User talk:Lineagegeek/Archive 4

Neuve Chapelle
It's not one of my efforts, all I did was tinker with it and add citations to each paragraph. The text (particularly the prose) isn't something I'd endorse, I assumed that because it was unsatisfactory only on the citations criterion, the rest was more or less all right (I favour laconic prose, which means I try to write sentences which rhyme, scan and make sense by putting the fewest words into the most logical order.) except in a subjective sense. I'll have a proper look at what's there, thanks for taking the trouble.Keith-264 (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Givenchy was a bit of a howler. Fixed;O)Keith-264 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Article "Edward H. Smith (sailor)"
Would you care to have a second look at the article Edward H. Smith (sailor). The reference number was off by one causing the footnote kink to look at the wrong reference. A second blunder on my part was failure to include the reference for the citation in question. Doh! Thank you for catching that error on my part. Cuprum17 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Belated ✅ --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Just spreading the word.
I got the wikification drive for the month started, the other day. Would have had it up sooner if I'd realized it hadn't been started, but at least it's up now. :) Okay folks, say it with me: 1 for the money, 2 for the - the - okay, just let me read the script again first... (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

216th Army Air Forces Base Unit
Need your help! If you can supply the missing details for this article, it would be much appreciated. Primary sources are okay for facts. Just quote the archive, box number etc. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My problem is I no longer posess adequate records of the primary sources. (see below) However, I am acquainted with two folks that should be able to give citations from physical materials they have.  One is interested in Air Corps ORBs and looks to the Maryland national records archive for materials (the original source of the 1944 ORB).  The other has a collection of materials from AFHRA dealing with Wendover, and last year, lots of stuff specifically on the 216th.  It may take a little while to obtain source material in citable form.  The second contact has indicated that classification poses a problem with 216th materials, specifically that historical reports were destroyed while still highly classified in the 1940s, not that they remain classified.
 * I've been collecting material on the organization of the USAF and predecessors since the 1970s. Problem is that for most of this time, paper was the only form sources were in, and copiers were rare, so I retained only summaries of a lot of stuff.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Assessments Comment
Had a look at the two articles for assessment but there wasn't much that I could add.Keith-264 (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow. The request was for assessment of articles' grammar (B4) only.  Are you saying it still is substandard?  --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I had nothing to add.Keith-264 (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Squadrons table
Yep, that's it! That talk page is pretty much a sandbox, anyway. Lou Sander (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much
Thank you for your help with talk page formatting at Talk:Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency, much appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency

910th Air Refueling Squadron
The intro stands as:

The is an inactive unit of the United States Air Force. In 1985, it was consolidated with the 10th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron and the 310th Attack Squadron, but has not been active since consolidation.

The first predecessor of the squadron was activated in 1942 as the 10th Observation Squadron. The squadron performed antisubmarine patrols off the Pacific coast shortly after activating. As the 10th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron, it briefly saw combat in the European Theater of World War II before returning to the United States for inactivation.

The 910th Air Refueling Squadron was a Strategic Air Command (SAC) unit that provided air refueling for SAC bombers from Bergstrom Air Force Base, Texas from 1958 to 1966, when SAC withdrew from Bergstrom.

The 310th Attack Squadron was activated at England Air Force Base, where it trained for deployment to Viet Nam, in 1969. Shortly after it arrived at Bien Hoa Air Base it was inactivated and its personnel and equipment transferred to another unit.

If it has been inactivated since 1969 then why: "In 1985, it was consolidated with the 10th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron and the 310th Attack Squadron, but has not been active since consolidation."

Something does not add up?76.170.88.72 (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

All three units were on the inactive list when they were consolidated in September 1985 (10th since 1946, 910th since 1966, 310th since 1969). The consolidated unit has remained there since. --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet, it remains confusion because the 910 is just mentioned as "when SAC withdrew from Bergstrom." not deactivated or consolidated so the 1985 is being use to show consolidation of a unit that long ago was deactivated and presumably consolidated at the deactivation time into other unites. There is nothing presented in the intro to give one the overall understanding of the histories.76.170.88.72 (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Aha! Now that you've put your finger on the problem, I've edited the lead to indicate the withdrawal included the inactivation of the 910th. (as with all SAC units at Bergstrom). --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Military lineages
I'm assuming that your geekness includes lineages of the military sort, and not just humans, AKC pooches, thoroughbreds, etc. I'm an ex-Navy officer who has just created a lot of articles about U.S. Navy aircraft squadrons. I think you and I had some discussion about it (some of the names are pretty poor right now, but I'm working on it). I was a surface officer, and lineages aren't at all important for ships, though occasionally a ship will get renamed. Lineages seem to be important among the squadrons I've done articles on, and I see that they are VERY important to Army units both in the U.S. and the U.K. I've looked, but I don't see a Wikipedia article on the subject. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. It seems to me that the "military lineage" concept is important enough that it should have its own article. What say you on these matters? Lou Sander (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry About the delay, but I've been going back and forth on this for the past few days and have decided to be firmly wishy-washy. I could certainly do a section on the Air Force and prececessors.  I haven't looked, but I think there is probably enough citable material in Sawicki's books to do the same thing for the Army.  Infantry Regiments would probably be the best because among the National Guard units are two IIRC that are very old -- a MA unit that goes back to the "Train Bands" of the mid seventeenth century and a PR unit that goes back to the 1700s.  Problem is that even with input on Naval Aviation, I'm not sure what the deal is on surface warfare units.  My son recently commanded a riverine warfare squadron, then its "successor" squadron, a coastal riverine squadron.  I have no idea what the relationship is between the big squadron and its two predecessors (or why the only coastal riverine squadron in the Navy was the 4th).


 * My biggest concern is that it would wind up too US centric. I've got a McDonald book on RAF squadrons that seems to indicate that they treat them like USAF does, but use different terms.  Even if included, that's still pretty narrow.


 * I also wonder if military heraldry should be included. At least in the USAF, heraldy (emblems) follow lineage.  There have been a few exceptions (the 1992 reorganization of major commands being the biggest) to this policy, but they are rare.

Let me know what you think. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking that it would be best to start small, and limit it to the general concept of lineage. People could expand it as they wished. Probably it wouldn't ever include listings of lineages of units or squadrons, or whatever. Just something about the peculiar notion of "lineage" in military units. Something about how the lineage is used for tracing honors (not that I know much about that) -- if the 72nd Whoop De Doo is a 200-years-later successor to the First Colonial Rat Tat Tat, which was awarded a gold medal by George Washington, it's important that people can follow the lineage and be sure that the 72nd has the right to claim that heritage, etc. Also something about the heraldry aspect of lineage. I saw something somewhere (Wikipedia?) about lineages for British regiments, and it was impressive.


 * I've seen U.S. Army units whose colors are draped with lots of ribbons. I think each of them refers to a battle or award of some kind, but I'm not sure. This article could explain that stuff to the uninitiated.


 * There could be a paragraph on U.S. ships, saying that many ships can have the same name, but it's not as big a deal as it is in Army and Air Force units. I think that's because when the old ship is decommissioned and scrapped (or whatever happens to it), that has a finality to it that isn't present when units are renamed. The point is that there is a concrete thing that is the USS Whatever, and the next USS Whatever is a totally different thing.


 * Even there could be a stub "Lineage (military)" that has a few paragraphs on that stuff. My problem is that I see the apparent importance of lineage in the military context, but I only know the tiniest bit about it. Since it's important, it ought to have some sort of article, or at least that's what I'm thinking. Lou Sander (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * TIOH has published an emblem for the 26th STS on their web page. Also, it appears that the 724th Operations Support Squadron is now the 724th Special Tactics Support Squadron (presumably the 720th, too) --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I just found them and uploaded both emblems to Commons. Thanks for spotting those and giving me a heads up, I appreciate it. Oh, interesting fact-of-the-day.... I remember you wondering why Big Blue chose the designation "26th STS" but apparently their lineage comes from the 7026 Special Activities Squadron. —  dain  omite   19:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikification drive notification.
Greetings! Just letting you know, the April 2014 backlog drive has commenced! It&#39;s the 1st! May Day! May Day - ain&#39;t for another month. (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Operational - Replacement Training Units
I'm creating an article about these here: (User:Bwmoll3/sandbox2) which I'd like go get online by the end of the week. For the Operational Training Units section, I used the text that you placed on the Talk:Army Air Forces Training Command page. Do you have the references for that so they can be added?

Thank you :) Brent Bwmoll3 (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It's been a while...
...since I've put a lot of time into USAF articles. I took quite a lengthy Wikibreak for the last couple months. I'll be starting again here shortly and I was hoping yourself or Bwmoll3 could help me get started in the right direction. I've been having some trouble finding supporting documents for the Squadrons and Groups I'm looking to create/work on and I was wondering if you know some good places or have any advice about how to find more about these unit's history. All I seem to be able to find for some (but not all) units are the AFHRA factsheets and random online AF news clippings if you will. A few of the recent Air Force Cross recipients are from the Squadrons below though. Below is the short list of articles I will be looking at expanding or creating. Any advice that can be offered on what I can do to find more information on unit histories would be very much abliged. Thank you, —  dain  omite   11:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 24th Special Tactics Squadron - I tried finding anything on the unit's WW2 history as the 24 Air Corps Interceptor Control Squadron but I wasn't able to turn up anything. unit's AFHRA factsheet
 * User:Dainomite/21st Special Tactics Squadron - unit's AFHRA factsheet
 * User:Dainomite/720th Special Tactics Group - unit's AFHRA factsheet
 * 724th Special Tactics Group - unit's AFHRA factsheet
 * 26th Special Tactics Squadron - I can't find anything at all about this unit I assume that it must be fairly new. (no AFHRA factsheet)
 * 320th Special Tactics Squadron - Another unit whos history dates from WW2 when they were the 320 Fighter Control Squadron. Only STS in PACAF, subordinate to 720th STG. unit's AFHRA factsheet
 * 321th Special Tactics Squadron - Another unit whos history dates from WW2 when they were the 321 Fighter Control Squadron. Only STS in USAFE, subordinate to 720th STG. unit's AFHRA factsheet


 * Welcome back :)   The best place to go is to go to AFHRA and ask them for their lineage and history of the units you're interested in.   Email: AFHRANEWS@maxwell.af.mil     Just put the name or names of the units you're interested in researching.    Here is an email I sent a few weeks ago:

Greetings

If possible, I would like to have lineage and histories (with possibly assigned groups) for the following World War II wings:

32d Flying Training Wing 33d Flying Training Wing 34th Flying Training Wing

35th Flying Training Wing 37th Flying Training Wing 38th Flying Training Wing

77th Flying Training Wing 79th Flying Training Wing 80th Flying Training Wing

82d Flying Training Wing 83d Flying Training Wing

Thank you very much for your help with this

Warmest Regards

Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! Question, when making the request will the AFHRA provide a more detailed response than the typical information straight from the AFHRA unit factsheet? Thanks again, —  dain  omite   13:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you are familiar with Air Force History Index. About a dozen years ago AFHRA hired a bunch of folks to catalog their holdings. A separate organization has made the catalog available online. Many of the holdings contain abstracts of their contents, which may be citable in themselves. I now use the   format when citing from this index. It will also give you pointers on what to ask for if you make a request to AFHRA -- but a lot of this stuff is on microfilm only. Individual entries in this database do not normally show up in Google searches (unless they're further down the list than I care to go).
 * When searching this database, a couple of pointers. Unit numbers are normalized to 4 digits, so to get most material on the 24th Fighter Control Squadron, use 0024 Fighter Control Squadron first. (notice no ordinals).  24 Fighter Control Squadron as a second search will pull up a lot of extraneous material, but may also pull up some additional mentions in the abstract field.  You can also search the unit's higher HQ or assigned units -- e.g. San Francisco Provisional Control Group, which may turn up additional information.  Searches are not case sensitive.

When making AFHRA requests, I usually add boilerplate about the acceptability of material in electronic format (most L&H documents are available in .pdf or .doc formats). If I have to write (as opposed to email) I also add a FOIA statement. Note that most of these materials are not subject to the FOIA, although they will usually be provided as if they were. I used to make FOIA requests until about a dozen or so years ago a senior NCO (not one of the civilian historians), responded with a letter refusing to provide requested materials because they were not FOIA materials. They fall under the "publicly available" exception because you can drive to Maxwell Air Force Base, get a visitor's pass (or display your DoD decal), drive to Academic Circle and review and copy the materials. (I believe his real reason was that he didn't want to copy the document requested -- it was long). --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, interesting! I have not heard about the Air Force History Index. I'll have to spend some time there doing some digging, hopefully I get some positive results. Thanks for the AFHRA tip as well. —  dain  omite   13:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A follow up question for both of you gentlemen, are there any good tips for finding out unit modern unit history, basically the last decade or two, for OIF, OEF, Kosovo, Libya and such. I assume AFHRA for instance will only state "Operation Enduring Freedom - Afghanistan: 2001 - Present". Thanks again for the advice and tips, I appreciate it. —  dain  omite   13:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not a lot of help I can give you there,  I rarely work on current units.   Given many of the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan were Expeditionary in nature,  not sure how much material AFHRA has on them.  Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the link I use for http://airforcehistoryindex.org/ Once you find the document you would like,  just do a copy and paste into an email.  Most of them are on CD and there is a charge for them, although not always.   Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not much help anymore, but from mid 2003 to 2011 I had indirect access to the Air Force Organization Change Status Report. The report is issued monthly and is not classified, but is For Official Use Only (interesting interface between this marking and FOIA).  When classified unit actions occur -- which would include most or all actions in a combat zone, they are reported on a separate classified report (which I, of course, had no access to).  This will report activations, inactivations, moves, redesignations.  With 99%+ accuracy, it can be read to report constitutions.  It does not report ANG actions (with some rare exceptions, like the 12th and 16th ACCS, which were allotted to the guard without renumbering into the 101-300 sequence).  Also there were frequent omissions of some actions for provisional units (e.g. activation would be shown, but no inactivation).

