Talk:Army Air Corps

Dab notes
I'm currently disambiguating links to this page. In the process I added several links here, including the predecessors to the United States Army Air Corps. This is because Americans use the phrase "Army Air Corps" for all predecessors of the United States Air Force. For the period 1941-1947 I can't even tell whether [[United States Army Air Corps]] or [[United States Army Air Forces]] is the right link, so I'm going with the former (since that's what the earlier editor seemed to think). For references prior to 1926, I'm trying to use the correct name. See this example where the text said "In 1917 he joined the Army Air Corps".

If I am finding links to redirect to these other places, then surely more such links will be created in the future. Aviation Section, U.S. Signal Corps belongs on this page because people say "Army Air Corps" when they mean "Aviation Section, U.S. Signal Corps".  Randall Bart    Talk   02:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you find confusing here. All the service articles pretty clearly delineate, and why, it was USAAF between 1941-1947. They also explain what became of USAAC, what form it was changed to, and why it stuck around, so to speak, until 1947. The term in US usage (Army Air Corps) would not have been used in 1917 by anyone in speaking of the air arm. If the distinction is still fuzzy, think of the Air Corps between 1941-1947 in this way: officers in all the US services append their branch at the end of their official signature, such as "Joe Blow, Lt. USN" (or USNR if that is the case), USMC, USMCR, USAF, USAFR, etc. The Army does it differently. They append their combat arm: INF, ARM, SC, etc. Between 1941 and 1947, members of the Army Air Forces did not use that term any more than Infantry officers used Army Ground Forces. Their combat arm was Air Corps, or AC, such as "James H. Doolittle, Lt.Col. AC". Between 1926 and 1941, the Air Corps was the land-based air arm of the United States. Between 1918 and 1926 it was the Air Service. Between 1941 and 1947 it was the Army Air Forces, and the Air Corps was no longer an administrative organization, but the same as infantry, artillery, and armor. --Reedmalloy (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

When did the US Army first use the designation Army Air Corps
I was editing Erwin R. Bleckley and since he died in WWI, I changed all references to "Air Corps" to "Air Service". Then I noticed I had changed the header text of an MoH citation, so I changed it back. Unfortunately I am now terribly confused. Did the US Army use the term "Army Air Corps" during WWI?  Randall Bart    Talk   19:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Even colloquially the term "Air Corps" (and sometimes "Army Air Corps", but there was no standard usage either way) did not come about until after 1920, when debate within the US Army over the "proper role" of the air component began in seriousness. The term between late 1917 (unofficially)/1918 (officially) to mid-1926 was "Air Service", and it was as ubiquitous then as Air Force is today. Your use of Air Service in this respect is accurate--Bleckley was a member of the Air Service (but I believe he was commissioned in the SORC--Signal Officer Reserve Corps--which is the branch in which new Air Service pilots were commissioned. I'll check that out and replace in the citation if so.) The main reason for the confusion of jargon and differing bureaucratics references is that the Air Service was created by Executive Orders, not by statute, until 1920.--Reedmalloy (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Bleckley was commissioned in the 130th Field Artillery, as the original citation (upgraded to the MoH in 1922) read. He was never commissioned into the Air Service, but graduated the observer's course at Tours and was assigned to the 50th Aero Squadron.--Reedmalloy (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Explain cleanup
explaining this edit I have trimmed this page down to minimal information per WP:DISAMBIG by:
 * removing the historical US articles and simply referring to the last official usage '...and its predecessors' because db lists need minimal information for navigation. If you were wanting the historical units due to a retronym, if not navigated to directly, they would not be expected to be found at Army Air Corps without first reading about their final incarnation as the United States Army Air Corps, which contains as you would exepect all the links to its predecessors
 * removing United States Army Aviation Branch. While the current US army aviation unit may be colloquially refered to as the Army Air Corps, its current article is at United States Army Aviation Branch, and there are other army aviation units around the world that might also be called informally 'army air corps', listing all here would be uneeded

MickMacNee (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving to disambiguation page

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus, default to no move. JPG-GR (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving this page Army Air Corps to Army Air Corps (dismbiguation) and redirected Army Air Corps to Army Air Corps (United Kingdom) purely because otherwise the lead sentance of this page is not in compliance with WP:DISAMBIG for primary topics. While it was expressed above that the US/UK articles are of equal notability, I think the official name being Army Air Corps for the UK version is enough to justify using a db hatnote to other similar titles or alternate names that are not precisely titled Army Air Corps. To fully complete the process, it would need an admin to move Army Air Corps (United Kingdom) to Army Air Corps over a redirect. MickMacNee (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Or apparently not. MickMacNee (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree, and I have reverted it. The original move has been well received, and you are the first to express any disagreement with it. Please go through the proper move proceedures. