Talk:622d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron

Merge proposal

 * Agree  I'm surprised someone else wrote an article about an obscure unit!!!  Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - different units, different eras, different missions. Seems to be a lot of confusion in the lineage claims in this article. That should be cleaned up and properly sourced before a merge is considered. --Kkmurray (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reference for consolidation added. Sorry I missed it.  I presume that clears the confusion you perceive.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Where do I get a copy of "Department of the Air Force/MPM Letter 662q"? This is apparently the only reference that links the 22d Photo Recon with the 622d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron. Maurer "Combat Squadrons of the Air Force, World War II" indicates that the 22d Photo Recon was inactivated in June of 1949 after being inactivated in December 1945 and reactivated as a reserve unit in October 1947. According to the article (unreferenced, but the information is at http://www.tactankers.com/), the 622d Air Refueling Squadron was activated in July 1955 then (apparently according to the MPM Letter 662q) consolidated with the 22d Photo Recon in 1985. At this point, the 22d Photo Recon had been inactive for more than 25 years. Regardless of the details of this consolidation, the 22nd Reconnaissance Squadron is notable independent of the 622d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron. The current articles cover topics that are discrete subjects with different names and covering events occurring at different times. A merge is inappropriate. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * All Department of the Air Force numbered organizational letters are maintained by the Air Force Historical Research Agency. Maurer's Combat Squadrons only includes lineages through 1963.  As noted by the Glossary of Lineage Terms in Appendix I of this book, the effect of consolidation is the merger of lineage and histories into a single unit.  There are a number of examples throughout this book of such consolidations.  Although the units consolidated into one may be separated in time (in fact, practice since the 1930s requires them to be) MOS:MILHIST indicates that in an article about a unit the name should generally be the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit belongs.  When a unit has had multiple names over the course of its existence, the title should generally be the last name used.  As a side note, I think it is clear that the World War II unit at issue is far from being the most notable unit to have held the designation 22d Reconnaissance Squadron--Lineagegeek (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I still oppose the merge, but I am much clearer on the details of our disagreement. USAF bestowal of the history of WWII units to Cold War units and post hoc consolidation (e.g. Ravenstein) is not the same as a simple unit name change and WP:MILMOS cannot be blindly applied. Merging articles so that there is a single Wikipedia article for a single USAF lineage without considering the independent notability of the WWII unit and relationship to the bestowed unit is not consistent with the principles of WP:MERGE. --Kkmurray (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no difference between a unit with gaps of eight years, fourteen years, and twelve years with a different designation each time it has been active, like the 10th Airlift Squadron, and one with a six year gap after consolidation as in this case, but if you want to maintain 22nd Reconnaissance Squadron as a separate article, then I think you should move it and add a hatnote. Although my personal preference is for 2nd or 3rd for ordinals, USAF uses 2d and 3d (or writes them like cardinals).  22d Reconnaissance Squadron is a redirect to the most notable squadron holding the designation.  I'd suggest 22d Reconnaissance Squadron (Photographic).--Lineagegeek (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose We assess the notability of each unit independently of its lineage, and to me these to units can stand two articles as long as more sources are there. See 45th Infantry Division (United States) and 45th Infantry Brigade (United States). — Ed! (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have looked at the articles in question, I think you will see that your examples of the 45th Division and Brigade are inapt. We are talking about merging stubs that have not expanded in years, and have little likelihood of ever doing so.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per Lineagegeek. Ed!'s arguments seem a little weak; we have WP:SPLIT available if required. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ed!. Although the lineage may be continued from one unit to another, these were different units.  Kkmurray also has good points.  If the articles need to be tied together, then wikilink them.   GregJackP   Boomer!   11:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

General Merger of World War II Units
The starting position on this issue is that the 622d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron is a single unit. Including the complete history of the unit in a single article is not “blind  application of a single source.”  Rather,  Ravenstein documents what is the official policy of the USAF concerning the identity of the unit. The article name (following merger) is “the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit. . . belongs.”     Because the 622d is “a unit [that] has had multiple names over the course of its existence. . . the title should generally be the last name used.’’ Although there is an exception “in cases where the subject is clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names”, that is not the case here. The name of the article to be merged, 22nd Reconnaissance Squadron, is a name the unit held only during a two year period when it was poorly manned, unequipped, and did little if anything notable. (and the “nd” in the article title fails to “follow the stylistic conventions used by the service or country of origin.”    Additionally, drawing a distinction between units that have been inactivated; that have been disbanded and reconstituted; and between units that have been consolidated is subjective line drawing that does not agree with the official USAF policy.