More current decoration information than AFHRA displays is available at Air Force Personnel Services. Unfortunately, this site does not include campaign, expeditionary, or service credit) like the old AFP 900-2 series of publications did. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, the 26th STS seems kind of an odd number. No 26th Fighter Control Squadron, Special Operations Squadron, or 1726th Squadron for a predecessor
 * Thank you very much for your time gentlemen, you've offered a lot of insight and have been extremely helpful. Thanks again, —  dain  omite   09:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014 drive awards.

 * Cheers! Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

SAC Chief of Staff
Who was the SAC Chief of Staff that remains without an article? He probably deserves one. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Major General Timothy J. Dacey, Jr.. He's got a bio on the USAF bio site.  Can't write it myself because of COI.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well restrained. List the references (what you have) here and I'll see what I can do. Regarding our combat-service semi-criteria, did his wing or air division commands involve Vietnam operations at all? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, he commanded the 4050th Air Refueling Wing at Westover (which at the time was the largest flying wing in the USAF -- don't know if there's a reference for that) and the 72d Bombardment Wing at Ramey. The 72d was a B-52G wing, and he commanded it before SAC began deploying G models to Andersen and U Tapao, but it was deploying KC-135s and crews to the Young Tiger Task Force while he commanded it.   Combat related is his command of Tacloban Air Base at the very end of WW II. (He had some involvement with the deployment of the P-47N long range Thunderbolt to the Pacific).
 * His USAF bio is at (Google won't help much -- his son, Timothy III is a prominent Boston attorney, and will get more hits).   brings up six hits on his name, including one that talks briefly about the 4050th support for the SAC Eastern Auxiliary Command Post. ( has more info on PACCS, the airborne mission was flown by the 99th Air Refueling Squadron of the 4050th).   His command at RAF Upper Heyford included the command of what later became the 3918th Strategic Wing (not sure if it was the 3918th Combat Support Group or Air Base Group at the time).   --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good start. Given that this is Wikipedia rather than US-ipedia, and given that we write for all countries, can I just make it Timothy J. Dacey for simplicity? The Jr., and more exactly the various conventions of listing the Jr, (with or without end-commas, dots after the Jr, JR, etc, make a cross referencing and linking issue. Was Dacey Sr important enough for WP:V and thus confusion later? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We have a good article on PACCS already - looking at your edit contributions, you were improving it. So that will be all right. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think leaving the Jr out is fine. I don't think his dad is a Wikipedia article candidate. --Lineagegeek (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably not in his AF bio, but I believe usual in Wikipedia bios: Married (1941) Sara Ann Rogers b. August 19, 1915 in Somerville, MA, d. June 4, 2008 in Seattle WA. He died May 18, 1992 in Arizona (Phoenix area).  Probably in social security records, which I believe are searchable with a name and birthdate.  5 children and his middle name is John  --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lineagegeek. I started looking for articles to link to to start with, and found that even the SAC article now does not have a list of commanders. He served as chief-of-staff under General Richard Ellis, correct? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, General John C. Meyer (for at least part of the time -- I remember him talking about General Meyer's lengthy staff meeting and the need to take a bathroom break just before they began). --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like Bruce K. Holloway was CINCSAC when he became Chief of Staff. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Can You Help Me, Please?
Hi, Lineagegeek,

First, I hope that I am sending you this message in the "proper" way or format.

I have had only one person write to me on Wikipedia before. I think that I was trying to find out how to notify someone of errors on a page and/or I was trying to learn how to create an account and edit pages myself. I don’t remember if I replied to that person or not. So, I may be totally unfamiliar with how to send messages and reply to you. Again, I hope that I am on the “right” page and replying in the “proper” way.

I got your message yesterday saying that you had undone my edits from the day before (the 97th Operations Group page). Yes, my efforts were indeed in good faith. I kinda knew that if I made an error, somehow I would find out. Besides, if I make a mistake, it’s good to know!

I have more to write (I’ve already drafted another more detailed message) but “first things first”… am I communicating with you in the “proper” way or on the “correct” page? Please do let me know if you got this message, OK?

Thanks in advance, Rob BeatlesVox (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There's little in Wikipedia that's entirely "proper." Posting messages on someone's talk page is the common way to communicate with that person.  I have been on vacation for the last two weeks, which is the reason for the delay in my response.  While there are several ways to respond to questions, the ones that keep the discussion together are usually preferred, so I'm responding here.  Also, most folks indent responses so long discussions are easier to read.  I don't know if you kept this talk page on your watchlist, so I will use the  template on your page to let you know I've finally responded.  You can reply by editing this section of my talk page.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

First, I apologize for the “book” that I’ve written here and my delay…

Thanks for your message of June 13th regarding the “97th Operations Group” page and letting me know that you did indeed get my message of May 28th.

As I am fairly new to editing pages (or making “Edit Requests”), I do my best to just “leave them alone.”  Yet, if I see an error (typos mostly), or have something to contribute, I do so but cautiously. When I saw that my good-faith edits of May 26th had been undone, I was a bit disappointed but not totally surprised (I had taken a risk). And, thanks for letting me know “gently.” I appreciated your “demeanor” about it.

You are most correct... it is indeed rather confusing when there are two 97th pages (Operations Group versus Air Mobility Wing). It doesn’t help either when both articles start off by saying that each one’s predecessor was the 97th Bomb Group. (Yet, something doesn’t seem quite right about that, in terms of the Wing’s page. So, I will have a question or two for you about the Wing’s page later on, in a separate message, OK?) And, it also doesn’t help when the two units’ emblems are identical except for the wording at the bottom.

It’s too bad that there are not totally separate pages literally for just the 97th Bomb Group and just the 97th Bomb Wing. (As opposed to the infamous “redirects.”)

It was initially surprising to me when you wrote that the 97th Bomb Group and the 97th Bomb Wing are two different units. That is, I had previously thought that the Group had been merely redesignated as a Wing (on 1 Dec 47) while in Alaska. But, now it appears to me that wasn’t the case. That is, after further study of the two pages, it now appears to me, too, that they were indeed two different units altogether; the Wing being “brand-new,” so to speak. I now see more clearly that the Wing’s Lineage section agrees; there is no Bomb Group listed at all. And, according to the Lineage section for the Group, I clearly see now that it was NOT redesignated as a Wing at all. Again, it reiterates to me that the Wing was indeed a “brand-new” unit altogether (1 Dec 1947).

As an aside, the Bomb Wing’s yearbook of 1947-1948 “claims” or “absorbs” the history of the 97th Bomb Group. The Wing seems to consider the Group as its “predecessor,” very roughly speaking. I reckon that that happens from time to time. And, I suppose that it’s due to the fact that the Group actually became part of the Wing, being assigned to it on 1 Dec 1947.

Gosh, as you wrote, this can be confusing… especially when, while in Alaska, Dad’s plane was the same, the crew was the same, Smoky Hill (before and after Alaska) was the same (except for the name change to AFB), and (I’m sure) that the beer was the same.

Well, that’s about it for now, I suppose. Thanks for letting me “ventilate” my (previous, I hope!) confusion and “talk out loud.”  I think that I finally understand the “Group versus Wing” situation. (I hope so!)

I’m sorry that I caused you some work to “undo” what I had done on the 97th Operations Group page. And, thanks for telling me that my efforts were in good faith. They absolutely were. After all, we’re talking about my Dad here.

Oh, I don’t think that I need a reply to this message, OK? Again, I was just “ventilating” and “talking out loud.” Besides, I will indeed need to ask you a question or two about the Wing’s page in a separate message, OK? Apart from that, I sure hope and pray that I have a proper understanding of the “97th Bomb Group versus 97th Bomb Wing” now. (!!)

Thanks for your time and attention, Rob

P.S. Once more, I apologize for the “book” that I’ve written above. There’s more that I had written (deployments), but since the above message became rather lengthy, I’ve decided to wait in providing some info on the deployments. That topic has been “trumped” for now. When I was just about finished drafting this message, I stumbled into something else regarding the “Group versus Wing” pages that confused me even more, if that’s possible. As I wrote “early” in this message, something doesn’t seem quite right about the Wing’s page. So, I will have a question or two for you about the Wing’s page in a separate message, OK? (I already have a very rough draft prepared.) Thanks in advance. BeatlesVox (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * First, there's no need to apologize for length. Glad to help.

Here's the (not so) short explanation. There's a little more at Hobson Plan. Confusion is lots more common that understanding what's going on. The basic references in this area are both available online, and they contain some explanation in their early pages:
 * Through WW II, the basic combat unit in the AAF was the combat group (e.g. 97th Bombardment Group). Through WW II combat groups were supported by Air Corps organizations (like Service Squadrons), but also by a variety of ground service units from the Quartermaster (supply and trucks), Ordnance (not only bombs, but maintenance on the Quartermaster trucks), Signal (communications), Military Police (overseas), etc.  By 1945, the AAF was able to bring most of these units together into what was called an Air Service Group.
 * The AAF was still not happy, because the support units still reported through an entirely different chain of command. So the AAF started an experimental organization in 1947, which was completed by the USAF in 1948 for the regular AF, 1949 for the reserves, and 1950 for the guard.  This was called the wing base organization plan.  Under this plan, each combat group was assigned to a new wing (with the same number as the group) along with an Air Base Group, a Maintenance & Supply Group, and a Station Hospital Group.  So the 97th Bombardment Group was assigned to the 97th Bombardment Wing, along with three other support groups.
 * Things went smoothly for a couple of years, but for different reasons, Air Defense Command and Strategic Air Command began to tinker with the new organization. In SAC (the 97th's headquarters), in February 1951 its groups (97th Bombardment Group) were reduced to paper units, and the three operational squadrons were "attached" to the wing headquarters.  The arrangement was made permanent in June 1952 and SAC groups (again the 97th group) were all inactivated and the operational squadrons were assigned directly to the wing, reporting to a "Deputy Commander for Operations."  Other commands adopted this system later on.
 * By the middle 1950s, SAC realized that although it had a couple of operational units with Korean war honors, above the squadron level it did not have a single unit with World War I or World War II honors. After negotiating with Hq, USAF they came up with what is called the "temporary bestowal" program.  Under this program, wings are temporarily entitled to the honors and history (but not the lineage) of their identically numbered groups if certain conditions are met.  (They will almost always be met whenever the 97th Bombardment (now Operations) Group is assigned to the 97th wing or the wing is active and the group is not).  This is the reason the wing can claim that the group is a predecessor unit.
 * Another wrinkle came about in the 1980s. USAF realized that it had a number of inactive groups whose histories were temporarily bestowed on wings they had never been assigned to because the wings were not created until long after the groups were inactivated.  USAF decided that temporary bestowal wasn't needed in these cases, and went ahead and consolidated the wings and groups into a single unit (like the 416th Air Expeditionary Wing).
 * By the middle 1950s, SAC realized that although it had a couple of operational units with Korean war honors, above the squadron level it did not have a single unit with World War I or World War II honors. After negotiating with Hq, USAF they came up with what is called the "temporary bestowal" program.  Under this program, wings are temporarily entitled to the honors and history (but not the lineage) of their identically numbered groups if certain conditions are met.  (They will almost always be met whenever the 97th Bombardment (now Operations) Group is assigned to the 97th wing or the wing is active and the group is not).  This is the reason the wing can claim that the group is a predecessor unit.
 * Another wrinkle came about in the 1980s. USAF realized that it had a number of inactive groups whose histories were temporarily bestowed on wings they had never been assigned to because the wings were not created until long after the groups were inactivated.  USAF decided that temporary bestowal wasn't needed in these cases, and went ahead and consolidated the wings and groups into a single unit (like the 416th Air Expeditionary Wing).

Hope this helps. Cheers. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

First, thanks for your message of June 24th. I was finally able to read it on June 29th.

As my previous message was rather lengthy, and as I wrote before, I am writing you this separate message. And. let me apologize for this new “book” that I have written here!

I think that I understand things so far. I hope that my previous message indicated such. “Bottom line”… the 97th Bomb Group was NOT redesignated as the 97th Bomb Wing; the Wing was a “brand-new” unit altogether on 1 December 1947, right? (Please say “yes!”)

As I wrote before, one of my sentences read, “It doesn’t help when both articles start off by saying that each one’s predecessor was the 97th Bomb Group.” Then I realized something and immediately added, “(Yet, something doesn’t seem quite right about that, in terms of the Wing’s page. So, I will have a question or two for you about the Wing’s page later on, in a separate message, OK?)”

Well, here we are. This is what “hit” me…

On the Group page, it reads in part:

“The 97th Operations Group (97 OG) is a United States Air Force unit… During World War II, the group's predecessor unit, the 97th Bombardment Group…” OK, I got that. And, thankfully, the “Lineage” section agrees. To paraphrase: “97 Bomb Group, 97 Bomb Group, 97 Operations Group.”  OK, fine.

But, on the Wing page, it reads in part:

“The 97th Air Mobility Wing (97 AMW) is a United States Air Force unit… Active for over 60 years, the 97th Bombardment Wing was a component organization of Strategic Air Command's deterrent force during the Cold War, as a strategic bombardment wing.” OK, I got that, too.

But, now, the article continues…

“During World War II, the 97th Operations Group’s predecessor unit, the 97th Bombardment Group…”

What?! Why does it say “Operations Group’s?”  Why, if we were “liberal,” doesn’t it say “97th Bombardment Wing’s?”   (It would also keep the “flow” going with the sentence above it.)  After all, we are on the Wing page.

