User talk:Bwmoll3/2012

Hello! I watch a lot of classic actor pages so have noticed you adding stamp images to quite a few of them. I just thought I'd point out to you—I don't know if you realise this or not—that if you look at the licensing you've selected, it says in small print "This template also does not apply to postage stamp designs published by the United States Postal Service since 1978." You may find these images being removed from the pages, or even deleted from the Commons altogether (I think it is bound to happen at some point, in fact, it's just a question of how long it takes someone to notice). I won't pursue it myself but I thought I'd give you a heads-up! --Lobo512 (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm surprised stamps aren't in the public domain as well, it definitely feels like they should be. I don't blame you at all for thinking they were. --Lobo512 (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to have 'A Handbook of Aerospace Defense Organization 1946 - 1980'? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

Hi there. I just thought I should tell you that I've removed the stamp image you added to Katharine Hepburn's article. It's a great image and I'd love to keep it there, but I'm currently preparing the article for WP:FAC, and the image just wouldn't fly there. The license says stamps can only be used "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)". FAC are strict on complying to WP rules, so I need to take the image off. It was a good addition for a while though, so thanks! --Lobo512 (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I believed I had written the Fair Justification adequately though, however good luck with the FA attempt. Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

Would you be willing to add projects to the pages that you create? Thank you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I'm unclear on exactly what you would like. Example? Bwmoll3 (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, {{WikiProject Military History|class=X|importance=X}} as well as state projects {{WikiProject Massachusetts|class=X|importance=X}}, or sometimes {{WikiProject United States|class=X|importance=X|MA=yes|MA importance=X}}. Basically, adding the Milhist and state projects would help to standardize and categorize the talk pages. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bwmoll3. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bwmoll3. I noticed that a redirect you recently created, 61st Troop Carrier Squadron, redirects back to itself. I'm sure this wasn't your intention, but unfortunately I wasn't able to help fix it as I can't figure out the intended target. Please could you take a look? Thanks! – Wdchk (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 82d Troop Carrier Squadron is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/82d Troop Carrier Squadron until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that Maurer Maurer is notable enough for his own article?

BORN: 26 February 1914 -- Wood County, Ohio DIED: 22 September 2002 -- Montgomery, Alabama

Son of Arbella and Elan Maurer.

• Obit

He is probably not notable enough, but I thought I would ask you.

>Best O Fortuna (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has just been relisted to achieve a clearer consensus -- would you like to comment? (PS. I was the originator, but you'll see that when you reach the page.) Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:9thaf-map2006.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bwmoll3, greetings from downunder - hope you're well. I've been looking at this article, and think that it might be worth a rename. While in accordance with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME to have the last name, the command wasn't renamed a wing until after the war ended and it was slated for disbandment. All it's war service was as VII Fighter Command/Interceptor Command. I think WP:COMMONNAME might be the better guideline in this case, because either fighter wing designation does not really reflect the name under which it was in action. I'd like to thus move it to VII Fighter or Interceptor Command, whichever it was. What do you think? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Afpc.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the article 'RAF Chipping Ongar'. Sadly, a link that you added has died. The article needs your help to repair link rot.

This link has died after you added it in October 2006:

• http://www.wartime-airfields.com/id18.html — I tried to load this link on 17 March, 19 March, 21 March and today but it never worked. I'm not sure, but this copy from the archives might be a good replacement.

I've marked this link with {{Dead link}}, but I'm just a bot, so I don't really know how to fix the problem. Could you please take a look? Thanks!

PS- If you don't want BlevintronBot to contact you, simply add {{bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or your user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tac-base-map.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tac-base-map-2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

This appears from Cudjoe Key, Florida to be still active. Can you gather your team of USAF specialists and have a look? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning

Instead of editing the infobox can you change the infobox to infobox airport as if any of the raf stations had runways or helipads it should have the airport infobox instead of the military structure infobox?