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 00:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've explained the logic of the move above already, but basically, as it is now, this page is not in compliance with WP:DISAMBIG. I honestly do not think Army Air Corps is sufficiently generic to justify any confusion not being dealt with at a (disambiguation) page, with Army Air Corps itself pointing to the only article with that title (the only Army Air Corps to be officially called The Army Air Corps). This is the standard way of doing this when there the confusion only arises from similar names, there being no exact matches to the disambiguated term. I am of course assuming that you are not advocating moving United States Army Air Corps to Army Air Corps (United States). I think you are wrong to say it is well recieved as I clearly don't agree with the current non-compliant situation. As silence is not WP:CONSENSUS and you are the person who made the move, I am the first to comment on it. If you still don't agree, then I will take it to WP:RM MickMacNee (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will take the POV expressed here as further disagreement then and take it to RM. As an aside, if the British didn't bother to 'disambiguate' their AAC due to national arrogance, then why did the US bother? National inferiority? MickMacNee (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, no: Clarity. - BillCJ (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Doubtfull. I can think of plenty examples where clarity is not the US's strong point. How many countries compete in the World Series again? MickMacNee (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Actually, another user commented at Talk:Army Air Corps (United Kingdom), and appeared to be in support of the move in general, though not my original title. That would make you the second person to comment, if I'm counting correctly. Also, there have been other editors who have corrected links to the new pages, and that is part of what I meant be "well-received". This is somewhat akin to the controversy over Royal Navy, et al, not having any disambiguators in their official titles. However, while the RN and RAF are certainly the primary topics, this one is not, or we wouldn't be discussing it, official name/full name arguments aside. One of these days, the British will wake up to the fact that they really aren't the only English-speaking country in the world, and add national identifiers tor their military organizations, as do most other nations. We at Wikipedia already recognize that fact. - BillCJ (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (now listed at RM) I'm not seeing any controversy at Royal Navy, and looking there I note that you said you are often annoyed that some US topics have (United States) appended, even when they are the only topic with that name. So why (if it wasn't already becoming clear) the double standard here? I think you are naming articles due to a personal anti-British crusade rather than for the improvement of the pedia. One clear official name X with no conflicting (as opposed to similar) titled articles on WP = hatnote on X to X(disambiguation), not a generic db list at X. MickMacNee (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fortunatly, what you (mistakenly) think about my motives doesn't matter. As I stated in my origianl move, I do not beleive Army Air Corps (United Kingdom) is the primary topic. I don't waste my time on "crusades" - I have over 5000 articles in my watchlist, and that keeps me busy enough. You'll have a chance to present your case now, and hopefully you'll focus on the merit of it, not my supposed motivations for the original move, especially when I already explained them at the time. - BillCJ (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the interest of full disclosure: I am posting notices of these proposed moves at WT:AIR and WT:MILHIST. Feel free to post your own notices at relevant project talk pages, such as those dealing with DAB topics. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also notified Talk:United States Army Air Corps, but without going into any background this time, just listing the proposed moves. - BillCJ (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm against the move. The status quo seems fine; why change it? --John (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why was the status quo changed three months ago, when it had been stable since Jan 2004? Why is it fine here, but in his own words not fine when it involves other xyz(United States) articles? MickMacNee (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I just realised the notices posted were not exactly accurate regarding the status quo.MickMacNee (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I made the first page move of Army Air Corps to British Army Air Corps on 4 March, 2008. That means it will have been 5 months ago on Aug 5 since I first attempted to disambiguate the title. I stand by my notices' figure of "almost 5 months." - BillCJ (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:DAB states, '"Term ABC (disambiguation)" is not the mandatory name for a disambiguation page, and is only used when there is a primary topic for the title "Term ABC".' (Emphasis added.) Neither the current British corps nor the historic U.S. corps can be definitively called the 'primary' topic for 'Army Air Corps.' So to comply with the guidline the 'Army Air Corps' article should remain a disambiguation page. (sdsds - talk) 03:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you got any actual proof for that? This is coming up, but is starting to look like personal opinoin where people need to start providing sources. I have yet see a definitive statement that the Army Air Corps was an official name of the USAAC or a contraction of USAAC. This page is not needed at this title when it is between the exact official name, and a title that is not even a match. Can you show