Or, let’s say, “During World War II, the 97th AMW’s predecessor unit, the 97th Bomb Wing…”

The sentence that starts off with “During World War II...” (and the rest of the WWII paragraph) seems out of place here. It just seems to be “clutter” (as a minimum) or perhaps it doesn’t belong here at all. Besides, we already covered this on the Group page. Again, we are on the Wing page and we are talking about the Wing and its predecessor.

Also, the “Lineage” section does not agree with a Group (of any kind) being thrown in there. To paraphrase the lineage: “Bomb Wing, Bomb Wing, Bomb Wing, 97 Wing, 97 AM Wing.”   This is correct, right? That is, we are talking about the Wing here.

There is NO Operations Group (or any kind of Group) listed in the lineage section at all. That is, the predecessors (bomb wings and 97 Wing) are listed, yes, but there is no Operations Group (or any kind of Group) listed on the Wing’s page. And, that’s the way it’s supposed to be, right?

My mind has gone around and around on this one topic alone. Just when I thought that I half-way understood the “Group versus Wing” situation, I became confused and frustrated once more with that World War II paragraph. (!!)

'''Sooooo, to review, the sentence that causes me trouble reads, “During World War II, the 97th Operations Group’s predecessor unit, the 97th Bombardment Group…” It just doesn’t seem right. To me, something is not “jiving.”'''

Thus, if I am correct so far, I think we have some options…

•	Either replace “Operations Groups’” with “Bomb Wing’s” if we are going to take the liberty of saying that the Group, for all intents and purposes, was the Wing’s predecessor. (To the layperson it was.) Yet, there is no Group of any kind listed in the Wing’s lineage.

•	Or, shouldn’t we say that the 97 AMW’s predecessor was the 97th Bomb Wing?? But, here, we would be overlooking the fact that the post-war Wing wasn’t even created/organized until 1 December 1947, right?

•	Or, would we need to go way back and recognize the 97th Bomb Wing in World War II, as it was, right? There’s a Wiki article on that, but it seems to be a TOTALLY unrelated unit altogether. (Lineage, assignments, stations, planes, etc.)

Caveat: one of the Wing’s article’s first sentences reads, “Active for over 60 years, the 97th Bombardment Wing was a component organization of Strategic Air Command's deterrent force during the Cold War…” It overlooks WWII entirely, as it should, right? That is, the post-war 97th Bomb Wing was created/organized on 1 December 1947.

•	Or, shouldn’t we just delete the World War II paragraph altogether? Yet, we would still need to say that the AMW’s predecessor was the 97th Bomb Wing, right? Perhaps it could be handled this way… “Active for over 60 years, the AMW’s predecessor, the 97th Bombardment Wing, was a component organization of Strategic Air Command's deterrent force during the Cold War…”

WOW!! All in all, something needs to change on the Wing’s page, right?

So now I think that you see why I had to send this separate message, err, “book.” Have I made any sense here? (“Dangerous question,” as I call it.) I sure hope and pray so!

Please let me know your thoughts when you get a chance, OK?

Thanks for your time and attention, Rob

P.S. Once more, I apologize for this new “book” that I’ve written.

P.P.S. As stated previously, there’s still more (!!) that I want to write about (deployments), but they have had to wait, as you see. At least, it will be something new! I will send you another message regarding deployments later, OK? (Probably in a “new section.”) That message will deal with citations that you mentioned regarding the 97th’s deployments to West Germany, Berlin, Guam and Japan. BeatlesVox (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, a lot of people don't understand the 1947-1948 conversion of the USAF from a group basis. Some of them write articles on Wikipedia. Some of them are folks in the military who are unit historians as an additional duty. That being said, If I were writing (or have a chance to rewrite) 97th Operations Group, I would say nothing at all about a "predecessor" unit. The 97th Bombardment Group was not a predecessor of the 97th Operations Group, it was the same unit under a different name. When I write these, I typically start off with something like:
 * The 97th Operations Group was first activated as the 97th [Foo Group]] in [year] at [station], flying [airplanes}. Its original squadrons were the 1st, 2d, 3d and 4th Foo Squadrons.


 * The 97th Air Mobility Wing The 97th Operations Group was first activated as the 97th [Foo Wing]] in [year] at [station]as part of the Army Air Forces wing base reorganization, which established a single wing on each base with operational and support units reporting to it. In the lede, I will probably mention the "predecessor" with a recap of its WW II accomplishments and I'll tag the first narrative paragraph with  .  To me "predecessor" implies a different unit, so I don't use it for groups, but I'm comfortable with it for wings.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I just found an online version of Judy Endicott's USAF Wings on 1 October 1995. It has an appendix on bestowed history:
 * "During World War II, combat squadrons were normally organized into combat groups, with three or four squadrons in each group, the group serving as the basic combat element of the Army Air Forces. In many commands, two or more combat groups formed a wing for administrative or operational control, although the practice was not uniform throughout the Army Air Forces. (see Air Force Combat Units of World War II, passim).

This organization changed in 1947 when the successor to the Army Air Forces, the United States Air Force (USAF), adopted the wing-base plan. Each combat wing was given one combat group (with three or four combat squadrons) and three support groups (air base, supply and maintenance, and medical). The wings required by this plan were new organizations, the old World War II wings having been redesignated as numbered air divisions (see wing histories in Air Force Combat Units of World War II). The combat wing and its integral combat group carried the same numerical and functional designations; for example, the 9th Bombardment Group was an integral part of the 9th Bombardment Wing. In February 1951 the Strategic Air Command (SAC) began to eliminate its combat groups by reducing group headquarters to token strength (one officer and one enlisted man) and attaching the combat squadrons directly to the wings. Thus, the wing replaced the group as the basic combat element of SAC. On 16 June 1952, with the approval of Headquarters USAF, SAC inactivated all its combat groups (that had remained active under token manning) and assigned the remaining combat squadrons to the wings. The SAC reorganization also retired the World War II histories and honors of SAC’s combat groups, while the SAC wings, having been created during or after 1947, possessed no World War II histories or honors. Deviations from the wing-base plan by other commands, particularly Air Defense Command (ADC), also affected the perpetuation of histories and honors of World War II groups. In 1954 SAC and ADC leaders asked Headquarters USAF to perpetuate the histories and honors of the World War II combat groups. The ad hoc committee that reviewed these requests *This appendix is based on Paragraph 4.2 of Chapter 4, “Organizational Lineage and Honors,” in Air Force Instruction 84–101, Historical Products, Services, and Requirements. The original appendix appeared in Charles A. Ravenstein, Air Force Combat Wings: Lineage and Honors Histories, 1947–1977, (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1984). rejected the idea of redesignating combat groups as wings. Instead, the committee recommended that combat groups and wings be maintained as separate and distinct organizations, and that the histories and honors of combat groups be bestowed upon the similarly designated combat wings. Although the ad hoc committee’s proposed bestowals ran counter to a longstanding policy of the Air Force against transferring history and honors from one unit to another, Headquarters USAF accepted the committee’s recommendations. Beginning in November 1954 the Department of the Air Force, in a series of letters, bestowed upon each combat wing the history and honors of its similarly designated predecessor combat group; for example, SAC’s 9th Bombardment Wing received by bestowal the history and honors of the 9th Bombardment Group. Through the 1950’s, other commands followed SAC’s lead, eliminating combat groups and assigning squadrons directly to the wings. The trend to do away with combat groups continued to the early 1990’s, although some survived as independent groups assigned usually to numbered air divisions. Others survived in the reserve forces. A few were again assigned briefly in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s to combat wings. In the years since its implementation, bestowal generated much confusion. Many throughout the Air Force did not understand that the group and the wing remained two separate and distinct lineage entities. To alleviate some of the confusion, the Air Force in the 1980’s consolidated some combat wings with their predecessor combat groups. With the exception of a few early errors, these consolidations were limited to wings and groups whose periods of active service did not overlap. By consolidation (see Appendix I), the wing and group became one organization, eliminating the need for bestowal of group history and honors on the wing. Bestowal, however, continued to be the policy for the majority of active Air Force wings. In 1991, the Air Force began a massive reorganization into a wing structure similar to the original wing-base plan. Under this structure combat wings again had a combat group (now called Operations Group) assigned. An operations group was newly created for wings that had been consolidated with their World War II combat group. However, for most wings the World War II combat group was redesignated as the operations group and activated. Whether the combat (operations) group is active or inactive, bestowal continues in effect." --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

First, I am FINALLY replying to your message of June 30th. Thanks for it.

Yet, do you mind if my next message (apart from this one, of course) is in a "New section?" The current one has become rather "involved."

Please do let me know, OK?

Thanks, Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment of 13(th) Strategic Missile Division
.

Dispute_resolution_noticeboard
I've just filed a dispute resolution request regarding Somali Armed Forces and Somali Civil War. Please take a look. In eight years, I've never been as close to quitting this site entirely in the face of POVpushing. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Gerd Heinrich
Thanks, that makes sense. He was a fighter pilot in WW1, so he would definitely have been a reservist in WW2 (he re-signed to allay doubts about his loyalty as a suspected Pole-lover. Is Moscow Air Group a known command? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me?  18:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

June contest
G'day Lineagegeek, I've adjusted a couple of your scores, feel free to repechage if I've read 'em wrong. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd been working on 902d Air Refueling Squadron on and off for a while and didn't notice that it's MILHIST class had been upgraded in the interim. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, Shoot Me Now!
Hi, Lineagegeek,

First, I am finally replying (in full) to your message on June 30th. Thanks for it. And, thanks for letting me start a “New section.”

Also, believe me, I am trying my best not to write another “book.” I’m really trying to get to my “bottom lines” regarding my real problem with the early part of the 97th Bomb WING page.

Now, to address what you wrote on June 30th…

1. OK, I see what you are saying about the definition of “predecessor”… I guess that I, and others, are using the term loosely or liberally….for example, the 97th Bomb Group did “precede” (came before) the 97th Operations Group. Also, if I understand you correctly, you are OK with using the word “predecessor” on the WING page.

2. Please understand that I am NOT disputing you in the least. Besides, I don’t have the expertise as you do. PLEASE understand that I am JUST asking, OK?

When you wrote that, if you were to rewrite the WING page, you would write… “The 97th Air Mobility Wing The 97th Operations Group was first activated as the 97th [Foo Wing]] in…”

I really must ask… why keep the Operations Group in that sentence? Did you mean to list the two units back-to-back? Or, did you mean to list just the AMW? That is, “The 97th Air Mobility Wing was first activated as the 97th Bomb Wing, Very Heavy…”?

Note: I happened to replace “[Foo Wing]]” with “97th Bomb Wing, Very Heavy” which is true, right?

Again, please understand that I am JUST asking, OK?

As I’ve said before, my real problem is on the WING page… I just don’t think that the Operations Group should be listed at all, other than much later in the article where it lists the Operations Group as a component of the current Wing. That’s fine. Otherwise, to me, it just doesn’t fit here on the WING page, right?

In my previous message of June 30th, I listed various options regarding the WING page. I am trying my best not to regurgitate them here. I’ll try to get to the “bottom line”…

For me, if we are going to be “liberal” with the word “predecessor,” I would, without a lot of rewriting, write…

“The 97th AIR MOBILITY WING'S predecessor was the 97th Bombardment Wing. Active for over 60 years, the 97th Bombardment Wing was a component organization of Strategic Air Command's deterrent force during the Cold War, as a strategic bombardment wing.”

And just leave out the World War II paragraph entirely.

BUT if we still want to pay homage to the Bomb Group’s World War II accomplishments (because the Group was later assigned to the Wing), we could do it this way… Right after the paragraph above that starts “The 97th Air Mobility Wing’s predecessor..” we could, using the word “predecessor” liberally, write…

“During World War II, the 97th BOMBARDMENT WING'S predecessor unit, the 97th Bombardment Group was the first VIII Bomber Command B-17 Flying Fortress bombardment group to fly a heavy bomber mission from the United Kingdom against the Rouen-Sotteville marshalling yards in France. It launched the attack from RAF Polebrook on 17 August 1942."

Wellllll, what do you think? These things are true, right? And, we would “keep the flow going” in the article. (We would still be talking about the Bomb WING.)

Again, I really, really think that the something needs to change in the early part of the article, especially the World War II paragraph. (Particularly, the Operations Group part of it. To me, it just doesn’t belong there, and, it is already covered in the GROUP article.) To me, throwing the Operations Group into the mix on the WING page is disruptive, if not just plain wrong there.

Well, I truly hope that you see what I’m saying (or trying to say!). And, of course, I hope and pray that we are “on the same page.”

Please let me know when you can, OK?

Thanks for your time and attention,

Rob

P.S. If we are indeed “on the same page,” I do have a couple of other questions that I’d like to ask you regarding “Bases assigned” (Wing page) or “Stations” (Group page). Thanks in advance!

P.P.S. When you reply, could you also "notify" me on MY "Talk" page, also? Thanks!

BeatlesVox (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

I truly hope that I'm not "bugging" you. I was hoping to hear from you concerning my last message (err, "book") on July 23rd.

I truly hope that I didn't offend you in any way. A couple of times in my last message, I even said that I was NOT disputing you; I was just asking. Truly. That is, I needed clarification from you with one item. However, if I did offend, you have my sincere apologies.

Of course, I would still like to know if we are on the "same page." But, first things first, right?

Please do write back to me when you can. I hope that all is well. Thanks in advance,

Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There should be a note on your talk page saying I've posted here. Go ahead with your questings. By the way, I standardize articles I work on with "Stations" to conform with AFHRA practice. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

Thanks for your reply of August 8th. Somehow I missed it. I don't recall a notification on my talk page, but it's OK. I have your message now. And, perhaps I didn't check "email," so to speak, for a couple of days, too.

Oh, apparently I did not insult or offend you in my message of July 23rd. Great!

First, I still hope that we were (and are) on the "same page" regarding the 97th Wing's history in the early part of that article. I know that I "beat it to death"... that's why I entitled my latest "New section" to read "OK, Shoot Me Now!"

