Talk:98th Flying Training Squadron

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 98th Flying Training Squadron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203102515/http://www.aetc.af.mil:80/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=8947 to http://www.aetc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=8947

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

10/18/17 the external links in the article are no longer valid: 98th FTS at AETC 98th FTS History Factsheet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.188.250 (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggested overhaul of entire article
Hello watchlisters and veteran Wikipedians who have been so kind to help guide me through this process (specifically, and ),

After reading up on the resources and tutorials you guys sent me, I have written up a draft with all of my suggested revisions for this article. You can see it in my sandbox here. As you will see, it's a pretty major overhaul of the entire page with many more sections and beefed up content. There is still quite some work to be done with the content and addition of images, but I hope this is a solid starting point.

The most important thing is that I still need to supply reliable sources to back up all the content I've added. I was a former member of this military unit some years ago, so much of my suggested additions/revisions are based off of my personal subject matter expertise. Of course, I've done my best to maintain a neutral point of view throughout the article and I hope that shows. I have reached out to the Air Force Public Affairs office responsible for this military unit and am awaiting their reply. The PR office should have an archive of all media appearances, public mentions, and mainstream publication articles of the 98 FTS.

So the most important question: Should I go ahead and make my edits official in the live page now, or wait until I have all the sources I need? I wouldn't want to risk my edits being deleted due to lack of reliable sources.

A few other miscellaneous questions:
 * I would like to rename the article to "United States Air Force Parachute Team" to mirror the articles of similar military units like The Golden Knights or Air Force Thunderbirds. What would be the most efficient way of doing this? Would I create a new article page for "United States Air Force Parachute Team," move over all the content on the current 98 FTS page to my new page, and have the current 98 FTS page just redirect to my new page? Or is there a way to change the title of the current 98 FTS page directly?
 * When I link to internal and external links throughout the article, should I link the same things multiple times throughout? For instance, should I link every instance of the term "United States Air Force" in my article to the United States Air Force wikipedia page, or just do it once the first time the term appears?

I appreciate everyone's help! Alexhapki (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * G'day, Alex, thanks for taking your time with this. You are asking all the right questions, which is great to see. A couple of quick responses: firstly, definitely get the sources first, before moving the draft across; secondly, "wiki links" (or internal links), should be limited to once in the lead and once in the body (usually, there are one or two exceptions occasionally); finally, there is a "move page" function which would allow the page to be renamed, while keeping the contribution history intact (this is important for copyright reasons). Before renaming, though, consensus to do so should be established. (I can help you with the moves if necessary, to ensure the correct attribution is maintained). Where to from here? Firstly, I think continue to develop your draft with sources. Once that is done, and there is consensus to make it live, please let me know and I can merge the two article histories with my admin tools to ensure that correct copyright attribution is maintained. After that, then if there is consensus to move the article, it is a relatively simple thing to do. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking at your changes and your question about renaming the article, I believe that the article should be split. Your discussion of similar articles and the presumed availability of sources on the parachute team argue for a stand alone article on the team.  The present and draft articles are both weighted toward the parachute team at the expense of a combat unit.  The team article would link to the squadron article and mention that the squadron has been home to the team since 1995, while the squadron article would treat the team in a similar manner.
 * As for the team article, I think you will find generally that we 'Mericans are fonder of sprinkling pictures in articles we create than our co-linguists in the Commonwealth of Nations. However, the decorations in the infobox are not appropriate (although commonly repeated).  The use of ribbons for a unit is inappropriate because units do not have chests to wear ribbons. Instead, they attach streamers to their unit flags (or in this case, guidon).  This is compounded by identifying the decorations as DUC, AFOUA, etc.  Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the average reader, who is unlikely to know what those abbreviations mean without clicking on the links.  There is a bit more detail on the courses than I would care for, but that's a matter of taste and I wouldn't change it much.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your inputs, and.


 * I agree with Lineagegeek that the current article should be split. My draft can be for a new stand-alone article for the Wings of Blue and I'll have it link to the squadron article in accordance with your suggestions. After I can back up my draft with appropriate sources, I will start the process of creating a new page and submitting for review and acceptance.


 * Speaking of sources, I heard back from the Public Affairs office and they unfortunately do not have the comprehensive list of media and press appearances/mentions as I had thought. However, I was able to find a bunch of articles myself with a bit of Googling.


 * For the Team History section, I referenced the manuscript of a book authored by a former team member from several decades ago who spent two years interviewing teams from 25 different class years. He had it published, but not by a mainstream publishing company. I feel this may not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability of source, but if I find a hardcopy of the book, would it be good enough to be considered an offline source?


 * I agree with Lineagegeek about the decorations in the infobox. I say too we get rid of them. Also, a current team member gave me a ton of personal photos he's taken and given his permission to fully release them of copyright. I will upload them to Wikipedia Commons and start inserting relevant images throughout. Cheers, Alexhapki (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, splitting makes sense. Regarding the source, depending on who published it, I think it would most likely be ok for non controversial points, but it would be a good idea to use other refs also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Alexhapki If you will let me know when you think your rewrite of the article on the team is ready to move to mainspace, I will redo the squadron article. I'd rather not do this earlier, because that would temporarily lose some information.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)