Talk:313th Air Expeditionary Wing

Errors
The components listed are not components, they are the force providers. The wing had an Ops Group and a Maint Group assigned. The emblem depicted is not the wing emblem, as shown by the link to "Lineage & Honors" which is not a link to L&H. The article eventually should be merged with the 313th Tactical Airlift Wing article. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger
313th Tactical Airlift Wing should be merged into this article per WP:MILMOS. An article about a unit, formation, or base should be placed at "Name". The name should generally be either the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit or base belongs. When a unit or base has had multiple names over the course of its existence, the title should generally be the last name used. Because exceptions can be made in cases where the subject is clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names, some argument is possible that the merger could be done in the opposited direction. However, I don't believe that "313th Tactical Airlift Wing" sufficiently predominates over "313th Troop Carrier Wing" to justify the exception. Length of the article(s) is not an issue, because both are stubs. The article resulting from the merger should assess as Start or C class. --Lineagegeek (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting to the 313 AEW LG - I do appreciate it. It has seen combat service under this designation (and may eventually earn campaign credit), and this is the most recent designation, so would agree with you, 313 TAW should be merged into this article (and the emblem re-listed as 313 TCG; I doubt the guys hectically working at Moron had the time to design and approve an emblem!!) Buckshot06 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

--Lineagegeek (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)