If you could take another look at my message of July 23rd, I'd appreciate it, especially paragraph number two (literally) and the paragraph just after it. That's where I really got confused.

Also, if I were to hypothetically rewrite the early part of the article (the World War II paragraph, especially the Operations Group part of it), would you be OK with it? (Mind you, I have NO plans to rewrite anything! I'm just asking.)  Would we be on the "same page?" For both our sakes, I sure hope so!

Thanks for your time and attention,

Rob

P.S. Yes, I have a couple of questions that I’d like to ask you regarding “Bases assigned” (WING page) or “Stations” (GROUP page). Oh, my questions don't involve standard practice or procedure. But, let's do that next time, OK? Thanks in advance!

BeatlesVox (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of things wrong with the two articles. However, I have rewritten the lead for the 97th Operations Group. There were a number of errors and omissions other than the "predecessor" language (such as being "redesignated" from the 485th Bombardment Group).

Stations is used most frequently for USAF unit articles. Probably because that is the terminology the Air Force Historical Research Agency uses. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the lead for the 97th Air Mobility Wing and done some general cleanup of the article. Now what was the question? --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

'''First, please pardon some of my bold lettering. I'm just trying to "separate" two different messages, my previously drafted one and this one.'''

Thanks for your last message, KINDA. I say "kinda" because I had spent a good amount of time earlier today drafting a reply to your PREVIOUS message telling me of your rewrite to the lead for the 97th Operations Group article. If fitting, "Congrats!"

Then, after taking a break from this box, I saw your LATEST message telling me of your rewrite to the 97th Air Mobility Wing article. Of course, I gasped and exclaimed, "Oh, no! I just spent two hours drafting a new message to Lineagegeek!"

'''With the above in mind, please indulge me and allow me to send you my previously drafted message. I NOW know that it's totally moot, but, as I asked, please indulge me here...'''

Hi, Lineagegeek,

Thanks for your reply. “Congrats,” if that’s the right word, for your rewrite of the lead for the 97th Operations Group article. Do you plan to rewrite the lead for the 97th Air Mobility Wing’s article, also? As you know, I’ve been trying to get the two units’ articles to “agree” or be “in sync” with each other.

As I’ve written before, my proposed, hypothetical (and minimal) rewrite of the lead for the Bomb Wing article (using the word “predecessor” liberally) would be…

“The 97th Air Mobility Wing’s predecessor was the 97th Bombardment Wing. Active for over 60 years, the 97th Bombardment Wing was a component organization of Strategic Air Command's deterrent force during the Cold War, as a strategic bombardment wing.

During World War II, the 97th Bombardment Wing’s predecessor unit, the 97th Bombardment Group was the first VIII Bomber Command B-17 Flying Fortress bombardment group to fly a heavy bomber mission from the United Kingdom against the Rouen-Sotteville marshalling yards in France. It launched the attack from RAF Polebrook on 17 August 1942.”

In my proposed, hypothetical (and minimal) rewrite above, in the World War II paragraph, I deliberately changed one unit (the 97th Operations Group) to read the 97th Bombardment Wing. (Thus my bold highlighting.)

As I’ve been saying, the Operations Group “sticks out like a sore thumb” on this page because we are on the Wing page. Plus, if I changed those two units, I see no “real harm” and we would keep the “flow going” on the Wing page.

Wellllll, what do you think?

Once more, I have NO plans to rewrite anything. But, as you have gathered by now, I sure do want to!!!

Thanks, Rob

P.S. Quickly, in terms of the “bases assigned” versus “stations,” I’m trying to see if we can get these two articles to agree with each other, also. Yeah, you got me to look back at the official AFHRA article. Yes, I now also see that they use “stations” whereas the Wiki article uses “Bases assigned." Hmmm.

'''Well, again, so much for my previous draft, eh? But, thanks for indulging me and letting me send you what I had already prepared. I hope that you understand.'''

Please allow me to regroup (no pun intended) and I'll start "fresh" tomorrow, OK? I think that I'll start a "New section," also.

By the way, your rewrite of the lead for the Wing's article seems to clear some things up. As you know, for me, parts of it seemed awkward and out of place; just no "flow." But, now things seem much better. Thanks.

Oh, no reply needed to this message, OK? I was just asking a favor. As you know, I do have a couple of questions, and, I still have not forgotten your mentioning citations here and there. But, I'll write later, OK? I'm pooped!

As always, thanks for your time and attention. And, patience!

Take care, Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

6th Air Intelligence Squadron
Lineagegeek, Just trying to understand your reversion of my edits. Your note said "USAF has had three digit reconnaissance groups, so if a default sort is required it should have two leading zeros" The way I am reading your note, I thought my edit would be inline with your note since my edit added two leading zeros (00) before the 6. Your reversion also reverted my edits to the year format. My edits were an attempt to comply with WP:DATE which notes "the range's "end" year is usually abbreviated to two digits". Just wanted to see if I'm missing anything. Ocalafla (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I read your change to the sort backwards, so OOOps! I wouldn't have touched the date if I weren't changing that.  Although, the format it was in (four digit to four digit) is not one of the "don't use" formats in the MOS.  I think you'll find that a large majority of articles on USAF units use the 19XX-19XX format, rather than the 19XX-XX format.  I will ignore the use of a hyphen instead of a non-breaking n dash and have reverted my reversion. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

My great grandfather was a member of the 51st fighter squadron
I enjoyed reading about the squadron, anymore info or anything on that squadron? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.85.164 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The best sources would be:



Follow the links and you'll find them online. You might also search the AF History data base. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

My grandfather was part of the 51st squadron
My email is musicman509@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.85.164 (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The 97th Bomb WING's "Stations" section, etc.
Hi, Lineagegeek,

As written before, I have a couple of questions that I wanted to ask you regarding the "Stations" section for the 97th Bomb Wing. I'm asking your opinion before I would make any changes that are not "minor" such as hyphens, commas, etc...

1. How about adding Smoky Hill AFB, KS, 16 March 1948? (This would agree with AFHRA.)
 * Smoky Hill should be added. This section (and following) lack citations.  The Citation should be to Ravenstein, pp. 136-138 or the Factsheet for the 97th AMW.  Ravenstein is in the bibliography, but with a dead link.  It should be

2. Is the assignment to Biggs AFB the 17th or 22nd of May 1948? (AFHRA says the 22nd, yet this and other Wiki articles (the 97th Bomb Group and the 342d Bomb Squadron) say the 17th.)
 * One out of three ain't bad. The wing didn't move to Biggs all at once.  Wing hq arrived on the 22d (same source), Group hq arrived on the 17th (Maurer, Air Force Combat Units in World War II, p. 167), Squadron arrived on the 18th (Maurer, Combat Squadrons of the Air Force in World War II, p. 424).

3. Should we add an "Aircraft" section to the article?
 * Yes

4. Who is the current commander? (To me, it's kinda "dangerous" to list the commander in two different places.)
 * Don't know, the name may be on the McChord web page.

Please let me know your thoughts when you can, OK? Thanks.

Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

Thanks for your reply especially as it was so speedy. I'll start working on the 97th Bomb Wing's page soon. As I'm still a "rookie" here, I may ask your help with the citations once I get the info posted to the article.

To review my plans:

1. I'll add Smoky Hill AFB to the "Stations" section.

2. I'll leave the assignment date to Biggs ("Stations" section) as the 17th on all three Wiki articles. (Simple and consistent, eh?)

3. I'll start working on the "Aircraft" section.

4. I'll leave the "current commander" alone. I was just asking to point out the "danger" of having the commander listed, especially in two different places. There's probably someone out there who posts these kinds of things. But, I am certainly NOT volunteering to be in charge of THAT one! :-O

Thanks, Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

A quick "P.S."...

I've changed my mind on the assignment date of the 97th Bomb Wing at Biggs AFB.

When I was reviewing the Wing’s article in terms of aircraft flown (I'm going to add that section), the article did indeed say that the 97th moved to Biggs on the 22nd of May 1948, agreeing with both AFHRA and our previous writings today.

So, my conscience dictates my changing the date in the "Stations" section from the 17th to the 22nd of May 1948, OK?

Heck, while I'm at it, I will go ahead and change the 342d Bomb Squadron's date to the 18th, as you indicated earlier.

Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

As promised, I’ve added the new “Aircraft assigned” section for the 97th Bomb Wing. As briefly as I can, it became a lot more tricky and involved that I thought it would be. (What’s new, eh?) First, I compared and contrasted the Wiki articles for the Wing and the Group. Then, I compared and contrasted the AFHRA Fact Sheets for the Wing and the Group. Finally, I compared and contrasted the AFHRA Fact Sheets with the Wiki articles. I have even checked a couple of AFHRA’s Fact Sheets on air refueling squadrons. I think I ended up over-analyzing and ended up “brain dead.” (Again, what’s new?)

The two aircraft that confused me the most were the B-52s and the KC-135s. It appears to me, that when the 97th Bomb Wing was redesignated as the 97th Wing on 1 April 1992, the unit still had the bombers and tankers. But, when the unit became the 97th Air Mobility Wing on 1 October 1992, it apparently kept the tankers but I’m not really sure what happened to the B-52s. They went “poof.”

Another confusing issue dealt with the B-52s and KC-135s in terms of their service dates.in the early 1970s. For both planes AFHRA “stops” them in 1972 and then “starts” them again in 1973. I have absolutely NO idea why the “break” in service for such a short time.

Turning to the early 1990s, the B-52s are rather clear except for that “poof” factor. But, the KC-135s are rather “convoluted.” AFHRA lists… “1973-1992, 1992-1993, 1994- (note y me: present assumed). What a mess!

I would love to make the B-52s and KC-135s “simpler,” especially in terms of the breaks in service in the early 1970s, but I guess I’ll have to follow AFHRA, no?

Well, that’s about as brief as I can make it. I have now added the new “Aircraft assigned” section to the 97th Bomb Wing’s article. By the way, I knew that I had a couple of questions regarding the Group article. But, after pouring over it, line-by-line, in terms of aircraft flown, some things “jumped out” at me for perhaps the first time as I was so focused on other aspects of the article. But, as I already knew, I wanted wrap-up things on the Wing article.

Then, as I did with the 97th Bomb Wing, I will make a “New section” on your Talk page concerning the Group. But, I’ll wait just a bit, and see if we are both satisfied with the Wing’s new “Aircraft assigned” section, OK?

I think that I have done the very best that I can. However, please take a look at the new section, and, let me know your thoughts, OK? Thanks in advance.

Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes the wing still had bombers and tankers after 1 September 1991, when it became a "Wing", but the squadrons were reassigned to the 97th Operations Group. Its last bombardment squadron was inactivated on 7 January 1992, so the Buffs were gone by then. As for the 1972 gap, my guess is that all of the wing's planes were deployed to the Pacific (unless the birds were actually assigned to the wings there, which I doubt, it's a matter of opinion whether they were with the wing or not). Does this agree with the AFHRA factsheets for the 340th Weapons Squadron and the 97th Air Refueling Squadron? As for the 1992 gap, I see the 97th Air Refueling Squadron was inactivated in April 1992, and the 11th and 306th Air Refueling Squadrons weren't activated until October 1992 --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

Just a quick note... I have been researching diligently once more regarding the new "Aircraft assigned" section for the 97th Bomb Wing's article. And, once more, I have gone "around and around." I think that I've done as much as I can with A LOT of further cross-referencing between Wiki and AFHRA (to include units, aircraft, assignement dates, service dates, etc.).

Along the way, it turns out that I have drafted another "book" for you. I will try my best to cut it down while still telling you my findings and rationale. I hope to do that very soon. (Oh, of course, along the way, I have made some "minor edits" here and there, making Wiki agree with AFHRA, you know?) But, for right now, I just wanted to "stay in touch" and tell you that I will write more again soon, OK? Thanks, Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

'''Well, I have gone ahead and sent you the "book" below any way. (My apologies!) But, after SO much work on it, I guess that I felt that "cutting it down" would interrupt the "flow" and also make it difficult to "compare and contrast" what I had written. Admittedly, I also didn't want to "throw away" all the time I've spent.'''

Now, thanks for sharing your thoughts and asking a couple of questions on the 23rd.

First, as I’m sure you saw, I have to admit that I misspoke when I said that the 97th Bomb Wing was redesignated as the 97th Wing on 1 April 1992. My bad! Of course it was redesignated as the 97th Wing on 1 September 1991. As I wrote before, with all the cross-referencing, my eyes became very “crossed” and my brain was “mush.”

Now, regarding the “breaks in service” for the B-52s and KC-135s…

For the “breaks” in service (per AFHRA: “-1972, 1973-“) for both the B-52s and the KC-135s, there is nothing in the Wiki article to tell me why. (see the “Vietnam War” section). And, the AFHRA Fact Sheets, to me, don’t really explain why all that well. (Planes and personnel were “on loan” here and there.)

According to the AFHRA Fact Sheet for the 97th Bomb Wing… “By mid-1972, all of the wing's aircraft and more than one-fourth of its people had been loaned to USAF organizations in the Far East, Southeast Asia, and other overseas locations. A few of the wing's KC-135s began returning in Apr 1973, but its B-52s remained on loan until Oct 1973. Thereafter, the wing resumed strategic bombardment training and worldwide air refueling operations as required by SAC.”

Later, in terms of the “Buffs,” it says…“The wing… ended bombardment flying in Nov 1991 and tanker missions in Mar 1992.”

Yes, I had already checked two AFHRA Fact Sheets for a couple of air refueling squadrons, the 97th and the 914th.

According to the AFHRA Fact Sheet for the 97th Air Refueling Squadron… after being assigned elsewhere, the 97th ARS “came back home” to the 97th Bomb Wing on 23 Oct 1964, and, it remained there until 1 Sep 1991 when it was reassigned to the 97th Operations Group.

