6th Fighter Wing and 495th Fighter Group there that I don't have the lineage records to straighten out. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various 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 scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at coalitions and logistics in World War II, and Nick-D at Australia's frontier wars Timeline: This month in World War I

File:Albuquerque-ADS-map.png and the other Air Defense Command sector maps are considerably at variance with the page 31 map in Cornett and Johnson. Did Bwmoll have a more accurate source or did he incorrectly draw the lines? Kges1901 ( talk) 02:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to tell because his map is undated and areas of responsibility changed over time. Cornett & Johnson have a six-year gap in their maps on page 31. During this time Oklahoma City Air Defense Sector was discontinued and then organized again, actions that would have impacted Albuquerque ADS's area of responsibility. There's a similar gap in Cornett & Johnson from 1956 to 1960. The July 1960 map is the only one in Cornett & Johnson with Air Defense Sectors depictied, although at least some existed from fall 1956 to April 1966 as SAGE came on line. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 11:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The Albuquerque ADS was inactivated altogether on 1 November 1960 and apparently folded into the Oklahoma City ADS; it was never reorganized. As a result I think that the July 1960 map is the only accurate sector map that would include the Albuquerque ADS. Kges1901 ( talk) 15:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I've corrected the inactivation date on the Wiki article. It was 1961. The three manual air defense sectors (non-SAGE) (Albuquerque, Oklahoma City, Kansas City) were activated on 1 January 1960. They were progressively inactivated at the end of 1961, although Oklahoma City was revived. I don't know about boundary alignments, but there were no other organizational changes to other air defense sectors between January 1960 and January 1962. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 20:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for the 1961 date given that Cornett and Johnson wrote 1960, which is supported by the 33 Air Division AFHRA factsheet? Kges1901 ( talk) 21:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a transcription error, I have found three sources (one it two different locations) that agree on 1960. I've reverted the edit. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 18:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, just wondering if you could explain your revert on Air Force Global Strike Command. Thanks! Garuda28 ( talk) 00:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit: looking over it I think I found my error (correct me if I’m wrong). I incorrectly combined the dates, which is incorrect since there’s a break between SAC and AFGSC. Garuda28 ( talk) 00:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

On review, Probably shoule have done an undo, rather than a rollback. Among other things, I didn't notice what I was rolling back to. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 02:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries! I’ll be carful to make sure I don’t make the same mistake again. Garuda28 ( talk) 03:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you think this article violates commercially published works? Or is it just out of Maurer etc? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

None of this is in any of the unit works (Maurer, Ravenstein, Endicott), the 322d Air Division and the 72d Fighter-Bomber Squadron are the only combat units stationed there and neither is mentioned in the article. Nor is it in Fletcher's base book because it closed before his cutoff date.

Jerry McAuliffe's book listed in the references is the most likely source, but it is not available online AFAIK. Ravenstein and Endicott are listed as references. I did a word search for "Chateauroux" in Endicott and got no hits, as I expected. Ravenstein should yield the same result. I presume they are listed because of the 73d Air Depot Wing, but as a suport wing it is not listed in Ravenstein, and because it was inactivated in 1953, it's not in Endicott. (But the use of 73rd by Mr. Moll is odd – he was a strong proponent for USAF's use of 2d and 3d. this might indicate a cut and paste of this section McAuliffe uses 73d.).

I've done a quick look at McAuliffe and it does not appear to be a source well used, much less copied.

I have problems with the accuracy of the article, starting with its name. I believe it had two names during its life: Chateauroux Air Depot and Chateauroux Air Station (although the use of "Air Base" was frequent it was inaccurate.) USAFE rarely used the second half of base names in France (except for Toul-Rosieres), although I don't know if the post-hyphen part was used in the establishment documents. The article has the 73d Wing operating the base unitl it closed, when the 73d was inactivated in 1953. The article talks about the 4th Aerial Port Squadron as if it were a MATS unit (it was a USAFE unit -- the MATS/MAC units there with a similar mission were the 1616th Support Squadron and the 624th Military Airlift Support Squadron). I also disagree with the use of French, rather than English in English Wikipedia articles for names of US installations.