me any non (dismbiguation) page where this situation exists? MickMacNee (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty of print sources -- and plenty of online sources as well -- where the authors have simply written, "Army Air Corps" or "AAC" and assumed the readers would understand from context that the corps in question was the one associated with the United States military. See for example http://www.armyaircorpsmuseum.org/. Of course those authors aren't trying to be encyclopedic, or even rigorously academic! But the usage is common when discussing United States military aviation, and many who search Wikipedia for an "Army Air Corps" article will be looking for information about the flyers led by Hap Arnold! (sdsds - talk) 04:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You completely contradict yourself. You say that when discussing in the context of United States topics, Unites States is omitted. In that context reading a global encyslopoedia, any smart reader is going to know they want United States Army Air Corps because they are not in a place that assumes American centric world view. Some of the most horrendously wrong namings and links on here happen exactly when people act from such a local view, and it is often a uniquely American thing - football, world series, the open etc etc. Now, if you're talking about dumbing down the pedia, then it's a good suggestion. If you're talking about being correct, we're "off base". Educate, don't accomodate. We're talking one extra click here to acknowledge there is only one article correctly named Army Air Corps and the rest are (disambiguations). It is a mile away from being a generic term, with two candidate it can even be complementary hat notes. I keep repeating it, but if we apply the logic being pressed here to a generic term while respecting official names, we should end up with Army Air Corps (United States) to differentiate from The Army Air Corps, but somehow we have the exact opposite. MickMacNee (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that makes clear how you feel about it. Thanks for explaining your point of view! (sdsds - talk) 06:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It needs to be said, this move makes no sense in regards the naming and disambiguation policies, or in common sense if you apply a world view, but it's being whitewashed for whatever reason, with some obvious sub-texts, after being stable for years, reflecting the true situation that hasn't changed since before the internet was invented. Before I started on the page today, the whole page, supposedly a disambiguation page, was more like a mini-history article for the USAAC, now, even the fact that one of the organisations is the only official Army Air Corps is obscured. If you don't want to explain though why when only using AAC while knowing the usage is in a US context means it needs a generic db term, to somehow distinguish between the only other likely confusion, then that's fine. You don't have to, nobody does. Silence is consensus as is already established. MickMacNee (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with this change. Lots of countries have an 'Army Air Corps' and the national name at the start isn't always used in books and websites focused on that country. The current arrangement looks fine to me. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To repeat information clearly displayed on the page, lots of counties might informally refer to their army aviation units as Air Corps, but this is not the same as saying this is their official title. Only one corps is official, and only another 3 even have Corps in their titles. "Looking fine" without any reference to policy is a pretty weak case. And you repeat the same mistake above, that each local usage, when used with full knowledge it is that local usage, is needed in a db page. In that case it clearly isn't. Or are we going to drop US from their Army, Air Force and Marines, because they know it without that locally? This page is a poor attempt to get one over on a perceived "national arrogance" in his own words, of Britain. Not a valid policy reason at all. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Initially, I was for having Army Air Corp as the dab page (or of course it could have been used as an article about the concept of army air corp in general), and perfectly happy (even as a Brit), with the added (United Kingdom) to the name. However, when you look closer at the links on the dab page, the UK corp is the only current body with that name.  The US version evolved to something else in 1941.  So although the original move was uncontested, perhaps it wasn't the right thing to do.  Obviously if it is moved back the UK article needs a dab link added at the top of the page.  Viv Hamilton (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in vague favour of the move, I think a hat to the disambig is sufficient enough. Narson (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is a poor attempt to get one over on a perceived "national arrogance" in his own words, of Britain. Not a valid policy reason at all.
 * I hate to burst your bubble, but that was sarcasm! Nowhere in my explanation of the move do I mention that, because it's not part of my argument, then or now. I was poking fun at British, and other, editors who always have to add such remarks to moves or comments involving US topics, as if that were a valid explanation. (Note that I did not say I was making fun of all British editors - just those who make such remarks!) My reason for the move was is, and always will be that "Army Air Corps" alone is not sufficient to tell the reader what organization is being referred to, that it needs to be disambiguated - ie, its not the primary topic. I'm not disputing that it is the British Army air arm's official name, just that it does not rise to the same level of recognition as Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, or even Fleet Air Arm.
 * Silence is consensus as is already established.