The “Operations” section is VERY brief (basically one line) and of no real help here.

There is no “break” in service dates for the KC-135s. (AFHRA says 1964 – present (assumed???))

NOTE!!!... the Wiki article says that the unit was inactivated in 2004. But, AFHRA says that the unit is still “alive and well.” That is, there are no “end dates” for lineage, assignments, stations, aircraft, and operations.

'''The squadron no longer appears on the Fairchild web page. I'd have to look for a source, but I agree with the September 2004 inactivation. Note the wikipedia page does not have notes (and the link to AFHRA is dead). The AFHRA page is dated in 2008, but its format indicates it was prepared earlier. I'd make changes based on WP:RS and add notes. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source.'''

As I made sure previously, the Wiki article agrees with AFHRA for assignments and aircraft flown (KC-135), in terms of its association with the 97th Bomb Wing.

According to the AFHRA Fact Sheet for the 914th Air Refueling Squadron… it says that the 914th ARS was assigned from 1 Oct 1961 until 23 Oct 1964. It flew KC-135s. So, there is no help here in terms of the "1972, 1973" breaks in service. But, it does confirm that the 97th Bomb Wing had KC-135s at that time.

As I made sure previously, the Wiki article agrees with AFHRA for assignments and aircraft flown (KC-135).

One caveat: the AFHRA Fact Sheet for the 97th Bomb Wing’s aircraft says KC-135s started in 1962, yet the 914th ARS (KC-135s) was assigned in 1961. Hmmm.

Another caveat: within the AFHRA Fact Sheet itself for the 914th ARS, yes, it was assigned to the 97th Bomb Wing in 1961, but its KC-135s “start” in 1962. (No KC-97s preceded them.) Again, hmmm.

'''The hmmms probably have to do with the activation of the squadron and the actual arrival of aircraft, which is frequently a few months later. Sometimes that makes for a year difference.'''

"Disconnects"...

As you may well know yourself, sometimes it appears that there are minor “disconnects” between one AFHRA Fact Sheet and another. Or, as above, within the same Fact Sheet.

There are also some “disconnects” in Wiki articles between one unit and another. For example, the 97th Bomb Wing’s article says that the ERB-29s and RB-50s were assigned from 1954-1956, but the 340th article says 1954-1955. And, yes, these "disagreements" in dates come straight from AFHRA. There may be a good reason but I have no idea what it is.

The recce aircraft were reassigned to the 4024th Bomb Sq, so they were no longer in the 340th, but were attached to the wing, see 810th Air Division.

Now, regarding the 340th Bomb Squadron…

I wasn't really sure why you asked about this unit unless you already had in mind that the 340th flew a couple of planes that the other squadrons did not (ERB-29 and RB-50). And, with another plane for the 340th (KB-29), it implied a completely different mission, aerial refueling. (??!!)

'''I don't know what the KB-29s were for. Possibly as trainers. Possibly to refuel its RB-50s because otherwise SAC had gotten rid of its KB-29s by the mid 1950s.'''

As I had not seriously looked at it before in terms of making the new “Aircraft assigned” section for the Wing, I spent a lot of time cross-referencing the 340th with the other previously mentioned airplanes and service dates for both the Wiki articles and the AFHRA Fact Sheets.

According to the Wiki article, the 340th Bomb Squadron was assigned to the 97th Bomb Wing from 16 June 1952 to 1 September 1991. (AFHRA agrees.)

In the Wiki article’s “Aircraft” section, among others, it has…


 * KB-29s (1954-1955) (But, why?  See below.)


 * ERB-29s (1954-1955)


 * RB-50s (1954-1955)

Note: all three planes above were “clumped together” with the same service dates. But, I separated them on two different “minor edits” this month.


 * B-52s (1960 to 1991) (note the “continuous service” as with AFHRA; that is, no “breaks” in service dates for the B-52s)

Question: as in one of my “minor edits” for the 340th fairly recently, I asked if the 340th ever really flew tankers in 1954 and 1955. (Or, any time, for that matter.) As we know, the 97th Bomb Wing already had the 97th ARS assigned to it. Hmmm.

'''NOTE!!!... In the Wiki article for the 340th, there is NO mention of an aerial-refueling mission; the AFHRA Fact Sheet doesn’t mention it, either. Thus, why is the KB-29 listed?'''

Also, the Wiki article for the 340th does not mention the recon missions, either. (The 97th Bomb Wing article mentions them, but not the 340th article.  Also, the Wing article mentions the RB-50s but not the ERB-29s.)

According to the AFHRA Fact Sheet for the 340th Bomb Squadron... it was assigned to the 97th Bomb Wing from 16 Jun 1952 to 1 Sep 1991; then the 97th Operations Group from 1 Sep 1991 to 7 Jan 1992. And, so on.

In the AFHRA “Aircraft” section, among others, it has…


 * KB-29 (1954-1955)  (But, why?  See below.)


 * ERB-29 (1954-1955)


 * RB-50 (1954-1955)


 * B-52 (1960-1991)  (note the “continuous service” as with the Wiki article; that is, no “breaks” in service dates for the B-52s)

In the AFHRA “Operations” section for the 340th… '''NO mention of air refueling. (Again, why the KB-29?)''' Nevertheless, electronic reconnaissance was indeed listed, Apr 1954-1 Apr 1955. (Thus, the ERB-29s and RB-50s.)

"Big Fat Note"...I had previously listed the KB-29s for the Wing article because AFHRA did. But, I am still “shaky” about the 340th ever having the KB-29s. I just don’t envision the 340th doing aerial refueling. Maybe they did, but it seems odd to me.

"Big Fat Note"... I did go ahead and add ERB-29s and RB-50s (1954-1956) to the new “Aircraft assigned” section for the Wing because AFHRA does the same for the Wing. Even if only one squadron (the 340th) flew a particular airplane that the other squadrons did not (ERB-29 and RB-50), I guess that I still needed to list those planes for the Wing, right? (I did indeed do so.)

Well, again, my apologies for the “book” above. I hope that I’ve addressed any concerns and answered your questions in a satisfactory manner. I truly hope that all that I wrote above makes sense to you. Many a time, I myself had to take a break and ask, “What was the question?”

Once more, please share your thoughts, and, hopefully we can finalize the new “Aircraft assigned” section in the Wiki article on the 97th Bomb Wing. Thanks in advance.

Take care, Rob

P.S. This may be a whole new “can of worms”… were the ERB-29s and the RB-50s actually assigned to the 340th Bomb Squadron? Or, did the unit leave their own planes at Biggs and “borrow” someone else’s planes for the aerial recons in the mid-1950s? OMG!!

'''They were assigned. The mission operated under the 340th and 4024th (and earlier under the 343d Strategic Reconnaissance Squadron) at various times'''

Thus, should I change the title of the new aircraft section to read merely “Aircraft?” (AFHRA does.)  If so, then I need to change the Wiki article for the Group, too.

I use the Aircraft heading, except where missiles or other things need to be mentioned

BeatlesVox (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

Thanks so much for your reply and information regarding the 97th Wing's aircraft, to include their assigned or attached dates, their missions and the like. (As well as subordinate units being assigned or attached, their missions and the like.)

After reading your remarks very closely, I will do (or, not do) the following in the same sequence as your “embedded” replies throughout my last writing…

1. The 97th Air Refueling Squadron… OK, fine; no action needed.

2. The 914th Air Refueling Squadron…  OK, fine; no action needed.

3. The “disconnects” in years (or even months)… OK, fine; no action needed. (I did indeed take a closer look at the 810th Air Division.)

4. The KB-29s assigned to the 340th Bomb Squadron… OK, fine; no action needed. (It will remain a “mystery” to us for now.)

5. My “P.S.” about the recon planes actually being assigned to the 340th… OK, fine; no action needed.

6. My question in the “P.S.”… OK, I will indeed change “Aircraft assigned” to read merely “Aircraft” in the Wiki articles for both the Wing and the Group.

So, to review, the "bottom line" is all about the aircraft listed and their dates in the new “Aircraft assigned” section for Wiki’s article on the 97th Wing.

It appears that, overall, the aircraft listed for the Wing are correct. And, other than some minor “disconnects” here or there (previously discussed), the overall dates for the Wing’s aircraft appear to be correct, also.

Other than renaming the new aircraft section for the Wing to merely read “Aircraft,” I will leave things as they are.

Well, sir, what do you think? I hope that you agree!

Thanks in advance, Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine. --Lineagegeek (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

Wonderful!!! Looking back at it, I should have made a “New section” for just the aircraft alone, no? But, we got it done. Thanks so much for your help!

As mentioned before (I think!), I’ll now turn my attention to the 97th Bomb Group. I know that I’ve had a couple of questions for a while, but, of course, we needed to take care of the Wing first.

And, I still have not forgotten you asking about Dad’s 342d Bomb Squadron being in West Germany, Berlin, Guam and Japan in July and August 1947. (The “Strategic Air Command” section.) I have the tangible proof right here at the house for those entries. We’ll do that one fairly soon, OK?

Oh, no reply needed. As stated above, I’ll make a “New section” for the Group soon. Thanks again! Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Middayexpress
I've just filed a RfC-U regarding Somali Armed Forces and Somali Civil War. Please take a look. The issues raised are serious and concern WP's fundamental rules, including NPOV. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment

 * ...and while I'm at it "Welcome Home, Brother"!... I served in the army in a military intelligence detachment from 1966 to 1968 and spent many hours in the rear seat of a Cessna O-1 Bird Dog with the air force FAC operating out of Bien Hoa Air Base. I received the Army Commendation Medal in lieu of an Air Medal. Cuprum17 (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ordinals
ALL of the sources for the article 132nd Fighter Wing use "132nd". The official website of the unit, www.132fw.ang.af.mil, does as well. It's very hard to believe that 132d is official, and even if it is, that it is more commonly used. &mdash;innotata 21:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

See my comment on your talk page. And since one of Maurer's works is listed as a reference, not all references in the article use the "nd." Which leaves us with two news stories and a locally prepared L&H. This L&H also says "After the war, the 124th was combined with the 132nd Fighter Group in an extensive reorganization of the Air National Guard. These units became the 132nd Fighter Wing. The Wing was again called to active service during the Korean conflict and returned to State control in January 1953." The only correct part of this statement is that the wing was returned to state control in 1953. The 132d Fighter Wing has existed since 1950, not 1992 and is a separate unit from the 132d Fighter Group. The two units have existed separately from 1950 to 1974 and since 1993 under various names, and neither was ever consolidated with the 124th Fighter Squadron. The wing was called to active service, but it was the first time it had been. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The 97th Bomb GROUP (Stations and Aircraft)
Hi, Lineagegeek,

As mentioned previously, here are my questions and comments regarding the 97th Bomb Group. I am listing them by “category.” And, even if some of my questions and comments appear to be redundant, it’s because, as you know, some categories “overlap” or go “hand in hand.”

According to Wiki…

1. Regarding “Stations”…

a. For SHAAF, add an “end date” of 16 (or, 17?) May 1948? (The other postwar stations have “end dates”)
 * Actually, they don't. When a move occurred there is no end date, the date is the same as the first date of the new station.  End dates show when the group was inactivated.  (end dates are also used when a unit moves by sea and is nowhere for a period of time).

b. In the deployment to RAF Sculthorpe, change to “c. 27 July 1950” to match my proposal below? In the “Operations” section for the Group, AFHRA merely says, “Deployed twice to the United Kingdom.”

Personally, I see “no harm” here as the date is a “circa.”

(FYI: Dad’s Service Record says “13 Jul 50.”)

c. In the “Assignments” section, see the second attachment to the 3d Air Division… change to “c. 27 July 1950” to match the Wing’s date? (see Components/Groups/97th Bomb Group)

Again, I see “no harm” here as the date is a “circa.” By the way, for the Wing, AFHRA merely lists months in its “Operations” section (Jul 50 – Feb 51).

Lastly, if I made those very minor changes, we would have “deployments” matching “assignments.”

Not a big thing, but I would use the date given in the WP:RS being used.

2. Regarding “Stations” once more…

There are several interrelated questions here…

As a review, after a long “slumber,” the 97th Operations Group was activated on 1 Sep 1991.

OK, fine. But, where?? That is, the Wiki article says that the Group was activated at Little Rock AFB in September 1991.

Question: The date is correct, but Little Rock?! Really? If so, why isn’t it listed in “Stations?”

There’s no mention within the body of the Wiki article of Eaker AFB. Hmmm.

But, in “Stations,” it does indeed list Eaker AFB from 1 June 68 until 1 April 1992. (To reiterate, it does not list LRAFB.)

Note: AFHRA does not list Little Rock AFB; only Eaker, AR, 1 Sep 91 – 1 Apr 92. Hmmm.

Question: lastly, where did 1968 come from?! That is, wasn’t the 97th Bomb Group inactive from 1952 until 1991??? Also, in the 4th paragraph of the Wiki article, it does indeed say that the unit was activated in September 1991.

Yes, the group was inactive. The statement that it was activated at Little Rock on 1 Sep 91 should change to activated at Eaker on 1 Sep 91. The stations entry should show 1 Sep 91 as the start date at Eaker. Keep the end date since the group (and wing) were inactive from April, when SAC shut down operations at Eaker until October, when the group replaced the 443d Ops at Altus

By the way, we lived at LRAFB (SAC B-58 Hustlers) from July 1965 to December 1967, prior to being reassigned to Seoul, South Korea.

3. Regarding “Aircraft” (KC-135s)…

I’m not even going to mention the KC-135s!! As with the Wing, I get so “bogged down” with them. It’s so easy to “mix apples and oranges”… that is, tanker units and their aircraft coming and going all the time. Also, the Group itself is active, inactive, and active again. (!!)
 * Keep the 135. After moving to Altus, the group trained on the plane.  Also had them after 1991 inactivation until shutdown at Eaker.