Thanks

Gavbadger (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for changing the infobox it is appreciated! Gavbadger (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

Your expertise is needed here, including a source for Eleventh Air Force being unmanned while at Olmsted, 1946-48. Warm regards from Enzed, Buckshot06 (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Bwmoll3 and Ktr101

I note some commonality of language in:

• Vitry-Brienne Air Base
• Vatry Air Base
• Vouziers-Sechault Air Base
• Luneville-Chenevieres Air Base

One paragraph isn't particularly surprising:

No flying unit was ever permanently assigned to Vouziers/Brienne/Vatry/Chenevieres and it was used for dispersal training only. However, it did require the same level of equipment as a standard air base. NATO security personnel were required to control base access, guard equipment, munitions and supplies stored on the facility, as well as prevent vandalism.

as all four were NATO Dispersed Operating Bases so a similar description is appropriate.

However, I was surprised to see:

Construction began in 1953, and Brienne Air Base/Vouziers Air Base/Vatry Air Base/Chenevieres Air Base was designed for 50 fighters with three large hangars constructed

Is it really the case that all four had three hangers, were all constructed starting in 1953 and all were designed for precisely 50 fighters?

Complicating the question is that while a source is mentioned in a reference section, it is not used as an inline citation, so I don't know how much of the article derives from that source, in particular, I don't know whether this specific claim came from there.

I'm hoping that one or both of you have access to the book, and can provide an inline citation if the claim is supported, and change it if it is not.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reported a possible copyright problem involving Dow Air Force Base. Copyright problems is very understaffed, you have expertise in the area, and you have edited the article extensively, so I'm hoping you will be willing to rewrite the short history section. If you do, you can report it at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2012_June_10, or let me know and I'll report the resolution.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at http://www.flybangor.com/content/4044/History/, you'll see that the first sentence is copied word for word.

You can also click on the Duplication Detector, which will highlight that sentence and several others. The Duplication Detector is a bit of overkill, we don't need to worry about "east of the mississippi", but it runs with automatic parameters. IMO, if the History section is rewritten, it will be fine, more anal reviewers might want to see the "closing" language rewritten.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of specificity:

• The first sentence of the history section is a direct copy.
• The second appears to be OK
• The third sentence is a direct copy.
• For obvious reasons, I can't quote the sentences here
• The article has no inline citations, I would hope you could add one to http://www.flybangor.com/content/4044/History/
• I rewrote the sentence associated with the closing, so if you see that in the duplication detector, I've now fixed it--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evening

I was looking at the category "World War II Desert Airfields" (which you created) and noticed that the top says "Military airfields in desert areas of the world (mainly in the Middle East and North Africa) used during World War II" and a large amount of the article in the category appear to being airfields located within the USA.

Would you object if i changed the lead to something most appropiate for the North African World War II airfields and remove the one's based in the USA or am i getting this wrong and the your intention was for any airfield that is located in the desert and was used during WWII to be together in a category?

Gavbadger (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

If you compare the details of attachment of the 24th SRS in the 6th SW article, and the material in the 24th SRS article, before noting the details I've just added, they don't match. Is the 24th SRS that was with 6th SW a different squadron from the 24 SRS article, or, is the lineage information inaccurate? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I looked back at the Mauer Mauer reference and it's exactly what I wrote when I created the article a few years ago.

Then looked up the 6th AMW http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=9626, and saw the following:

• 24 Bombardment (later, 24 Strategic Reconnaissance): attached 2 Jan 1951-15 Jun 1952, assigned 16 Jun 1952-25 Jan 1967; assigned 25 Mar 1967-7 Jul 1992.

I can only conclude these are two separate squadrons, that share the same numerical designation; as the 24th SRS article and Mauer Mauer reference shows it being a component of the 68th Strategic Reconnaissance Group, later Wing; and not the 6th Bombardment Wing.