Nor does the merger of the two articles run contrary to WP:MERGE as asserted. I presume the objection is that “the topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles.”  The idea that the two articles are about discrete units is contrary to the official treatment of the unit by the armed force to which the unit belongs, and there is no contravening objective factor to support this objection. There is no basis to believe the merged article would be “too long or ‘clunky’”. Splitting the article makes it more difficult for a person looking for information on the unit to do so without clicking on multiple links. If a person conducts a search using earlier designations for the unit, both redirects and disambiguation pages will bring that person to the more complete article.

Similar objections have now been registered at Talk:920th Air Refueling Squadron, Talk:33d Network Warfare Squadron, and  Talk:318th Information Operations Group, making this a more general issue. The fact that the articles dealing with the World War II era actions of the involved units that have been proposed to be merged are stubs or weak starts is an additional factor favoring the merger of the articles.

Moreover, in the case of the 318th Information Operations Group there has been no consolidation, so the argument based on USAF bestowal of the history of WWII units to Cold War units and post hoc consolidation” has no application to this unit. It appears that the opposition to this merger is based on an opinion that the World War II actions of AAF units should be fenced off from their prior or subsequent histories. I would suggest that there would be no justification for breaking this portion of the history of these units out, although it might be justified by WP:SPLIT if the articles in question were more lengthy than they are or are likely to become. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Lineagegeek's arguments, which are in line with the way we've done USAF articles for years. If the articles get too big, we can WP:SPLIT them, but otherwise tracing the history becomes much, much more difficult. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comments above.  GregJackP   Boomer!   11:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See above for why there is a difference between the articles in question and the example given by Ed. These are not cases where two detailed articles (or even three) can be written.  See 104th Aero Squadron 13th Aero Squadron and 13th Bomb Squadron, all on the same unit.  Two of these articles are stubs, one has been so since 2008.--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to the 13th and 104th Aero Squadrons, there are pages for the 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 17th, 20th, 22d, 24th, 25th, 27th, 28th, 41st, 49th, 88th, 90th, 91st, 93d, 94th, 95th, 96th, 99th, 103d, 135th, 147th, and 166th Aero Squadrons separate from their lineage-sharing modern unit pages. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, concurring with Buckshot06. However, I do have a question which Lineagegeek may be able to answer, and perhaps can help in clarifying this.  In September 1985, the AFHRA consolidated many units, with quite disparate histories and different numerical designations.    Perhaps he knows the reason why this was done?  Bwmoll3 (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Now in line with the consolidations that were made in September 1985, the AFHRA consolidated the 30th Bombardment Squadron with the USAF Air Demonstration Squadron (aka "The Thunderbirds"). Now, I believe I understand why the AFHRA chose the 30th, as it gave the Thunderbirds a combat lineage with a unit that earned NINE Presidential Unit Citations in World War II; that was almost wiped out during the 1941 Battle of the Philippines; that had members captured and go though the Bataan Death March, and then came back to be a B-29 Squadron in 1945 that attacked Japan.  The 30th was formed in June 1917 and served in World Wars I and II, the Korean War and was a SAC B-47 squadron during the 1950s (It was also almost torpedoed when crossing the Atlantic in WWI).


 * At the moment I'm going though many of the oldest squadrons in the Air Force that are still active today and expanding their early history. The 30th came up on that list of articles I was working on (it was pretty short article on  02:16, 26 June 2013‎) and as part of the expansion, I consolidated it with the Thunderbirds article.   Now,  should the Thunderbirds article be an exception?  Both of the units are quite notable.    However, the Air Force clearly wanted the lineage, history and honors of the 30th to be part of the history of the Thunderbirds.   Bwmoll3 (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Split of the Thunderbirds article is in progress completed. See: User:Bwmoll3/sandbox Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I think the Thunderbirds article is an excellent example of an article that would be improved by splitting United States Air Force Thunderbirds and 30th Bombardment Squadron because of the detail in the article about all three incarnations of the unit.  I'd redirect 30th Aero Squadron to the Bomb Squadron article and put headnotes on both articles.  None of the examples I've cited above look like the Thunderbirds article.  I think it is premature to assume that stubs should be kept as separate articles before the time the quality of the article improves to the point where they can be logically split.


 * There is a brief discussion in a note on page xxiii of about the consolidation of SAC wings with the WW II groups whose history had been temporarily been bestowed on them (although he does not include the consolidations in his individual wing lineages in the body of the book).