 * Another mis-interpretation of what I actually said in an attempt to strengthen your own arguments. What I actually said that the move was "well-received", and have given several reasons for it. On WP, there is such a thing as an "uncontested move", and it is usually a week or two at most. Five (not 4!) months without comments makes it "uncontested" - that all it means. Your revert was contested and reverted, by me, shortly after it was made, within a few hours - that makes it "contested".


 * I do want to say this: I did make the move without discussion, and it was uncontested. I was BOLD in making the move, and I actually did expect it to be contested soon after the move. Per Bold/Revert/Discuss, bold /actions/edits may be reverted, but discussion is to take place afterwards. THat has been followed in this case, by both of us. As someone who does have a tendency to edit war, and has been blocked once for it, I'm glad to say we both have done well in this one, even if the discussions have been "contentious" to some degree. - BillCJ (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Both the British and the US organizations can legitimately be considered as candidates for primary topic and I've seen no convincing evidence that one is significantly more well known than the other by the name "Army Air Corps". When there are multiple articles that could be at a single title and no one is predominant, the title should be a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 03:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is this claim of legitimacy coming from barring personal opinion and irrelevant local contraction? MickMacNee (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by irrelevant local contraction? That appears to be little more than ignorant nationalistic arrogance. older ≠ wiser 03:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Extending the fact that Americans when referring to American institutions in a context that others know they are talking about an American institution, produces logical local contractions (USAAC -> AAC), the occurance of which is completely irrelevant on wikipedia, the global encyclopoedia, unless and in fact as you point out, the aim is precisely ignorant nationalistic arrogance. If anyone can find any non-American source or non-American context that refers to an Army Air Corps without meaning the UK AAC then I might be persuaded by some of the unsourced opinions being made on this page to assert that a long vanished American unit has equal universal recognition over a standing unit with an official title that until recently matched its wikipedia page name. Likewise if anyone finds a non-British source that is referring to the British AAC not simply by its normal title, but in a way that needs an extra clarificaion of (United Kingdom), or a disclaimer that they are not talking about the historical USAAC, then that would also be good. As an aside, I would also like to know why the seemingly high profile USAAC living history organisation http://www.armyaircorps.us/ felt the need to register a .us domain, rather than pay for the currently vacant .com or .org urls. MickMacNee (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And what policy or guideline is this expressed in? If an entity is commonly referred to by a particular term, that, rather than the official name is the preferred title. However when disambiguation is required, the official name may be used. The understanding you express seems contrary to that convention. older ≠ wiser 11:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You clearly cannot even comprehend the difference between local and global usage. Nor can you even comprehend any usage beyond the US. The relevant policies are quite obvious if you were capable of editing from an NPOV rather than your obvious bias position, I have linked to them many times before, but you choose to ignore them. I don't realy care, because this farce just serves to illustrate the campaign that is oh so happy to have found just one article that the US can exert dominance over an official UK article. Quite pathetic really, and nothing to do with policy. MickMacNee (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And anytime you want to answer the questions above, I will be here, when you decide to stop acting dumb. But I doubt you can, or even will. Which should be a clear sign of your intent to any person coming here later. MickMacNee (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate, I don't even see an answer in the above reply, to the points made. No attampt at all to adress the points made, just more absolute nonsense. Impprtial observers should be seeing by now the people without an obvious/unquantified bias who have commented here, compared to the rest of the comments made. MickMacNee (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * TO be clear, your own statements here are also abundant evidence for anyone perusing this discussion. The guidelines that I am familiar with say nothing like what you seem to claim they say. Sorry if you think I'm "acting dumb", but I think you may be willfully misrepresenting what the guidelines say. older ≠ wiser 19:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is what? Wiki uses local contractions? Just prove it. Seriously. Just demonstrate even an ounce of encylopoedic knowledge as requested time and again without resorting to nationalistic baseless bs, otherwise, face up to looking stupid, because that is the only conclusion when you come up with zero answers. MickMacNee (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop being insulting and please try reading WP:UCN without blinders on. older ≠ wiser 21:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you mean blinkers <--That's an example of local usage. Why don't you answer a single point in this discussion. Or is it too much trouble after intitially deciding your position from personal experience without thinking? The attitudes shown here are transparently local, and have nothing to do with UCN. MickMacNee (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Or is it too much trouble after intitially deciding your position from personal experience without thinking? Pot, kettle, black. You never addressed my question regarding precisely where in any policy