FYI, I'm on kind of a wikibreak right now. Haven't been feeling real well for the past several weeks :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Removing them on the basis that it provides information to the enemy has to be one of the silliest comments in a while. As the article points out in the second sentence one of purposes of the NWS is to look for incoming aircraft. In fact the only secret they seem to have these days is the seismic room which you can't go in and they won't explain. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bucksh0t06 has started a discussion of that subject on my talk page. Thought you might like to join in. If it gets "important" enough, perhaps a move to WPMILHIST would be in order.Lineagegeek (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

Do you want to double-check this edit? I've removed some material that was originally on the AFOT&E Center page, which appears to be incorrect based upon the the USAAF School of Applied Tactics lineage data that you've added. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that AAF Proving Ground Command at Eglin and the Army Air Forces Center at Orlando were merged as Army Air Forces Center on 1 June 1945. Looking at the Eglin AFB section of Mueller, Robert (1989). Volume 1: Active Air Force Bases Within the United States of America on 17 September 1982.

Major Commands to Which Assigned: Air Corps Training Cen, 9 Jun 1935; Southeast Air Corps Training Cen, 27 Aug 1940 (until Jun 1941, also assigned to CG Fourth Corps Area, USA); Chief of Air Corps (direct subordination), 19 May 1941; AAF Proving Ground Comd, 1 Apr 1942; AAF Cen, 1 Jun 1945 (rdsgd AAF Proving Ground Comd, 8 Mar 1946; Air Proving Ground Comd, 10 Jul 1946); Air Materiel Comd, 20 Jan 1948; Air Proving Ground, 1 Jun 1948 (rdsgd Air Proving Ground Comd, 20 Dec 1951)

It appears the statement is likely correct, just that the history office may have left out the part of the two commands appear to being merged in June 1945. My best belief. An email to AFHRA is probably a good idea to ask. Also, the 3205th Drone Group article is mostly finished, ty for your help with it !! :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 10:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bwmoll3 - that's good to have that sorted out. I don't have any contacts at AFHRA and am not an American citizen, so would prefer to leave e-mails to them to you. I think we need now a List of MAJCOM groups of the United States Air Force to keep all the MAJCOM groups in some sense of order. If you could reference any of the entries at List of MAJCOM wings of the United States Air Force that would be great too. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll send to AFHRA,however their inquiry page isn't limited to US citizens. http://www.afhra.af.mil/main/contactus.asp . I'll send it out in a week or so; the reason being is that I just received emails for the Lineage and History of the 3205th Drone Group and all its subordinate squadrons on Friday. I don't like to go to them all that often, usually no more than once a month so I'm not considered a pain :) Funny how that information tied a lot of units together, both at Eglin and at Holloman AFB. I had written about the early missile units at Eglin, the AAFSAT at Orlando, missile testing at Patrick AFB over the past few years and the B-17 drones were used by all of those activities and it linked the disparate unit pages, and Proving Ground Command together nicely. Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also we need to change all the tenses from present to past regarding the 96th Air Base Wing to 96th Test Wing and the Air Armament Center. I'd move the wing page but I'm not sure of all the associated USAF things that might need to be done. Please don't hesitate to ask for help to divide ('divy') up the tasks. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Started working on the 96th TW article, moved it, re-wrote the introduction; added an overview section and also re-wrote the groups section. Working off the Eglin AFB website units section. Also changed the emblem to the new one. 00:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Air Armament Center: clue, the reference to APGC. It's the APGC lineage and honours listing at AFHRA. United States Air Force. "Air Proving Ground Command Lineage and Honors". Air Force Lineage and Honors (online). Retrieved 17 August 2012. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The AAF Proving Ground Command, responsible for testing aircraft weapon systems and munitions, was established in 1942 at Orlando, Florida, and moved in 1946 to Eglin Field, Florida. It replaced another AAF Proving Ground Command that was discontinued and disbanded. " Answer: There were two  :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you also mind please adding the Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1947 (or whatever year it was) to every article you create? Then I don't need to come round after you and add them. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bwmoll3. The willingness of the USAAF/USAF to have two organizations which are completely separate, with the same name, is a *real* potential point of confusion with the generalist reader we are supposed to be writing for. Would you mind doing a careful writing/rephrasing job at Air Armament Center, to emphasise that the AAF had two PGCs? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate hat-notes on principal if they can be avoided. What do you think of this edit? I think it does a better job overall, especially of sketching the history of the wing. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't add significantly to an article, I agree. It's a matter of style. I tend to use them when I'm trying to inform the reader of significant additional information, moreso than just a common Wikilink. Although they belong at the top or internal to the history section, not at the top of the article. Also I use them when separating the history of, for example, a major airport (Tampa International Airport) and it's former military use (Drew Army Airfield) to tie the articles together. Bwmoll3 (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bwmoll3, I've just seen your adding of extra wing categories to articles - eg adding TCW to the 442 FW, recognising an earlier incarnation. I'd actually like this to be discussed and extra opinions sought before this is done. I believe that categories should only apply in regard of the name the unit currently holds - thus cat:mil units and formations only attached to the date the wing became a Fighter Wing (ie for 442 FW), and only hold a 'Fighter Wings of the USAF' category. You obviously believe differently. Can we please seek some third opinions before rolling this out across all the wings? Cheers and best wishes, Buckshot06 (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Please start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly if I'm interested in someone's work - and you've done a bunch of great work - I do tend to follow it closely. My apologies if you feel stalked. At least you know I have your interests in documenting the USAF at heart ... Buckshot06 (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do know how to do it (now), right? Please ask for assistance from me if you're unsure of any WP process that I might be aware of... Buckshot06 (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Royal Thai Air Force Bases Petebutt (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on adding articles on currently inactive Air Reserve groups and wings to Wiki. Such as the 9xx series of groups/wings. Also, for adding the re organizational information of groups/wings from 1957 through 1963. This is the first time that I have seen such a clear and concise explanation of the reasons behind the creation of the 9xx series of Air Reserve groups and some later wings. --TGC55 (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I also created a number of 9xx group articles for the units that have been inactivated over the years as well :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