 * This figuratively got the ball rolling, although there were some steps both ways. In June 1983 USAF had disbanded a ton of units that were still on the books but appeared to have no hope of ever being activated again.  Almost all were support units, but the list included WW II combat wings that had not been upgraded to air division status.  More support units were disbanded the following September, and other support units were consolidated if they had duplicate or near duplicate names (e.g. the 41st Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadron was consolidated with the 41st Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Squadron) over the next year.  As you surmised, USAF then decided to merge units that had been established after WW II because of new missions (like air refueling squadrons and special operations squadrons) with with older units with little likelihood of being active again.  First, in July 1985 USAF reconstituted many WW II wings and groups and renumbered them to have a single series of wings and groups starting at 1 and continuing into the 500s.  Groups that had been numbered in separate series (Photographic Reconnaissance, Combat Cargo, Ferrying and Transport, Air Commando) were fit into the series by either using numbers that had been vacant since 1946 when the groups bearing them were allotted to the National Guard (see 8 PRG to 318 Info Ops Gp above), never used by active units (mostly in the 420s) or starting at 517. (support units for the wings were created in the same way at this time).  In September, it merged flying squadrons. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose – I don’t support merging USAAF with USAF articles based on lineage alone; I do support merging where it is appropriate based on general considerations for merging articles. Unit naming per WP:MILMOS is a good starting point but in the case of history bestowal and consolidation of USAAF units with USAF units, the unit name, mission, active dates, and independent notability of the two units should be assessed when considering a merge. The 30th Bombardment Squadron and the United States Air Force Thunderbirds is a good example of a de facto single unit that is best represented by two Wikipedia articles and illustrates the point that the notability of the subjects of the two articles is what is important. The 22nd Reconnaissance Squadron (or 22d Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron if you like) and the 622d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron are likewise a de facto single unit comprising entities that are known by different names and are notable for different things at different times. The two pages do not have the same subject or scope, do not have a large overlap, nor does one require the context of the other. The separate topics can stand-alone and warrant their own articles. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Kkmurray, particularly with respect to the Thunderbirds (thanks Bwmoll3: that split looks very good). I recognize that there may be cases where the units shared common purpose, personnel and/or equipment, and are thus hard to separate—but in those cases, the ordinary rationale for merger would be adequate (if presently split), or those factors could be good reasons to keep it unified. As a matter of historical accuracy, I'm not comfortable merging just based on the USAF's ex post facto assignment of honours earned by other squadrons, but am wholly comfortable with hatnotes and brief explanation of the merger in each article, so as to acknowledge that such an official assignment did take place. TheFeds 04:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Many of these articles that Lineagegeek is consolidating consist of several paragraphs (at most) of narrative about them. They're not about major combat units.  They're about the unit your father or grandfather or uncle served in during World War II.  My uncle "Lefty" (Clement Dreher), was one of those men.  He served in a C-47 unit in India during the war as a loadmaster, probably delivering drums of gasoline or C-rations or typewriters or whatever the plane was carrying from Karachi over to eastern India where it went onto wherever they were going by one of the Combat Cargo Units.   And maybe one of those barrels of gasoline wound up with a British unit in Burma and a guy put that gasoline into his jeep during the Battle of Meiktila, or had one of those C-rations that the "yanks" flew in for lunch in the middle of the jungle somewhere.


 * That's what he did and there are millions now of family members around the world who were told what their Uncle Lefty did during the war and they'll go up on Wikipedia looking for that unit and that's why there are articles here about them.  They're not really famous, but they are notable because they were considered combat units and someone will want to look it up because they have a memory, or a patch or photo or something passed down over the years and they're interested in looking it up to learn more about it.   That's why the articles are here on Wikipedia, and I wrote a bunch of them over the past few years.


 * Now from what Lineagegeek wrote above, the AFHRA consolidated a bunch of these WWII units like these, which weren't going to be reactivated, and bestowed their lineage, history and honors to Cold War units, or modern Air Expeditionary units that were formed for deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever, and gave them a combat history. No, the units didn't match numerically, and they didn't do the same kind of work.   Not all of these consolidations was like the one AFHRA did with the Thunderbirds and the 30th Bomb Squadron.  The vast majority weren't, and I really don't have a problem in consolidating them into a merged article under the most current name of the unit,  as long as the disparate units that make up the consolidated unit are delineated clearly and the lineages and histories are merged in a clear way,  so when you look up your Uncle Lefty,  it re-directs to the consolidated unit and they see that unit patch online in the infobox that says where the unit was at and when it was active.. etc, etc, etc.....  that your family has in a shoebox somewhere and perhaps you'll learn something about the unit that for years no one in your family didn't know because they didn't know how to look up the records of it from the AFHRA.


 * Which is what Wikipedia is all about.  Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)