4. Regarding “Aircraft” (B-52s)…

I ended up with way too many interrelated questions here. So, I changed some of them to merely read “Talk.” That is, I’m just “talking out loud. The real “bottom-line question” is at the end.

I know that we discussed the B-52s when we were discussing the Wing. I had asked, “Where did they go?” They seemed to “disappear off the radar.”

First, no B-52s are listed by either the Wiki article or AFHRA Fact Sheet for the Group. And, I still don’t fully understand why not.

That is, the Wiki article for the Group says…

“The flying components of the former 97th Bombardment Wing were reassigned to the newly established 97th Operations Group.”

Talk: OK, fine, but…  exactly when??? And, didn’t this include B-52s???

Perhaps there were none. Notice that the group was activated in September 1991 and the Buff squadron was inactivated in January 1992. It may be that all the bombers had already left as Eaker was shutting down, but you'd have to research that further.

Then, you kind sir, wrote on August 23, 2014:

“Yes the wing still had bombers and tankers after 1 September 1991, when it became a "Wing", but the squadrons were reassigned to the 97th Operations Group. Its last bombardment squadron was inactivated on 7 January 1992, so the Buffs were gone by then.”

Talk: were the squadrons reassigned to the Group on the same day (1 Sep 1991)?
 * Yes.

Talk: And, when you wrote, “Its last bombardment squadron…,”  you meant the Group’s last bomb squadron, right?
 * Yes.

Talk: And, since the last bomb squadron (B-52s, right?) was inactivated on 7 January 1992, again, why aren’t B-52s listed for the Group? (1991-1992)
 * See above.

An aside: I still kind of think that the Wing, also, should be “credited” with B-52s until 1992. That is, the B-52s were assigned to the Group, and, the Group was assigned to the Wing. (Similar to “back in the day” when the Group was assigned to the Wing, 1 Dec 47 – 16 Jun 52.)

“Bottom-line” Question: if the B-52 squadrons were indeed reassigned to the Group on 1 Sep 1991, why aren’t B-52s listed for the Group by Wiki and AFHRA??? (That is, why not list B-52s from 1991 to 1992?)

Just a note: in the 4th paragraph (Wiki), it says the Group operated B-52s until January 1952. (No way!!!) I’m sure that the fellow meant 1992. (He had B-52s on his mind.) I will definitely change this one!

5. Regarding “Aircraft” (the C-5 Galaxys)…

a.	Wiki says 1992 – present

b.	AFHRA says 1992 – 2007

Question: which one is correct, Wiki or AFHRA? (By the way, I just noticed that there are no photos of C-5s in the Wiki article. This could be a clue. Hmmm.)
 * Remember, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Use the AFHRA and cite it.

Note: the Wiki article for the Wing says:  C-5 Galaxy, 1992–2007. (AFHRA agrees) And, in the section labelled “The 97th:Re-Invented,” the narrative reads, “It no longer contains the C-5 Galaxy aircraft. It has been moved to Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.”

Note: I may reword those two sentences… in the first sentence the word “It” means the 97th. But, when the word “It” is used again at the start of the second sentence, it is still referring to the 97th, which is not true. The 97th didn’t move to Lackland… just the C-5s, right?

The Wiki article for the Group concurs: “56th Airlift Squadron: 1 October 1992–July 2007”

And, in the Wiki article on the C-5s themselves… it seems seems to agree that the 97th no longer has C-5s. In the “Air Education & Training Command” section it reads, “97th Air Mobility Wing - Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, 56th Airlift Squadron, 1992-2007.” And, a bit below, in the “Air Force Reserve” section it reads, “356th Airlift Squadron, 2007-,“ tying-in with the previous sentence.

Sounds correct.

Well, I guess that I had more than just a couple of questions, eh? But, as I said, some of them go “hand in hand” and are so interrelated. Well, sir, please share your thoughts with me when you have some time, OK?

Thanks in advance! Rob

P.S. I'll start working on some "typos."

BeatlesVox (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

Just a quick note… I just wanted to acknowledge and say “thanks” for your comments to my message of September 10th regarding the stations and aircraft for the 97th Bomb Group.

My schedule has been a bit crazy lately. Even though I have worked a good bit on my message back to you, I just haven’t been able to finish it. (And, no, it's not that long!) Also, I do want to check a couple of more things before I finalize my next message and send it to you.

Oh, no reply needed for just this quick note… I plan to write again soon, OK?

Thanks! Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

In my last “quick note,” I said that I wanted to check a couple of more things regarding the 97th Bomb Group before I wrote to you again. Well, it sounded good until I actually went to check!

'''Allow me to apologize now for how "involved" this got. (!!)'''

Up to this point, as you know, I wanted to “nail down” the dates for the C-5 Galaxys because the Wiki article (“Aircraft”) says “1992 – present” but the AFHRA Fact Sheet (“Aircraft”) says “1992 – 2007.”

Also, as I wrote before, the Wiki article for the Group concurs with AFHRA where it lists the squadrons: “56th Airlift Squadron: 1 October 1992–July 2007.” (The 56th is the unit which had the C-5s.)

An aside: As written previously, in the Wiki article on the C-5s themselves, it seems to agree that the 97th no longer had C-5s after 2007. OK, fine, still.

Now, going back to the 56th Airlift Squadron, I was curious about the “end date” in Wiki’s article on the Group. That is, did 2007 mean that the unit was transferred elsewhere, or, was 2007 an inactivation date?

Somewhat related here: You’ll recall that I was also concerned with Wiki’s article on the Wing… it said that the Wing no longer had C-5s after 2007. OK, fine. But, the next sentence mentioned (someone or something) moving to Lackland AFB. That’s another reason why I was trying to “close the loop.” Once more, for the 56th Airlift Squadron, was 2007 a transfer date out of the Group (to Lackland?), or, was it an inactivation date?

So, looking at the Wiki article for the 56th Airlift Squadron, it says that the unit was inactivated in 2007. And, Wiki also says that the unit’s last assignment was to the 97th Air Mobility Wing at Altus AFB (1992-2007). OK, fine, still.

So now we know that the 56th was not transferred to Lackland. And, for the C-5s themselves, maybe they were “shuttled” to Lackland, going to another unit.

Again, when I reword that sentence in the Wing article (“It has been moved to Lackland Air Force Base, Texas.”), what do I say? We know that the word “It” is wrong… the 97th didn’t move. I was first thinking of saying that the C-5s moved to Lackland. It’s a “good guess,” but I can’t prove it. So, I’ll have to say “appears that” or just delete that “moving” sentence altogether.

Golly, how can one little sentence cause so much consternation and so much work?!

Apart from the above, and going back to the 56th Airlift Squadron, we are still in good shape. We are still “on track” for the changing the Group’s C-5s “end date” to read 2007.

So, next, I wanted to see what AFHRA said, right?

Now, we have a problem!!

When I checked the AFHRA Fact Sheet for the 56th Airlift Squadron, it indicates that the squadron is still assigned to the 97th Operations Group (1 Oct 1992 – (present assumed)!! And, it says that the squadron is still flying C-5s and is still stationed at Altus AFB!!!

'''This does not agree with the AFHRA Fact Sheet on the 97th Group!! (Or anything else for that matter!) Damn!!!'''

Is it possible that the AFHRA Fact Sheet for the 56th Airlift Squadron has not been updated? (Even though it reads, “Posted 12/20/2007.”)

By the way, the “post date” for the Group is 7/19/2010; the Wing is 4/9/2012. As you know, they both list the C-5s as 1992-2007.

OR, if, if, if the 56th Airlift Squadron is still assigned to the 97th Group and is still flying C-5s out of Altus, then are the Fact Sheets for both the Group and the Wing wrong? OMG!!

As you know, I was planning on changing the “Aircraft” section in Wiki’s article on the Group to agree with AFHRA (1992-2007). But now?

So, what to do, what to do with the C-5s in the Wiki article for the Group’s “Aircraft” section?

Would the AFHRA Fact Sheets, if they are correct, for both the Group and the Wing “take precedence” over the squadron? (As seen, they've been updated more recently, too.)

And, should I just ignore the squadron’s Fact Sheet and just “stick with” the Group’s Fact Sheet regarding the C-5s (1992-2007) as I had intended?

Again, I’m sorry to bother you with this especially as it got so convoluted. But, I didn’t know what I was going to find until I actually looked. I’m almost sorry that I did, but, of course, I had to!

So, please, kind sir, advise me on the "bottom line" when you get a chance. That is…


 * Still follow AFHRA’s Fact Sheet for the Group? (C-5s: 1992-2007)


 * Merely ignore AFHRA’s Fact Sheet for the 56th Airlift Squadron which may be out of date?


 * Lastly, should I also contact AFHRA and ask them to look at the Fact Sheet for the 56th Airlift Squadron? That is, does it perhaps need updating?  (According to the Fact Sheets for both the Group and the Wing, it does!)

Thanks in advance! (Oh, I really appreciate you using "bullets" when you comment on this or that.)

Rob

P.S. I didn’t want to clutter the “main body” too much. So, I decided to put a couple of things here. No response is needed; we have enough going on!

A “side issue”… as we’ve already known, in the AFHRA Fact Sheet on the 97th Wing (“Aircraft” section), it also says: “C-5 Galaxy, 1992–2007.” Yet in “Operational Components” for the Wing, it does not mention the 56th Airlift Squadron even though it does list the C-5s. I wonder why. But, as I said, this is merely a “side issue.”

Another "side issue”… when I took a “deeper look” at the AFHRA Fact Sheet for the 97th Operations Group… under “Operational Components,” it says “56 Airlift: 1 Oct 1992 - 30 Sep 2008.”

Well, based on what I’ve seen so far, I think that 2008 may be a “typo”… I think that it should be 2007 (by all other indications), especially in the “Aircraft” section of the Fact Sheet where, as we already know, the C-5s “end” in 2007. (I’m not “crazy” about 30 September, either.)

As you now see, it appears that there may be an “internal conflict” within the same Fact Sheet. (2007 or 2008?) Darn!!

Again, I didn’t want to clutter the “main body” too much. That’s why I put the “side issues” in the “P.S." section. Again, no response is needed (or wanted?!) for the post script, OK?  We have enough going on!

BeatlesVox (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Pointing toward what may answering your questions with further research: The 56th Airlift Squadron was inactivated on 30 September 2008 by Hq, AETC S.O. G-08-45, 22 Aug 2008. The 356th Airlift Squadron had been activated on 9 January 2007 and assigned to the 433d Operations Group at Kelly Annex, Lackland AFB, by Hq AFRC S.O. GB-0008, 12 Dec 2006. It's possible that C-5 training was transferred to the reserves. If this happened, and these are the squadrons involved, the aircraft could have been transferred anytime between the two dates.

A squadron assigned to the 97th Ops Gp would not show as an operational unit of the wing, but its planes would.

AFHRA Factsheets are quite accurate, but are not necessarily current.--Lineagegeek (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

First, thanks for writing.

This will be a fairly short note this time regarding the 56th Airlift Squadron and its C-5 Galaxys.

I have been most busy communicating with Daniel Haulman at AFHRA the past couple of days.

“Long story short”… The AFHRA Fact Sheet for the 56th was indeed out of date. First, Mr. Haulman confirmed that the 56th was indeed inactivated on 30 September 2008. (This was before I read your latest “post” saying the same thing. Honest!)

As a result of my questions and/or suggestions, Mr. Haulman has updated the “lineage and honors history” for the squadron.

But, now, as you may already know, you won’t see the Fact Sheet any longer on AFHRA’s web site. I am just now learning that inactive units are “pulled from” their site and the Fact Sheets are “retired.” I didn’t fully realize that AFHRA’s Fact Sheets are for active units only. Now, I know.

Nevertheless, Mr. Haulman has updated the various sections in the 56th’s “lineage and honors history”… Lineage, Assignments, Stations, Commanders, Aircraft, and Operations. (There’s still one sentence in the “Operations” section that I will “guardedly” ask once more, if I dare.)

He has also updated these two lines to read,


 * “Lineage, Assignments, Components, Stations, and Honors through 30 Sep 2008.
 * Commanders, Aircraft, and Operations through 30 Sep 2008.”

After a good bit of discussion with Mr. Haulman, it is apparent that both the unit’s personnel and aircraft “departed” in 2007, leaving the unit unmanned and inoperational until its inactivation on 30 September 2008. (Gee, I wonder what took so long??)

So, all in all, and back to my three “bottom-line” questions in terms of the C-5 Galaxys for the “Aircraft” section in Wiki’s article on the 97th Group, I will…


 * Still follow AFHRA’s Fact Sheet for the 97th Group. (C-5s: 1992-2007)


 * Ignore AFHRA’s Fact Sheet for the 56th Airlift Squadron. Actually, now, it doesn’t even really exist on their site any more.  (Bye, bye!)


 * As you now know, I went ahead and contacted AFHRA asking them to look at the Fact Sheet for the 56th Airlift Squadron. It very much needed updating!  I kind of have a feeling that they appreciated me asking.  Hope so!

As usual, this message turned out to be more than just a quick note, eh?

Now that I have the C-5 Galaxys “squared away” for the “Aircraft” section in Wiki’s article on the 97th Group, I will finalize my plans and ask your opinions before I start making changes to the rest of the article.

Take care, Rob

P.S. I almost forgot… I will make some changes to Wiki’s article on the 56th Airlift Squadron, also. It needs some serious updating, especially in terms of the last inactivation date in the “Lineage” section.

BeatlesVox (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

As promised, I did a lot (!!) of updating tonight in Wiki's article on the 56th Airlift Squadron. (All per AFHRA's "Lineage and Honors History.") But, I have a bit of a trivia question here.

At the last second, I saw the "Infobox" (below the unit patch) where it lists the "Active" dates. Currently, for the last one, it says "July 2007." Yes, the unit quit flying C-5s in 2007, but the unit was not inactivated until 30 September 2008.