Thanks for uploading File:North Vietnamese Capture of Tan Son Nhut Air Base - 30 November 1975.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning

I would like to request you reconsider your merging of the 401 fighter squadron and the 173rd refueling squadron. While I acknowledge that on paper the latter grew out of the former, they have(had) different missions and served at different times and each deserves its own article. Obviously the should be appropriately cross referenced.

ed

Ecragg (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To date, most of what I have done on the List of MAJCOM wings of the United States Air Force has been adding information or fairly minor edits. I am proposing a fairly major edit of the narrative section on MAJCON wings, including splitting the section. I have posted this change on the talk page. I am sending this note to the four of you because the Article History indicates you are the other major contributors to the page and some of the editing may impact what you have done previously. Some of you have been editing for a long time and probably have pretty cluttered watchlists (and I’m not sure if one of you is still actively editing), so I’m posting this on your talk page, too. With this change (and your suggestions) added, I think the page will be ripe for assessment. Lineagegeek (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I like it. Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 317th Troop Carrier Squadron requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Coin Operation (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is safe now --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)(although relocated).[reply]

I understand we may have our differences about how these State ANGs are to be portrayed, but I did want to explain to you my position on one thing: this edit. The identification symbols spaces are for different symbols of the *unit named in the article* - they're ways to place different types of symbols that the OR ANG may have - shoulder flashes, badges, logos, etc. If you add badges of subordinate units, it not only fills up those potential spaces, but means people don't even usually think of finding the other types of badges of the the *named* unit. We have whole separate pages for the subordinate units. I have reverted these additions. Please do not add them again without a discussion at a talkpage more often visited than OR ANG itself. Warm regards from NZ, Buckshot06 (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; you've fixed this. However, would appreciate you not removing categories such as Category:Military units and formations established in the 1940s; this is standard for all military units and formations; how otherwise are we to make the category system work? There is a potential issue re semi- or full 'armed services established in the 19xxs', which I've been thinking over for some time, but I cannot figure out how to word it properly. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

This is what I want deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crooks_Anonymous_half_sheet_poster.jpg

