User talk:Lineagegeek/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lineagegeek. 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.

Hello Lineagegeek, I can understand why User: Mercy removed the tags. You see, the article doesn't contradict the other two at all because it doesn't state that the subject "was" or "is" the most decorated soldier in Vietnam. What the article states is that he has been "called" the most decorated soldier in Vietnam by some sources which is different then stating that he "was" or "is". Which what happened. Thank you for your service. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that the average encyclopedia reader will distinguish between being the most decorated soldier of the Viet Nam War or being called the most decorated soldier of the Viet Nam War, but this is not worth my time. --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:File:963 AWACS.JPG

I modified your comment to use Template:tl. I hope that edit was acceptable Bulwersator (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You're most certainly welcome Lineagegeek, thank you for your note of appreciation! I enjoy fixing things, so it looks like we both had some fun . Have yourself a great day, stay well, and happy editing!  -- WikHead (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I fall into the too-many-images-and-icons-is-a-bad-thing camp, but I do feel the streamer images are oversized for the text that go next to. Perhaps it's because they are so long and a shorter (left-right) version would be less glaring. I thought there had been a discussion on the Milhist pages re streamers and ribbons but it seems I misrembered and it was tangential to discussions about medal ribbons in (US) biography articles. So I don't really have anything other than gut instinct to go on. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But please open the discussion on the article talk page, not here. (Indeed, C&P these remarks to the talk page.)--S. Rich (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Done--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WayToGo! You're unlikely to get any opposition. Why don't you set up the lineage section in the 85th Group article and then when a month goes by you remove the stuff from the Fighter Group article and set up a redirect.--S. Rich (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I am glad you like it, because so far the idea is attracting a lot of heat here, and I'd be surprised if given no support comment it will be turned off soon again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Lineagegeek. You have new messages at WP:CFD/S.
Message added 01:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Hi Lineagegeek, happy new year - been good to collaborate with you this year. I have readded Leadtooshort at the 542nd Wing. If you read WP:Lead you will find that the leads for articles of this size need to be three or so meaty paragraphs; most of the USAF wing lead sections are too short. Most of the frequently-present 'overview' sections are actually functionally lead sections and could be wound into the lead. Cheers and best wishes from Aotearoa New Zealand !! Buckshot06 (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC) I see that USAF articles are now being tagged wholesale for citations (I've done a little retail work there) as well. Someday I'll get it right. And a happy New Year to you as well. Only a Polynesian language could make 8 letters into 6 sylables. North or South Island? --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Te Whanganui-a-tara (Wellington), in the North Island. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

52d Fighter Wing (Air National Guard): This formation is named in accordance with the 'most recent name' rule of WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME but that means it requires a disambiguator. It did comparatively nothing under that designation, while it's war service - it's most notable period - was under the title 52d Troop Carrier Wing. Would you mind if I moved it to that title? Please put your two cents in at User talk:Bwmoll3. Regards from Aotearoa New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks yes LG saw your note. I'm waiting on Bwm3 before moving the page. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

How accurate would it be to add the details of the 14 AD(P) to the 14th Air Division page? By my read, they share no lineage, but it would at least avoid confusion to give some details there. Pls comment at User talk:Bwmoll3. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I failed to do proper due diligence - apologies. However, in my (admittedly weak) defence, it does say in the article that it was previously a numbered air force. I've been trying to think through a better wording, or perhaps adding a redirect notice at the top. If something clear comes to mind I'll add it to the talk page. Thanks also for my semihemidemibarnstar! Gibbja (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek. Just a heads up, when using the {{citation needed}} template, you must use "reason=" when adding a reason to the template. I noticed a bunch of pages (e.g., 462d Air Expeditionary Group) that you've used the template on that make this mistake. Any pages that are missing named parameters like "reason=" are added to Category:Pages containing citation needed template with deprecated parameters. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.

Hello, Lineagegeek. You have new messages at Bwmoll3's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

[1] What's your source on this unit? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Old MATS General Orders (I have not retained the primary sources). Would have been associated with special weapons testing. The task group also included Air Rescue Task Unit 3.4.7--Lineagegeek (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. (1) So you don't have an exact document title? (2) But the exact document you drew your source from will be somewhere in U.S. Air Force historical archives? Yes, by searching for Joint Task Force 3 I found Operation Greenhouse, which appears to have been the special weapons task that JTG 3.4 was involved in. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey lineagegeek, I saw your reply on the main MILHIST talk page but I thought I'd shoot you a message because something else also came up. I was perusing some more AFSOC articles and I noticed that on the Pararescue article the history section stops at the Vietnam War. I find that ironic since 90% of the pictures on the article are from the last decade. Anywho, I was thinking if you wanted to collaborate would you want to start with the PJ article on their history since that article is "live" whereas the other ones are userfied for the time being? Cheers, — -dainomite   21:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I will see if there is anything I can add to the article from Kosinkas, Ioannis, Black Hats and White Hats: The Effect of Organizational Culture and Institutional Identity on Twenty-Third Air Force, CADRE Paper No. 24. I might point out that PJs were not considered special ops units for the time in question, they were in ARRS unlike combat controllers. 23 AF was an early attempt to meld the two (inter alia). On other stuff, when you think it's ready for review, I can see what I might add.