Sure, the squadron may have been "inoperational" for a while but had not yet been inactivated. So, should I leave the last "Active" date as "July 2007" or change it to read "30 Sep 2008," its inactivation date?

Thanks in advance, Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If the article says "inoperational" I'd change it to "nonoperational."

If it wasn't inactivated, it was active. I believe that the lineage section is the place for exact dates, not the infobox (which is a summary), so I'd put the dates in the infobox as: 1942-1946; 1947-1952; 1952-1957; 1966-2008.

Two pieces of (almost trivia). When the 56th was organized in 1966, it replaced the 1740th Air Transport Squadron. The DAF letter activating the 56th entitles it to the honors and history of the 1740th, but not the lineage. About 1993 orders were issued to redesignate the squadron as the 56th Flying Training Squadron, but these were revoked before they could become effective. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

Looking back at it, I should have made a separate section for just this one squadron! Who knew?!

OK, I made the changes that you recommended regarding Wiki’s article on the 56th Airlift Squadron.

First, I looked but I didn’t see where the article itself said, “inoperational.” So, I guess that it was just the word that I used in my own previous message. ("My bad!")

I “cleaned-up” the Infobox’s “Active” dates as you recommended, and, changed 2007 to read 2008.

I do have another “trivia” or “protocol” question regarding the “Active” dates in the Infobox. As you can see, I did indeed break-up “1947-1957” into two different segments (1947-1952, and, 1952-1957).

Yet, currently, in the first line of Wiki's “Assignments” section, it still says “1947-1957.”

Last night, of course, I did indeed carefully (!!) look at AFHRA’s “Lineage and Honors History”…

In AFHRA “Lineage,” it says… “Inactivated on 14 Jul 1952. Activated in the Reserve on 14 Jul 1952.” OK, fine.

And, thankfully, in AFHRA “Assignments,” it says… “375 Troop Carrier Group, 3 Aug 1947-14 Jul 1952. 375 Troop Carrier Group, 14 Jul 1952-16 Nov 1957.” OK, fine.

That is, in both Lineage and Assignments, since the “end date” is the exact same “start date” (14 July 1952), I suppose that’s why the current “Assignments” section in the Wiki article, on the first line, lists the entire “block”… “1947-1957.”  (Oh, not to mention that the squadron was assigned to the exact same unit... 375 Troop Carrier Group.)

I did indeed notice that “block” (1947-1957), but I left it alone. That is, I left the first line in Wiki’s “Assignments” section as it is…”375th Troop Carrier Group (1942–1946, 1947–1957)”

But now, it looks like I need to break-up that “block” (1947-1957) because the unit went from Active to Reserve on 14 July 1952, right? (I never would have thought of that... merely going from Active to Reserve, even though a unit is assigned to the exact same superior unit. Hmmm.)

And, if I “break it up,” we will indeed be matching the Infobox’s dates that we just revised. (1947-1952; 1952-1957)

Please let me know your thoughts, OK?

Take care, Rob

P.S. I’m still not “thrilled” with the “Lineage” section in the Wiki article. But, I made the really important change last night (“Inactivated on 30 September 2008”). I know that Lineage is one of your specialties, but, if it’s OK with you, I’ll see about making some more changes, purely and completely based on AFHRA, of course!!

BeatlesVox (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I've actually looked at the 56th article and made what I would condisider "minimal" changes without going beyond the basic references. You can see all of them by going into the history, but here's a summary:
 * First, the article had absolutely no references. It didn't even have the capability to add any since it did not have  in the reference section.  In connection with this, I've marked the "reference" to the AFHRA page with
 * Second, I went to the Wayback Machine to find if the AFHRA page had been archived (it had) and used it as the first reference (in the infobox).
 * Third, the infobox. There's a portion of the military unit infobox template for insignia, which I added and moved the image (with references) there,  In the image, I've added one of the squadron's most current aircraft.  If I had found one expressly of a squadron a/c I would have used it.  I've added some templates that are my personal preference and add some small images.
 * Third, since this is an inactive unit, it doesn't have a current mission, so I've incorporated this section into the lead, which should cover the entire article, not just its inactivation. Here, too by using Lockheed C-5 Galaxy instead of C-5 Galaxy, I've avoided a redirect.
 * Fourth, the history. I have added subsections and added a short narrative on reserve service which is obvious from the lineage in the AFHRA page, but totally ignored in the narrative.  I also added the bacground of the 1740th ATS.
 * Fifth, Lineage. Here is the place for detailed information and exact dates, so it's expanded.  I've also reformatted this.  I've edited the links -- a lot of overlinking here.  Don't link to major geographical areas, don't link more than once (with exceptions), see WP:OVERLINK.  Also, linking to a redirect is preferred to "piping" a link.  In the columnated sections, I've used a different template, which I prefer because it automatically balances the columns.
 * Finally, I added some templates and did some formatting. --Lineagegeek (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

Wow!!! I knew that there was a lot to do on the Wiki article for the 56th Airlift Squadron. As you know, I did a good bit myself. I had no idea that YOU had so much to do yourself!

In my last message, I wrote, “Looking back at it, I should have made a separate section for just this one squadron! Who knew?!”

Well, look back at it now!!!! Mercy!! Being a “rookie,” I had no idea that so much needed to be done in terms of procedures, protocols, formats, templates and the like! You were quite busy, too! WOW!!

Oh, thanks for finishing the “Lineage” section for me. As you know, I was going to do that next (Lord willing!), but I had not gotten to it yet. By the way, you did a good job, of course! :-)

Nevertheless… it looks like we have things totally “covered” now.

A bit of a trivia question… Once AFHRA had recently updated its “Lineage and Honors History” on a Word document, I asked them if they were also going to update the Fact Sheet (and the Air Force’s which they also had) BEFORE “retiring” (archiving) them. I didn’t mean to be nosy concerning their “internal procedures.” But I just couldn’t help but ask.

Maybe that question was overlooked (or, ignored?), but I didn’t want to ask them again, appearing to be telling them what to do.

So, when you found the “AFHRA page” that had been archived, was that the Fact Sheet or the “Lineage and Honors History” on a Word document?

If you meant the Fact Sheet, did they update it prior to archiving? I hope so! And, if not, why not? You know what I mean? (As I said, I had the same question regarding the Air Force’s Fact Sheet that they also had on their site.)

I almost offered to send you the updated “Lineage and Honors History” on a Word document. (Maybe you already have it?) But I felt that it was too long to add to this current section that we are using. (It has become rather lengthy already!)

And, I couldn’t send it to you using your “regular” email address. I don’t have it, nor am I asking for it. Besides, you might respectfully decline publishing your email address due to privacy concerns. The whole world would have it! :-O

Lastly (we hope!), the other day, regarding the Wiki article on the 56th, I was curious about those two “External links.” Right now, being tired, I can’t remember what I found with the first one.

But, with the second one, I got Altus AFB’s site with an article on the 56th Airlift Squadron. It was indicating that it is still an active unit. Naturally, I wrote to them (using “Contact Us”) asking if they could possibly update it.

Just today, I heard from MSgt Rebecca Corey (Superintendent, Public Affairs, Altus AFB, OK). Later, I noticed in her email to me that she “copied” 97th AMW Public Affairs.

It just now "hit" me... does the Altus AFB site have an article on the 97th AMW? I just looked... Yes, of course, they do. Yet, I was afraid to look further... THANKFULLY, the 97th AMW's article doesn't list the inactivated 56th Airlift Squadron.

An aside: it was odd that she asked me which article I was talking about. (??!!) And, she listed several possibilities… altus.af.mil, facebook, you tube, twitter, flickr and instagram!! Gosh, who knew?! (Oh, I hope that they do indeed look at all those other venues for possible updating, too! I kinda sorta suggested that they do take a look.)

So, I gave her the complete web address for the Altus page that I was talking about ("The Official Web Site of Altus Air Force Base”) and its 56th article that is shown.

Nevertheless, just before I sent the email to her, I noticed her address (@us.af.mil), the same as Daniel Haulman with AFHRA. So, I had to add a quick note to the beginning of my reply explaining why I had said that AFHRA does this or that. (Such as one of your favorites… “INactivation” versus “DEactivation.”) Of course, if she is indeed with AFHRA, no insult was intended. Maybe she wears "two hats"... she is indeed with AFHRA, and, she also "doubles as" the Superintendent, Public Affairs, Altus AFB. Maybe?

In addition to asking them to update the article on the 56th in terms of its inactivation, I couldn’t resist “helping” them with some other things… “typos” and punctuation-type things. Maybe I need a new User Name... "TYPOGeek!!" :-O

'Well, it looks like we are FINALLY done with this one'' squadron. Again, who knew??!!'''

I must add this note... I wasn't really looking for any new answers to any new questions. My questions were more like me "asking out loud," OK? I need to "spare" you and me!

I will take a short rest, and, I will FINALLY get back to my proposed changes for the 97th Bomb (Operations) Group. Mercifully, I don’t think there’s going to be too many. YEAH!!! I'll be in touch, OK?

Take care, Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineageek,

Just a note about C-5 photos...

In your last message regarding the 56th Airlift Squadron and its C-5s, you wrote this about the Infobox...


 * ”In the image, I've added one of the squadron's most current aircraft. If I had found one expressly of a squadron a/c I would have used it.”

Well, just today, I heard from Richard Guinan, “97th Air Mobility Wing, Historian Altus AFB, Okla.” He included three great photos of the last C-5 to “flyaway” from Altus AFB on July 20, 2007. Naturally, I thought of you and the Wiki article.

However, the plane is already marked with its new ANG unit, Martinsburg (West Virginia) Air Guard. So, I reckon that this particular plane is not the best to show in the Infobox, eh? But, we got darn close, no?

Nevertheless, I thought you’d like to know. Oh!!... as I told Mr. Guinan, in this example I do indeed finally know where the aircraft went. Yeah!

If the unit or base historian is considered a most "reliable source," I can update the 56th’s Wiki article with the “flyaway” info, right?

Take care, Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see putting information received in an email from a wing historian is probably WP:OR. As for the photo, you'd have to put it on Wikimedia and make sure the copyright laws are complied with. All official USAF email addresses end in (@us.af.mil). There used to be a system that sometimes included organization and even positions, but I don't think it's used any more. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

August 2014 wikification awards.


Wilhelmina Will has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Cheers! :) She ran down a hill... (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014 Wikification Drive
This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The 97th Air Refueling Squadron
Hi, Lineagegeek,

I am making a “New section” here as the section for the “97th Bomb GROUP (Stations and Aircraft)” has already become so large…

I was very close to sending you my proposed changes to the Wiki article on the 97th Bomb (Operations) Group. Actually, I went ahead and made two or three changes last night as I was confident to do so.

But, when I went to look at something else for another purpose right quick (I thought!!), I ran across an “old friend” of ours… the 97th Air Refueling Squadron which we mentioned in our communications for the 97th Bomb Wing.

I had forgotten that the Wiki article says that the 97th Air Refueling Squadron was inactivated on 30 September 2004. Yet, the AFHRA Fact Sheet shows that it is still active in all the various categories… there are no “end dates” for lineage, assignments, stations, aircraft, and operations.

As a result, I went back and looked at all my notes and/or messages to you regarding the 97th Bomb (AMW) Wing which did indeed include the 97th Air Refueling Squadron. I guess that we just left things as they were.

As of right now, when I “highlight” the “inline citations” on the Wiki article (97th ARS), it does indeed say, “"Factsheet 97 Air Refueling Squadron". Air Force Historical Research Agency. 4/1/2008” in the little “window” that pops up. But, when I actually click on it, it takes me to “The Air University” page. (By the way, is this one of those “dead links?”)

Caveat!!! The "inline citation" for the unit's inactivation does reference the AFHRA Fact Sheet of April 1, 2008. But, that Fact Sheet shows the unit as still active. (???)

Anyway, when I do “search” AFHRA itself for the “97 Air Refueling Squadron,” it does indeed show me the Fact Sheet for the squadron. As I said, it still shows the squadron as active.

You know, maybe I didn’t “care” that much if AFHRA’s Fact Sheet was up-to-date once we settled things for the 97th Wing and Group on Wikipedia. But, I guess that I do really care that, in this case, AFHRA matches Wiki. (As you know, it’s usually the other way around.)

Soooo, do you know? Is the Wiki article indeed correct? (The squadron was inactivated on 30 September 2004?)

If so, as I did with another squadron (!!), I would like to write to Daniel Haulman asking him to update the AFHRA Fact Sheet. And, as you know, he would then “retire” or “archive” the article for an inactive unit.

As I said, I would like to write to him, but I have no sources or references. So, can you help me in this, please?

Thanks in advance! Rob

P.S. I know that you said that AFHRA is accurate but sometimes “slow.”  Yeah, but, possibly 10 years slow?! As you know, the Fact Sheet says, “Posted 4/1/2008,” some 3.5 years after the unit’s possible inactivation. Hmmm. And, the Air Force's Fact Sheet, also on the AFHRA site, has the unit as still active as well. Hmmm.

BeatlesVox (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I've finished going through the 900 series air refueling squadrons, I've started on some of the others (haven't decided a good order for them yet) and just did some work on the 97th, including replacing the dead link. I had to go pretty close to a primary source for the 2004 inactivation. Interesting that AFHRA would update post this in 2008. It appears to be a cut and paste from the dead link, which occurred when they updated their web page some years ago. The format is not what they are currently using (heraldry no longer appears, authorship, approval, and date information is current through does appear). The old URL is archived on the Wayback Machine and looks identical, except the emblem doesn't load. --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

Sooooo, all in all, it appears that you agree with the Wiki article… the 97th Air Refueling Squadron was indeed inactivated on 30 September 2004.

If so, I might write to Daniel Haulman (AFHRA) and ask him to look at the AFHRA Fact Sheet for updating and “retiring/archiving.”