I've determined it would be better for there to be no image at all than images that are of such low quality like the versions above. How would I delete them? Shipofcool (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could just replace it with a better poster. I found one here: http://www.movieposter.com/poster/MPW-61837/Crooks_Anonymous.html Deleting files requires an admin, which I am not. I hope this helps :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

Would you be able please to point me at the PD material you use for edits like this at the 163 FS? I'd like to use it too. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am using several sources for these Air National Guard unit histories:

• flightline insignia.com This site has about 1/3 to 1/2 of the ANG Squadron histories on it. Not group or wing. There is a search box. In this example, I typed in 176th, then click on the squadron patch graphic and the lineage/history document comes up.
• Maurer, Maurer. Combat Squadrons of the Air Force: World War II. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama: Office of Air Force History, 1982. Provides a link to the World War II histories and searchable for the World War II unit --> ANG unit numerical designation.
• Maurer, Maurer, Air Force Combat Units of World War II, Office of Air Force history (1961). ISBN 0-405-12194-6 Gives GROUP history, and in many cases, the date the unit was recognized by the National Guard Bureau. That is the date of activation of the ANG unit. Also occasionally provided lineage and assignment information up to the Korean War Federalization.
• The unit website (Wing) many times has a history link This is usually a text narrative that provides unit history information. These you have to read carefully as there is no standard being used, and in many times it's not very complete, but it is very useful.
• globalsecurity.org They have copied many unit history documents verbatim as webpages on their site. Many of these are unavailable now on the official site. However, this is a pay site and they limit the number of articles you can read for free. There is a workaround for this however, If you go to their site, copy the top URL of the page to the clipboard. Then open up Microsoft Word, or whatever text editor you use, and paste the URL into the "open" box. Word will go to the site and copy the HTML page into a document you can read :)
• Cornett, Lloyd H. and Johnson, Mildred W., A Handbook of Aerospace Defense Organization 1946 - 1980, Office of History, Aerospace Defense Center, Peterson AFB, CO (1980). This is very useful in determining unit assignments, as they have maps for the years 1950-1979 when Air Defense/Aerospace Defense Command used Air Divisions, Forces, and other Command and Control organizations. This is for the Groups and Wings which you can look at the various maps over time and see the assignments and the various changes.

Now, there are also several non-public sources I am using which are very helpful. (Used books can be purchased on Amazon.com.. very inexpensive)

• Martin, Patrick. Tail Code: The Complete History of USAF Tactical Aircraft Tail Code Markings. Schiffer Military Aviation History, 1994. ISBN 0-88740-513-4.

This book has much information about when various ANG units were assigned what aircraft; the downside is that many ANG units did not use tailcodes (some still don't).

• McLaren, David (2004), Lockheed P-80/F-80 Shooting Star: A Photo Chronicle, Schiffer Publishing, Ltd.; First Edition edition, ISBN 0887409075
• Davis, Larry (1992), F-86 Sabre in action - Aircraft No. 126, Squadron/Signal Pubns; 2nd Revised edition ISBN: 0897472829
• Donald, David (2004). Century Jets: USAF Frontline Fighters of the Cold War. AIRtime. ISBN 1-880588-68-4 Image source listed as United States Air Force
• McLaren, David. Republic F-84 Thunderjet, Thunderstreak & Thunderflash: A Photo Chronicle. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Military/Aviation History, 1998. ISBN 0-7643-0444-5.
• McAuliffe, Jerome J. (2005). US Air Force in France 1950-1967. San Diego, California: Milspec Press ISBN 0-9770371-1-8.

There are other books (B-57, F-100) that provide the same. Also joe baugher's website provides much information about when the ANG was assigned what aircraft and also gives dates and unit information. He also writes about various details, such as the use of say the F-4 by the ANG..

The above books cover about 80% of ANG units when they flew one of those types of aircraft, primarily in the 1950s and 1960s. They write about State Units, what they flew when, also other information about when they were activated, also write about the Korean and Vietnam War federalizations. The McAuliffe book writes about the Federalization of ANG units that were deployed to France in much detail.