or guideline the proscription against what you term local usage exists? older ≠ wiser 21:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * NAME. Global usage, not local usage. It's basic common sense, this is a global encyclopoedia, local usage is not catered for by generic disambiguation topics in this way. Why on Earth do you think the article is currently titled United States Army Air Corps? Just answer any point made above about the use of the name, any of them. Or just one. Seriously, because this purposefull ignorance of policy and practice is getting tedious. MickMacNee (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * NAME says nothing about global versus local usage -- that is your own interpretation. It is certainly not common sense. As explained many times previously, the article is titled United States Army Air Corps for the purposes of disambiguation, not because it is the most common name. On the basis of common name only, the article would be at Army Air Corps. But because there are other articles which could occupy that title, disambiguation is necessary. older ≠ wiser 00:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "On the basis of common name only, the article would be at Army Air Corps" this has never been proven, despite repeated requests here. Of course common name is not based on local usage/context, that is just common sense. I can't believe that you even concede the article is already disambiguated (not proven/disproven that USAC isn't its official name either), yet you don't acknolwedge this is the situation that that db hatnotes were designed for, which would be to get to a disambiguated title from the article that occupies the term without the disambiguation. This is an unnecessary page, introducing an uneeded (United Kingdom) to an article that doesn't need it, and nobody is coming up with anything to defend this other than personal opinion (from US located editors). MickMacNee (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The distinction you make about local usage not counting for common name is nowhere to be found in policy or guidelines. That is your own interpretation and has nothing to do with common sense. The problem with the move that you don't seem to get is that by making the move you are asserting that the British AAC is the primary topic. The burden is on you to demonstrate that that article is indeed the primary topic. Apart from some opinionated ranting, I've not seen any actual evidence demonstrating that it is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 16:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can quite obviously say the same about you, whereas I have challenged you to explain why you willfully ignore the disambiguation standard procedures of hatnotes, falling back on opinon to support the position created by the move. You even claim that USAC is the common usage, with zero proof. Now you claim it is I and not you who has to prove/disprove this. As well as there not being a single point answered, with common sense painted as 'personal interpretation' etc. If you honestly think local context/usage is how articles are named, fine, that's so off base there's nothing I could show you to change your opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then obviously we can only agree to disagree and wait to see what consensus develops among other editors. older ≠ wiser 20:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with older/wiser. There is no such thing as "only official Army Air Corps" except in the eye of the beholder.--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What is that supposed to mean exactly? What was the USAAC's official title? Are you saying that official title means nothing per the wikipedia naming policy. Why is the US article not at AAC (US) then if we are to list all as local usage per the tacking on of (UK) and ignoring the normal usage of hatnotes?. MickMacNee (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it helps to challenge the naming of USAAC. Presumably if nobody else in the world had an AAC, the correct title for the US page woould be USAAC (the official title), with a redirect from AAC.  The problem here is not the naming of the USAAC article, but what sits on AAC - i.e. the dab or the UK article.   If it's the dab then the people expecting to find the USAAC there are going to have to click one link to find USAAC.  If it's the UK article, it should have a dab link as the first line, and there is no reason why the USAAC shouldn't be explicitly there as well as the dab page, so it's still one click for the people wanting to get to the USAAC article.  Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, one more click, per policy and practice, is just too much for some people, who have giant chips on their shoulders. MickMacNee (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While we're on the subject of those who appear to have a giant chip on their shoulder, I'd like to remind you to remain civil. You have repeatedly insulted older ≠ wiser; please desist this type of behavior. There's no reason to get this heated over something so trivial as an article location. The information is still there (you know, the whole point of Wikipedia), whether it's at Army Air Corps or Army Air Corps (United Kingdom). There are certainly more unique official names for units that have the nationality disambiguation; try XVIII Airborne Corps (United States). Surely there isn't another XVIII ABN Corps in the world, and yet no one is in a tizzy about the disambiguator. Bill's point about the varying level of prominence of the AAC vis a vis the RN or RAF is valid; if someone is speaking about the Royal Navy, and don't use any kind of disambiguation (i.e., Royal Netherlands Navy) they are almost assuredly speaking of the British Royal Navy. The AAC doesn't have that same level of world-wide recognition (for example, I was a soldier in the US Army, and have worked with a fair number of British military, and yet was unaware of the name of the Army's aviation element).
 * You requested earlier some proof of usage of "British Army Air Corps", well, take a look through this google book search: 1. There are quite a few instances of this usage, including Jane's. Parsecboy (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.