While I'm happy to help, I've got to let you know that I have several Wiki projects I'm working on. The first (which I have spent a lot of time learning about Wiki on) is to bring old Air Defense Command headquarters up to speed. I'm still cleaning up the Air Defense Groups and Air Defense Wings, I've done partial work on Fighter Groups up to 403, but only touched on Fighter Wings, Sectors, and Divisions. A subset of this is two recently acquired studies that have been declassified that touch on the Cuban Missile Crisis. I've only entered this into the 4756th Air Defense Group and 482d Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. Then, I am trying to correct the articles on SAC Strategic Wings (maybe a third of the way on that). I'm also populating the List of United States Air Force communications squadrons and I'm trying to figure out how to make 99th Range Group real without entering into an edit war.--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, you are quite busy, no worries. I wish I could lend you a hand somehow. — -dainomite   06:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Lineagegeek. You have new messages at Dainomite's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(If you find talkbacks annoying just let me know and I won't leave them.) — -dainomite   22:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Lineagegeek. You have new messages at Dainomite's talk page.
Message added 05:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Heya Lineagegeek, I know the 23rd AF was inactivated a month ago but when I tried searching for some RS's but I couldn't find anything. Have you come across anything by chance? — -dainomite   22:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

AH HAH! — -dainomite   22:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Lineagegeek. You have new messages at Bwmoll3's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Responded on the Talk:13th Bomb Squadron page. Also User:Dainomite has a question about the 24th Special Tactics Squadron which you possibly can assist him with Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I was just stopping by to get your two cents on something real quick since I'm kind of noobish in some regards. So, I tagged 2nd Combat Weather Systems Squadron for what I think is a lack of notability according to WP:MILUNIT. I was wondering if I did things right by tagging it and explaining why I tagged it on the talk page. Also, I noticed a member of the unit created the article as well when I took a look at the article history. Should/could I have done anything else do you think? I appreciate the help/feedback. (I also asked TParis and Bwmoll3 for their input too just to grab another opinion)—  dain- talk   16:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

Good Evening

As you seem to know about United States Army Air Forces units i was wondering if you could help me with two little bits of referencing to do with RAF Wormingford specifically the 362d Fighter Group and the 55th Fighter Group.

Firstly the 362d Fighter Group, i have referenced the entire section but i cannot find a reference for the squadron codes of the 377th, 378th and the 379th Fighter Squadrons. The codes are listed on the article but i cannot find a reference and i was wondering if you might know where to find such a thing.

Secondly the 55th Fighter Group, i cannot find a reference for this" The 55th Fighter Group moved to Wormingford on 16 April 1944 to accommodate the arrival of a B-17 Heavy bomb group at RAF Nuthampstead. The 55th was under the command of the 67th Fighter Wing of the VIII Fighter Command. Aircraft of the 55th were identified by a green/yellow chequerboard pattern around their cowling".

I have a reference for the date of arrival and i think that the idea that they were under the command of the 67th Fighter Wing false.

Would it be possible if you could help at all please?

Gavbadger (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Squadron codes for the 55th(as well as other marking information) are contained in Watkins, Robert (2008). Battle Colors: Insignia and Markings of the Eighth Air Force In World War II. Vol. Vol II (VIII) Fighter Command. Atglen, PA: Shiffer Publishing Ltd. ISBN 0-7643-2535-3. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help) Markings are on pages 38-41, codes on p. 38. The book addresses the markings: "Beginning in July 1944 the groups [sic] P-51s began to display the nose pattern shown above" (illustration shows spinner striped green yellow green and cowl checked green and yellow) "The same green [RAF Light Green} as was used on the previous tail confiburation was again employed for the new nose pattern."

Similar information for the 362d is in Watkins, Robert (2008). Battle Colors. Vol. Vol III Insignia and Markings of the Ninth Air Force In World War II. Atglen, PA: Shiffer Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7643-2938-8. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help) Markings are on pages 30-31, codes on p. 31.

AFHRA Factsheet, 55th Operations Group 6/9/2009 shows the arrival of the 55th at Wormingford and shows, as you suspect, that it was not assigned to the 67th Fighter Wing, but the 66th. I don't know of any direct support for the reasong for the group's departure from Nuthampstead, but the 398th Bombardment Group arrived there on the 22d of April. If you prefer hard copy cites, 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. at page 118 shows the arrival date and page 403 shows the assignment to the 66th FW.

Thank you Lineagegeek, it is very much appreciated. Gavbadger (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lineagegeek. 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.