• Gross, Charles Joseph, PhD (1995), The Air National Guard and The American Military Tradition, Historical Services Division, National Guard Bureau, Washington, D.C. ISBN: 0-16-0-048302-6

Much information about the pre-1941 National Guard aviation Observation Squadrons; also lists dates and locations of Federalized units for Korea and during the Cold War.

• AIR NATIONAL GUARD FLYING UNIT KOREAN WAR MOBILIZATI0NS, 1950 - 1953. Sources: ANG Unit Date Cards, NGB-PAH, National Guard Bureau, Historical Services Division, Air National Guard Archives.
• PUEBLO CRISIS AND VIETNAM WAR MOBILIZATIONS 1968-1969

Also lists of federalizations and who went where and when.

Now, none of any of this gives ALL the information. Especially the twelve National Guard Wings set up by the National Guard Bureau after World War II. They were former World War II "Wings" that became State "Wings", that controlled large numbers of units in regions after the ANG was formed after 1946. For example, the 111th Air Defense Wing (PA ANG), was originally the 53d Troop Carrier Wing in WWII, allocated to the PA ANG in 1946 as the 53d Fighter Wing, then was re-designated as the 111th ADW in 1950. (That one was discovered though some google searches). You can find the wings by looking though Maurer, Maurer, Air Force Combat Units of World War II looking for keyword "Wing" and also by State. However Maurer Maurer did not provide much information other than date allocated, which state, federal recognition and disbandment date (31 October 1950 - all of them). I've written the National Guard Board historian but haven't received any information about them yet.

Also, remember the Air National Guard is NOT the United States Air Force, so the AFHRA isn't a good source of information about the ANG units. That information is held by the various State Military Departments because the ANG is a state militia organization.

The USAF trains and equips the units, but the 159th Fighter Squadron (for example) is a South Carolina ANG unit; not a USAF Air Combat Command unit (although that's not really evident, as the 159th is taking over many functions of the USAF 20th Fighter Wig at Shaw AFB.. about 30 miles (50 Km) East of McIntyre AGB... but that's a result of money issues with the Air Force and its cheaper to let the ANG do things.. such are the changes in our military in the 2000s....). I had that explained to me by the AFHRA Historian

The ANG Expeditionary Fighter (expeditionary airlift), etc, units are attached to major commands.. because the individuals - not units - are "federalized" by order of the President of the United States. (That's another issue) Getting lists of these Expeditionary deployments is another research project by the way.. Now that we're out of Iraq and Operations such as Northern and southern Watch, We're out of Bosnia and other places. All of that information may or may not be pubic such as what unit went where and when..

So by now I hope you understand there is no magic source for these. It's a combination of pieces of the puzzle from many places. I'm guilty of using some standardized text in the articles that change in the details.. and much of the histories I've contributed are compilations of various pieces that are in different places. The details tend to be lacking in a lot of units, simply because I haven't written the units asking for it. Remember, these are part-time citizen airmen that in a lot of times are there one weekend a month so you don't have a large unit history department. It's usually a Captain or a Staff Sgt who reads email once a month and may or may not respond.......

This also tends to get a bit tiring so from time to time I take a few days away from doing it. Fortunately I have time on my hands these days, and its enjoyable doing the research and learning about these units.