So if one of the search and compare engines shows material from other older sources was copied, I'd turn the article into a redirect to the article on the civilian airport. (Although not entirely accurate, because the depot headquarters was a few miles away. The part called "Air Base" was where the runways are today.) -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 13:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I am going to delete the entire article, and, due to your comments and a Chateauroux Air Station site, including the redirect. This discussion serves as a record, and anyone can ask to have it brought back at a later date. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You created this redirect, and I've deleted it because it doesn't mean anything. Did you wish to create Ayer Army Air Field? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never landed on a Firlc. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 19:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Re INDOPACOM, do you think we can move PACAF to Indo-Pacific Air Forces immediately? Is there going to be a new Fwd at New Delhi IAP? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

While the renaming is probably inevitable, I think it best to wait until it is announced and a WP:RS for the change is available. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 22:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I was joking!! We shall see!! Regarding the 3205 Drone Squadron, can you e-mail me the L&H? I'd like see one in original form. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on a supergun of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: This month's external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the murder of the Romanovs Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi Lineagegeek. It looks like you copied some content from 1st Aerospace Control Squadron to 1st Space Operations Squadron. When you copy from one Wikipedia article to another, you need to provide attribution. This is done by saying in your edit summary that the material was copied, and where you got it. Please have a look at this edit summary for an example of how it is done. Please let me know if you have any questions, or have a look at WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. Thanks, — Ninja Diannaa ( Talk) 04:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Caught me in the middle of a merger. It's now complete, and I believe all the appropriate tags are on the redirected 1st Aerospace Control Squadron and Talk:1st Aerospace Control Squadron pages -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 22:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Your merger appears to be totally inappropriate as the only thing left of the entire 1st Aero article is a couple of sentences in Background. This suppresses some early history of the USAF space program an action which which appears totally inappropriate. Please explain why you think it appropriate to suppress this history.

Seaotter6 Huh? First, there is no 1st Space Operations Squadron#Background section. Second, 1st Space Operations Squadron#Space Track is pretty lengthy and a lot more than a couple of sentences. Please explain what you are talking about. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 21:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia notice about the merger sent me to 1st Expeditionary Space Control Squadron

 (Redirected from 1st Space Control Squadron)

which is what I was referring to, not a I said, the Operations Squadron. I now see, as you say, that there is Space Track information in the 1st Space Operations page. Thanks for the quick reply.

I think it would be better, rather than merging part of the 1st Aero page into the new page if you included a link to the full original 1st Aero page as it has additional historical information.

Seaotter6 I think most of what was omitted is discussed in Talk:1st Space Operations Squadron along with reasons. Some other material not included was pre-1961 and probably more appropriate for inclusion in Project Space Track (1957-1961) than in an article about the unit. I've corrected the typo (my fault) on the redirect, so I see why you thought stuff was going down the memory hole. The merger note on the talk page will take you to the talk page and article on the 1st Aerospace Control Squadron, which still contains links to all the previous material. Don't forget to sign your comments. Since this is a continuation of the previous section, I'll take the liberty of removing the separate section header. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 22:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see the names of the initial 1st Aero cadre on the talk age under merger but I can't imagine why normal Wikipedia users would think to go to the talk page and scroll down all that way to see part of the items you deleted. I still think a link to the full old 1st Aero page would be far better and not so obscure. Some people are interested in the history of the very early USAF days of satellite tracking and the 1st Aero page has all that is available as far as I know. It's rather a shame to trash it. Seaotter6 ( talk) 22:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)seaotter6

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a classic US official history Op-ed: TomStar81 on belated declarations of war in 1916–18 Timeline: This month in World War I

