Talk:389th Strategic Missile Wing

Disestablishing Air Force units
The USAF's definitions on establishing and disestablishing units have been consistent and defined. I think it's a matter of accuracy, not a matter of grammar.

A unit is disestablished if:
 * It has been disbanded
 * It has been demobilized
 * It was a table of distribution unit, designated unit, or major command controlled unit and has been discontinued (a term that was used as the equivalent to inactivation prior to c. 1972, when the term inactivated was first permitted for these units)
 * It is an establishment and any of the above actions has been taken for its headquarters. (There's a lack of consistency here, I'll admit. but not a germane exception in this case).

A unit is not disestablished if:
 * It has been inactivated
 * It is a table of organization unit, constituted unit, or air force controlled unit and has been discontinued (a term only used with regard to these units from c. 1962 to 1969, when it wasn't enough to activate a unit, it also had to be organized (see multiple SAC units between 15 November 1962 and 1 February 1963. In the case of the 389th from 26 April to 1 July 1961, when it was "active" but not stationed anywhere.) and discontinued units were in a kind of limbo between inactivation and disbanding, but were still on the Air Force's list of organizations.
 * It is an establishment and any of the above actions has been taken for its headquarters.

If we were to include every inactivation as a disestablishment, there are units that would fit into a ridiculous number of categories. As far as the Air Force is concerned, the 389th is on the inactive list and still around. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, once an organization does not physically exist anymore (except perhaps in a filing cabinet in the XAF office that keeps track of inactive units, forgive me of course I have the office symbol wrong) it is disestablished. It does not physically exist. Every other unit in the disestablishment date categories from every other nation around the world reflects physical existence or non-existence. The USAF should not be an exception. For example, No. 14 Squadron RNZAF did not physically exist for a number of years after 2001. Until it was reformed by disbanding Pilot Training Squadron RNZAF in 2015, it would have had Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 2001 on it. It did not physically exist.
 * The 389th SMW is not still around. No-one except a few historians and geeks like us could explain how it is much more than a few sheets of paper in a filing cabinet (or now computer files).
 * Yes, they fit into "ridiculous" numbers of categories. But that means, for example, that all Strategic Missile Wings ever active under that title are listed in the correct SMW category, estab and disestablishment categories. Then any interested person can see a list of all SMWs, all TFWs, all Bomb Wings, etc - very useful for understanding how *big* the USAF was 1945-91. Those 'ridiculous' numbers of categories, however, are usually at the redirects, and I carefully and consistently remove all but the first and last estab/disestab date categories to avoid clogging the category structure. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * LG, did you have any further comments to make here? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)