Good luck :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh one other thing. The Air National Guard is fundamentally different than the regular USAF as the state ANG units all started at the squadron level. Yes, there were some Groups and a few Wings that were formed in the 1940s, but in most cases, the history is held at the squadron level. Over the years the squadrons were authorized by the National Guard Bureau to expand to a Group, and in 1995 the USAF sent a directive to the ANG saying there is a Wing at every base "One base - One Wing" policy. So in most cases, I'll write the history for the squadrons first. Then modify the written text into the Wing page - it's all the same unit. Bwmoll3 (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all ANG units started at the squadron level, although I agree that is the best place to start. The first 27 groups were allotted to the National Guard in 1946, as were most of the squadrons (excepting those whose histories dated to pre-WW II observation squadrons). The first 27 wings that still exist were activated on 1 November 1950 (except for units already federalized for the Korean War, which were activated in October) when the Guard finally adopted the wing-base (Hobson Plan) organization. All 12 wings that had previously been allotted to the Guard were withdrawn. Additional groups began to be formed in 1956 when units gained by Air Defense Command adopted the organizational structure employed by ADC starting in 1953. Tactical Air Command gained units were reorganized to provide groups at dispersed locations between 1958 and 1962. In all of these cases, the squadrons continued as subordinate units of the new groups or wings. In 1974, the Guard finally adopted the dual deputy wing organizational structure of the USAF and inactivated groups that were colocated with wings and assigned their squadrons directly to the wings. The Guard adopted the Objective Wing organization in two steps in 1994-1995. This resulted in almost all groups becoming wings, with brand new operations groups being activated. The exception was the existing wings, where the groups inactivated in 1974 or earlier were activated as operations groups. Unfortunately, AFHRA (unlike the Center for Military History) washes its hands of all this, and the historians on the scene are not only part time, but are also assigned historical record keeping as an additional duty.

For historical material concerning the pre-war observation squadrons, Clay, Steven E. (2011). US Army Order of Battle 1919-1941 (PDF). Vol. 2 The Services: Air Service, Engineers, and Special Troops 1919-1941. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press. ISBN 9780984190140. LCCN 2010022326. OCLC 637712205. Retrieved Oct 16, 2012. generally has more information than Maurer's Combat Squadrons--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...In 1974, the Guard finally adopted the dual deputy wing organizational structure of the USAF and inactivated groups that were colocated with wings and assigned their squadrons directly to the wings...." 1974.. 15+ years after the USAF .. interesting.. I had some discussions with Dr Haulman at AFHRA and that's an item he did not mention to me. Also he referred all my other questions to Dr Gross at the Air National Guard history office. Also, thank you for the other links. :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the inertia was at least partially due to the typical wing organization with a couple of other groups at detached locations. This kept the "local boys" on equal status with the groups in other states. I'm sure the fact that it kept a couple more full colonel positions in the state had little to do with it.

And since I have recommended the order of battle book to you, let me offer a caveat. Col Clay obviously composed this using Microsoft Word. To speed things up, he cut and pasted information on units that were organized, moved, reassigned, etc. Keep an eye out for typos caused by this procedure. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, 85th Fighter Group, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC) --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bwmoll3: I wanted to give you a reminder for the Wikipedia Loves Libraries event that is scheduled for November 17. If you are interested, please visit the meetup page and confirm your participation. I look forward to seeing you there. — Ganeshk (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, 10th Troop Carrier Group, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

An article that you have been involved in editing, 7th Reconnaissance Group, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Fairfax Army Airfield, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineagegeek (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you agree that a move to Fairfax Field is preferable to merger, I have edited the field names in Fairfax Army Airfield, added a paragraph on ADC use of the field between 1951 and 1954, and posted the move on proposed moves so an admin can sort out the redirects. It doesn't look like anyone other than you has done any substantive editing on the page. --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I just read this article, which you wrote in 2009. Living in Mazara, I didn't even know we had a USAAF military base during WWII here! As a consequence, being also an OpenStreetMap contributor, I wanted to map the remnants of the runway. But, what you described in the article as "the outline of the main runway", is in reality the result of the positioning of an underground gas pipeline, which happened in recent years (I _did_ see the works for it). Also, the only references I found in the books you put in the article were about the airfield being "station" of various squadrons, but not a single word about its location.