Can you please take a look at this page? Needs work I think, almost certainly not an "air division".. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Again... I’m hoping to lean on your experience as a Unit Historian to determine the best way to discover information. There is an article I’m sure you’re aware of listing former commanders of SAC. But as far as I’ve checked, SAC is the only command with such an article. I’ve searched elsewhere on the web to discover sources, but I’ve found nothing. Why don’t unit historians ever post anything but “current” info on Fact Sheets and unit history sites? Is there a better place for me to look? I’d like to do something similar for Senior Enlisted (Command Chiefs) and such. Ideas? TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 23:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Active major commands generally have their commanders listed on the AFHRA website [11]. That includes commands that have been consolidated with current commands (TAC, MATS, MAC). At the unit level below wing, unit historian is an additional duty (and generally not considered a really important one), so skill in history or research is not a prerequisite. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 12:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I was unaware you had responded until I navigated back to you talk page just now. :-) I'm glad you got back to me on this. So, I found a way around my problem. Even after looking at the AFHRA site, I had a lot of trouble. So, I referred to the article List of United States Air Force four-star generals. I then used a control-F function in my browser and searched for a term like USAFE. That highlighted all of the generals that were ever assigned to USAFE, making my search for info much easier. I did the same for TAC... Now, I've got two lists I've developed, if you don't mind commenting on when you get the chance. One is List of commanders-in-chief of USAFE and the other is List of commanders-in-chief of Tactical Air Command. I based my design for both of them off the existing page called List of commanders-in-chief of the Strategic Air Command, with some minor differences. I appreciate your time. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 03:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@ TadgStirkland401: The term commander in chief is no longer used. SAC was a specified command and USAFE was a component command of a unified command, so some of their commanders had the commander in chief title. TAC was a major command, but was never a specified or component command, so no TAC commander had the commander in chief title associated with commanding TAC. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 11:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

So, I should rename both articles to just read "List of Commanders of so-and-so"? I can do that... Having served 20 years, I never heard there was a difference in titles for that given reason. I did wonder why we called one boss CINCSAC, but I never heard it anywhere else... LOL... Makes sense now. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 21:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. I've "moved" the two lists to rename them. You can see them now at List of commanders of USAFE and List of commanders of Tactical Air Command. They are both still in my sandbox. I'll "be bold" and move them to article space after you have another look. I appreciate it. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 22:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@ TadgStirkland401: A couple of options to think about. Whether to include Commanders of Far East Air Forces in the PACAF list and Commanders of Military Air Transport Service and Commanders of Air Transport Command on the MAC list (I would) and Commanders of Continental Air Forces in the SAC list (just to be inconsistent, I wouldn't). ConAF was short-lived before it became SAC in 1946, while FEAF, ATC and MATS were around for a while with notable commanders before their final redesignation/consolidation. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 23:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

You bring up a great point to me concerning how many of these lists are actually going to be useful in the long run. It'll take a ton of work to get ALL the various commands covered properly. Do you think the two lists I've got so far are worthy of publishing yet? I can work on the other lists later as time permits. Your help has been invaluable to me. TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 23:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

USAFE: Add William H. Tunner, 1953-1957 John K. Cannon 1945-1946, 1948-1951 Curtiss E. LeMay 1947-1948 John F. McBlain 1947 Idwal H. Edwards 1946-1947. Then see if you want to include and redirect Commanders of United States Strategic Air Forces and Commanders of Eighth Air Force (The original one) to add Carl Spaatz 1942, 1944-1945 Ira C. Eaker 1942-1944 Asa N. Duncan 1942 -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 11:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll need to do more research. But according to this fact sheet, McBlain was never the commander of USAFE. Am I misreading something? TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 16:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

He commanded from 14 August to 20 October 1947 (while waiting for LeMay to arrive). -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 17:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you tell me anything about this unit? Does not appear to be related to the 66th Fighter Wing.. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Prior to the AF Wide experimental Wing Base Organization, several commands tried variations on their own. SAC formed three provisional Combat Fighter Wings (3d at Andrews, 65th at Selfridge, 66th at Grenier) and four Combat provisional Bombardment Wings(50th At Rapid City, 51st at Merced, 52d at Spokane and 94th at Grenier). They were only around for a few months in 1947. -- Lineagegeek ( talk) 21:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Indy Beetle and Nick-D on the Katangese Gendarmes and India during World War II Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at two important treaties of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.