Talk:United States Air Force

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.travis.af.mil/News/Article/3476019/travis-afb-welcomes-its-first-kc-46a-pegasus/ https://www.military.com/military-fitness/check-out-new-air-fitness-assessment-pfa-options-and-standards-our-handy-chart. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NotAGenious (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Just a point of order, but the material from the Travis AFB website is public domain, as all works of the US federal government are by law. But the military.com material is an issue, and paraphrasing is preferable anyway. oknazevad (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, looking at the material, neither are significant enough for this top-level article to warrant inclusion anyway. Seeking to revdel the revisions of the physical fitness test material is still proper, however. oknazevad (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Scammed of 2 stars
The US air force logo has 13 stars, not 11 98.110.227.33 (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Fixed; at some point someone fiddled with the Emblem over at Wikimedia Commons and it appears nobody noticed until now. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Advice rof of iss
Try get sum warmer zones n push zoning state commission to i.e take zone 5 warm sum to get grasslnd ready for eetry agrcltr etc 96.29.162.64 (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It is not clear how your comments are related to this US Air Force wiki article. Talk pages are only meant for article improvements and related activities per WP:TALK. Posts that off topic and not related to article improvement may be removed. &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Fighting Wild Fires
Asthe USAF is about to retire its fleet of KC10 Entenders in-flighr refuelling aircraft, this woud be a great opportunity to convert these planes to spray water on wild fires, an improvement on the current praatcice of using helicopters, with a bucket. Thousands of pounds of water in one pass, could more efficently control wild fires as California is presently experiencing. This could also be a worldwide service, offered to all. 161.29.239.133 (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are really meant for article improvement (see WP:TALK), not general discussion. Regards &#45;Fnlayson (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Aircraft flown and Armed Forces sidebar
The aircraft flown section of the infobox and the Armed Forces sidebar are taking up significant sections of the page space and bunching the images in particular in the Mission, vision, and functions section. They may have been non-disruptive in previous versions of wikipedia, but since it moved to the new GUI they seem to be disrupting the flow of the page.

I don't think we need the aircraft flown section since there are so many and they are covered later in the page and the Armed Forces sidebar is redundant with Template:United States Armed Forces at the bottom of the page.

I'm proposing removing either one of these or both of these to restore the flow of the page. Aerospace8672 (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)