So here's my question: could you please elaborate a bit where you found that information -- and maybe add it to the article references? I'd really like to fix this, and map something, if there is anything remaining. I'll also translate the article to the Italian wikipedia ASAP :)

Thanks, --dapal^{(write me @)} 22:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've gone back though the information I have and I can share this with you. The airfield at Mazzaro Del Valo, Sicily was used by the US Army Air Forces Twelfth Air Force 316th Troop Carrier Group between 1 September and 18 October 1943 ^[1] The unit had 3 squadrons of C-47 Skytrain transport aircraft, used for carrying cargo, personnel and for paratrooper combat drops. The first components were the 45th and 46th Troop Carrier Squadrons, arriving from Enfidaville, Tunisia on 1 September; Group headquarters and the 35th Troop Carrier Squadron arrived on 3 September^[2]

The airfield was NOT used during Operation Husky (Invasion of Sicily). It appears to have been a staging airfield for Operation Avalance (Invasion of Salerno, Italy). Since there were no airborne parachute landings during the Salareno invasion, it likely ferried supplies and personnel. Once Allied ground forces were on mainland Italy, the American use of the airfield appears to have ended; the 316th moved on to another airfield at Borizzo, Sicily.

Although I have not retrieved the unit records of the 316th Troop Carrier Group, they are available on CD Air Force Historical Research Agency, 316th Troop Carrier Group, 1 September-31 October 1943 That link gives the information you would need if you want to retrieve the records. Also, I've gone back to Google Maps and the location I provided in 2010 appear to be erroneous. You may want to visit the following: 37°41′34″N 012°36′35″E / 37.69278°N 12.60972°E / 37.69278; 12.60972, as that appears to be the remains of an airport. Of course, the unit used C-47 transports, which were used frequently on grass airfields, and we have almost 70 years of time since the events. So locating the airfield may not be easy. Unit records usually don't give locations of units during the war, but they would provide details of its operations. I hope this helps :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your clarification! However, what you see in the aerial photos, really is a shooting range. Yes, it's entirely possible that it was an airfield 70 years ago, but I believe we lost all traces of it by now -- too bad :(. Thanks anyway for expanding the article, I will translate it to Italian ASAP. --dapal^{(write me @)} 17:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have just moved 71st Fighter Wing to 71st Fighter Wing (Air National Guard). There has only been one 71st Fighter Wing in the US military. The (Air National Guard) is not part of the unit's designation. So why add it? Lineagegeek (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem just reversed the move take care :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And a semihemidemibarnstar for that! On a related note, I have been going through various AAF unit categories (mostly populating them) and I note that several of the Fighter Wings in the category have either a (World War II) or (Air National Guard) added. Some are necessary, such as 8th Fighter Wing (World War II), but once I've made a run through the wings that should be on the list, I plan to nominate a number for moves to designations without the parenthetical. Just today, I found that the 301st Fighter Wing had duplicate articles, 301st Fighter Wing and 301st Fighter Wing (World War II). I transferred the small amount of information in the (WW II) article to the more complete article and redirected it.--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive_21#Havana (film) AIRcorn (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:General Headquarters Air Force Airfield, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I saw your article on the 28th Test Squadron. Did you use to serve w/ the 28th? I'm currently with them now and some of the info on your article is outdated. I would like your permission to add some minor changes to reflect current status (within OPSEC, of course).

Thanks. Thatswhatshisaid (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)^[3][reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

Happy new year Bwmoll3!! I'm here to gently complain against you rolling out a generic description of the ANG itself to all the State ANG pages. The material you're adding under 'Overview' is generic to every one of them, and thus goes only at the Air National Guard article. As it is, it just crowds out space for the history of the specific ANG concerned. Hope we can discuss. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a good idea would be to change one of them that I've written and let's see what you can develop. I've written the text in the "overview" section in a generic manner to explain to the reader what the Air National Guard is and how the state units differ from the active-duty units. Improvements are always welcome :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, understood. My very point is that the ANG page itself is for explaining what the ANG is. I'll put redeveloping one on my to-do list and keep you updated. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the Tennessee Air National Guard article taking out some of the pure ANG text. Bwmoll3 (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great article, but one of the key documents in the sources appears to be missing. Can you indicate where the 'HQ TAC/XPM Provisional Air Divisions' document is? I cannot locate it, and it's certainly not at the link. Cheers and again great work on that article! Buckshot06 (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the link. Its in the globalsecurity.org article link. Edited appropratley. Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]