Talk:USN NAS Bermuda, Kindley Field, 1970-1995

Their is already a Kindley Air Force Base article. NAS Bermuda should be removed from this article and moved to it's own article. Kindley Field references should be merged to the Kindley Air Force Base article. Then, this article should be deleted. --JAYMEDINC 01:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I Wholeheartedly Disagree
I created the Kindley article, and I actually created TWO. The original base comprised Fort Bell (US Army) and Kindley Field (US Army Air Forces), and the Royal Air Force's Air Transport Command facility (the original agreement under which the US was granted 99 year free base rights by Britain was that the US build an airfield to be used jointly by the RAF). When the USAAF was seperated to create a seperate air arm, the base was renamed Kindley AFB. When the US Navy took over, it was renamed NAS Bermuda. Combining the three into one article (well, the five, as the NASA tracking Station also occupied part of the base from the Mercury programme 'til after the withdrawal of the US Navy, and there's another page for the Bermuda International Airport. Six, actually, including the RAF facility, which was converted into the Civil Air Terminal by Wing Commander Mo Ware, following the end of the Second World War) seems mistaken to me, which is why I created separate articles. Trying to merge into a single article will create a nightmare for various other pages that need to link to specific articles for specific establishments (whether or not they successively occupied the same facilities). Aodhdubh 01:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * All that being said, every US Navy command should have an article with it's own title. Naval Air Station Bermuda is no exception. --JAYMEDINC 13:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Further
Incidently, adding Kindley Field at the end serves to distinguish the location of this NAS Bermuda from the previous NAS Bermuda (originally the Naval Operating Base, and finally the NAS Annex) on Morgan's Point. It's a fair use, anyway, as the airfield continued to be referred to by civil operators as Kindley Field throughout its life. Currently, Bermuda International Airport seems to be winning out, but many airlines, among others (see http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/Bermuda/KindleyField.htm for an example) still publish the name of the airport as Kindley Field, and the road which skirts its perimeter is still known as Kindley Field Road. Aodhdubh 02:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Please take to WP:RM and go through proper procedure. Patstuarttalk 00:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to close the move proposal that I put in. I don't know the proper way of closing it and keeping it as an archive, so I would prefer if someone else did that.  However, I am going to create a merger proposal now.  I have learned today that these are supposed to be on the main page as opposed to the talk page.  That is where I am putting it this time. --JAYMEDINC 19:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Support
I believe this page would better meet the Naming Convention requirements if merged with Naval Air Station Bermuda. --JAYMEDINC 19:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I Agree, I also believe that NAS Bermuda Annex should be redirected to the article as well with its own header in the article, as well as USN NAS Bermuda/NAS Annex, Morgans Point, 1941-1995. If nothing else just have NAS Bermuda and NAS Bermuda Annex. There is no reason that three separate article should exist. As far as the annex goes I understand the difference and so do you but the average reader isn't going to see the distinction. -- Wils Bad Karma ( Talk / Contribs ) 06:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
The NAS Annex only became an annex after air operations moved to the AFB Kindley Field in 1965, and that latter base was taken over by the US Navy in 1970. Thge site of the NAS Annex was a seperate base and airstation for decades prior, during which Kindley Field was not even a US Navy base. As author of that article, also, I disagree with reducing it and it's history to a footnote of this article. Aodhdubh 01:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You aren't Opposing what was proposed. You are opposing someone elses suggestion. --JAYMEDINC 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Merger?
As far as 'merging' with the NAS Bermuda article is concerned, that's a bit of a joke. It would constitute no more than renaming the larger article with the lesser's title. Aodhdubh 01:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you agree that this article's title doesn't meet the naming convention guidelines, than it can take the name of the "lesser" article. The only reason said article was created, was to have the correct title on Wikipedia. --JAYMEDINC 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)