As you know, my curiosity gets me into so much “trouble.”

That is…in the article’s “lead,” it says that the unit “was last assigned to the 92d Air Refueling Wing.”

Yet, in the “Assignments” section, it says that the unit was last assigned to the 92d Operations Group.

And, the article for the 92d Operations Group (in the “Modern era” listings) agrees… the 97th ARS was indeed assigned to it. (1 July 1994 – 30 September 2004)

Lastly, in the article for the 92d Air Refueling Wing, it says that the 92d Operations Group is still assigned to it. Yes. But, the 97th Air Refueling Squadron is not listed. It does list other air-refueling squadrons, just not the 97th ARS. Hmmm.

A thought… if the article for the 92d Air Refueling Wing does not list the 97th Air Refueling Squadron (which it doesn’t), then this may tie back into the “lead” for the 97th ARS. That is, the squadron was last assigned to the 92d Operations Group. Right?

So, all in all, my two questions are…


 * Just to confirm, the 97th Air Refueling Squadron was indeed inactivated on 30 September 2004, right?


 * In the Squadron's article’s “lead,” should we change “last assigned to the 92d Air Refueling Wing” to read “last assigned to the 92d Operations Group?”

Thanks! Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

P.S. I forgot to check AFHRA last night. My bad!! AFHRA agrees that the 97th Air Refueling Squadron was indeed last assigned to the 92d Operations Group. So, it appears that it would be appropriate to change this one item in the article's "lead," right?

Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC) I believe that the 97th Air Refueling Squadron, as it now exists, should answer your questions. As to notifying AFHRA, they have not been updating the unit portion of their web site for a couple of years. This means not adding units as well as not deleting units. I'm not seeing a bunch of added value in getting them to remove units (it will cause problems with referencing on Wikipedia, among other things. That will impact 20 footnotes on the 97th page alone.
 * With respect to the AFHRA factsheet page, it does not show any update, and its form leads me to believe that it dates from the 1990s, probably from Judy Endicott's CD of units active at that time. On that basis, it can't be faulted for missing a Meritorious Unit Citation and two AF Outstanding Unit Awards, but it repeated the error of Maurer's Combat Squadrons in missing the 22 February 1942 Distinguished Unit Citation.  I'd rather see their efforts dedicated to correcting entries, rather than eliminating them. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

As is the case so many times (!!), let me apologize for the length of this message. Writing is easy; editing is the hard part!!

I see that you’ve been quite busy with work on the article for the 97th Air Refueling Squadron!!

And, I'm glad that you agreed with me about the article’s “lead,” changing its last assignment to read “92d Operations Group.” Thanks!!

I was surprised when you said that AFHRA has “not been updating the unit portion of their web site for a couple of years. This means not adding units as well as not deleting units.” Wow! I wonder why or why not? Gee, does that also apply to updating units? Hmmm.

I do see what you mean when you say, “I'm not seeing a bunch of added value in getting them to remove units (it will cause problems with referencing on Wikipedia, among other things. That will impact 20 footnotes on the 97th page alone.”

Oh, please understand that I was not trying to get them to “remove units.” (Or, anything else for that matter!)

Previously, regarding another inactive squadron, I had the impression that, once AFHRA updated a Fact Sheet for an inactive unit, they themselves would “pull” it or “remove” it. You see, it was Mr. Haulman who first mentioned “pulling” or “removing” things. I didn’t even know to ask such a question. Nor would I!!

At the very beginning, I was merely asking Mr. Haulman to please update the Fact Sheet, period. Then later, when he talked about “pulling” or “removing” an inactive unit’s Fact Sheet, I did ask him once more (carefully) about updating the Fact Sheet. My implication was for him to update the Fact Sheet before doing anything else with it. (Not intending to insult his intelligence, you know?)

An aside: Yet, right now, I am not so sure that they would, in fact, do the updating first!

I totally agree with you when you wrote, in part, “I'd rather see their efforts dedicated to correcting entries.”

To me, in terms of the Fact Sheets, the word “correcting” can also mean “adding to” or “updating,” I hope. Once more, originally, that’s all I asked them to do… update.

Yes, I agree… I’m sure that you know that I also want AFHRA to “correct (update) entries.” Mr. Haulman did, in fact, update the “Lineage and Honors History” on a Word document for an inactive unit as a result of my asking about it. That was a “good thing,” I believe.

Without any “real-time” feedback on this contraption in front of me, I have to (or want to) assume that your word “entries” can also mean “Fact Sheets.”

All I wanted was to see them “add to” in terms of updates, a form of “corrections,” no?

As you well know, I do indeed want to see AFHRA update their Fact Sheets. (I’m sure that you do, too.)

'''Now, I admit that I may have become too “sensitive” and/or “defensive” here. Please indulge me…'''

At the end of that same sentence, you wrote, in part, “…rather than eliminating them.”)

After reading your message a few times (maybe too many?), perhaps I over-analyzed (who me?) and took some things personally. I readily admit that I am too sensitive! Yet, I was feeling kind of guilty and/or defensive. (Even though I saw no harm in asking AFHRA to simply update a Fact Sheet. Who knew?!)

Once more, please indulge me here…

I feel that I need to reassure you about a couple of things, OK? Heck, I might even be trying to reassure myself.

First, please be assured that all that I wanted was to see AFHRA “add to” in terms of updates, not “remove” or “eliminate” anything. No way!

I certainly don’t want AFHRA to be “eliminating” things. And, I certainly wasn’t asking them or encouraging them to do so. Actually, I don’t think that it ever would have even crossed my mind to ask such things.

Looking back at things, Mr. Haulman kept talking about and sending me a revised “Lineage and Honors History” for a particular inactive unit. OK, fine. But, my questions were about the Fact Sheet. Little did I know what his answer would be!!

Any way, it was Mr. Haulman who first mentioned “pulling” or “removing” (i.e., “eliminating”) things as they related to an inactive unit’s Fact Sheet.

So, if I myself ever used either of those words (“pull” or “remove”), I was merely “piggybacking” on what Mr. Haulman told me first.

And, it was in terms of me asking him (as diplomatically as I could) to be sure to update the Fact Sheet first… for him to update it before he did anything else. Actually, why wouldn’t he? Hmmm.

Heck, for all we know, they may “pull” an inactive unit’s Fact Sheet without even updating it first, something that I totally don’t understand. What makes it worse is that they may indeed update the “Lineage and Honors History” on a Word document, but not touch a thing on the Fact Sheet. Why not?! Most bizarre!!

Sure, I had previously asked Mr. Haulman to update an inactive unit’s Fact Sheet. But, he is the one who, in so many words, volunteered, “OK, I’ll have it removed.” What??!!   Does he really have to do that?! It surprised me, for sure!!

Yes, at one time, he told me that the Fact Sheets were for active units only. As it was a surprise to me, I relayed to you what he said. You probably knew that already, but I was letting you know that is was “new” to me. I had no idea until I was told.

Also, in support of this “new” info was the fact that inactive units are indeed on their web site as we speak. Sure, they need some “crazy” updating, but they are still there. Thus, how was I to know that they should not be on their site? Hmmm.

An aside: Even if Mr. Haulman had an inactive unit’s Fact Sheet “pulled,” perhaps there was some “wishful thinking” going on in my brain. That is, surely we could still somehow locate that same Fact Sheet easily, right? Well, maybe not!! And, if not, could we easily find the “Lineage and Honors History” that’s on a Word document? I honestly do not know!

Well, thank you for allowing me to explain or perhaps "defend" myself if it were needed. Of course, I hope that it wasn't. As I said earlier, I was feeling kind of guilty, that I had done something wrong. Of course, I hope that I haven't done anything wrong. Yet, if I have, I do apologize!

Turning my attention now to Wiki articles…. it wasn’t until your last message that I really understood the possible ramifications of AFHRA “pulling” an inactive unit’s Fact Sheet in terms of “inline citations” and “references” in a Wiki article. I just “hadn’t got that far yet.” So, in one regard, it was good that you told me; in the other regard, I have felt so guilty because of all of this!

Golly, Lineagegeek, I had no idea that merely asking them to simply update a Fact Sheet (as I had done with that other inactive unit) would cause so much “distress” now or in the future. If so, I really do apologize!!

Hopefully, we are both still “on the same page”… having common desires and goals for improving the Wikipedia articles.

In closing” (We hope!)…

OK, I guess that I won’t write to Mr. Haulman asking him to update the Fact Sheet for the 97th Air Refueling Squadron. But, I sure do want to!! It does need to be done.

But, I guess that me asking Mr. Haulman to update this particular Fact Sheet would possibly open up yet another “can of worms.” If so, it’s kind of sad, really. Yet, I definitely don’t want to possibly create any chaos in terms of “inline citations” or “references” in any Wiki article.

Nevertheless… there is more that I had already written in a draft about AFHRA. (Yes, more!!) It also deals with AFHRA’s “updating,” “pulling” and the like. However, I need to see if my draft really adds anything all that “new” to what I have already written above. I’ll do my best, OK?

In the beginning, I didn’t want this message to be too lengthy. Believe it or not, I really did try to keep this message of mine focused, as much as possible, on your last message and 97th Air Refueling Squadron section. Even so, I have spent A LOT of time on this... revising, revising and revising. Several times, I could have used an "intervention!!" :-O

Oh!!! A lot of my questions and remarks were rhetorical in nature. I certainly am not asking for any replies to any of them, OK? As I’ve done before, I was mostly asking or talking “out loud.” I also apologize once more for this message to end up being this lengthy!

I hope and trust that you still realize that any work that I have done on Wiki has been done with the utmost “good faith.” Sure, I am learning things “along the way.”  And, there are many more things that I hope to learn in the future. So, please be assured that I am doing the very best that I can with what I currently know, OK?

Thanks!! Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

As I said last time, I had already drafted another message about AFHRA’s “updating,” “pulling” and the like. And, I said that I would do my best in reviewing what I had written to see if it really added anything “new” to what I had already sent to you regarding the 97th Air Refueling Squadron.

Well, I reckon there’s really not all that much “new” to add. This time, I wanted to write about the same situation regarding the 56th Airlift Squadron, the other inactive unit. But, you probably figured out already that the other inactive unit was indeed the 56th Airlift Squadron.

I suppose that, last time, I didn’t mention them by name because we had already exhausted ourselves with them. (!!) And, as a result, I hated going “back in time,” you know? However, I do apologize for talking about this unit again.

But, it was this particular squadron that started the whole chain of events in terms of AFHRA updating Fact Sheets (or not!), “pulling” Fact Sheets, and updating the “Lineage and Honors Histories” that are found on Word documents.

Maybe AFHRA just doesn’t update Fact Sheets for inactive units. Why, I don’t know. But, heck, once they update the “Lineage and Honors History,” it shouldn’t take anyone that much longer to update the other, right?

If AFHRA does not update Fact Sheets for inactive units, I just don’t understand them leaving the Fact Sheets to “sit and rot” on their web site.

On the “flip side,” just because a Fact Sheet has not been updated does not necessarily mean that the unit is an inactive one, right? The unit could still be “alive and well,” but AFHRA is way behind in posting the latest info, right?

And, if a unit is ever re-activated (and not previously updated), then someone else is going to have to go through all of this again. (Researching and posting the latest info before (hopefully!) putting a particular page back onto their site.)

Again, I still don’t understand why they themselves wouldn’t want to do such updating. If it were my web site, I would certainly want to have the “latest and greatest” info, no? (Just as you and I both want for Wiki articles, right?)

OK, now… in reviewing this drafted “half-book” of mine on the 56th Airlift Squadron, as I said above, I see that it perhaps really doesn’t add anything all that new to what I had already written regarding the 97th Air Refueling Squadron. And, I suppose that I have been a bit repetitive, too. Sorry! But, as I’ve had this message drafted for a while, I was hoping that you would “indulge” me here and let me send it nonetheless. (Believe or not, I’ve tried hard to cut this message in half.)

Well, kind sir, if AFHRA does indeed “pull” the Fact Sheet for the 56th Airlift Squadron, and, it messes up the inline citations and references, I really do apologize!! And, I repeat the same apology once more regarding the 97th Air Refueling Squadron.

Good Lord, I just wanted AFHRA to update the Fact Sheets!!!

By the way, I just now looked at AFHRA's site… thankfully, they have not “pulled” the Fact Sheet for the 56th Airlift Squadron. (The Air Force’s fact sheet, also on their site, is thankfully still there, too.) Sadly, neither has been updated yet, but at least they are still there. (Oh, the same applies for the 97th Air Refueling Squadron.)

Well, even though I have tried hard to cut this message “down to size,” I’m sorry that it still ended up being this long.

And, once more, if AFHRA does indeed “pull” their Fact Sheet on the 56th Airlift Squadron (updated or not!), I really apologize for any future problems this may cause as it relates to the Wiki article. I also repeat my same apology for the 97th Air Refueling Squadron.

To reiterate, I am sorry that I may have caused you further work in the future. I’m sure that you understand that I had no idea that asking them to simply update a Fact Sheet might cause so much havoc!! Nevertheless, I hope that my apologies are accepted. (Fingers crossed.)

Sincerely, Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux
NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou! The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Last C-5 "Flyaway" Info
Hi, Lineagegeek,

I was going to write to you about something else tonight in another section, but, I felt a need to start this new section so that I don’t possibly miss another message from you, as I fear I have.

As I was scrolling up and down on your Talk page searching for any new messages to me, I may have seen a message from you (8 October) for the first time, and, I just wanted to confirm that it was indeed addressed to ME.

The reason that I ask if the message is for me is because, on your “Read” page, it appears just below the “box” for the section labelled “The 97th Bomb GROUP (Stations and Aircraft).” Perhaps that's why I don't recall seeing it and knowing that is was for ME.

Your message probably WAS for me because in that section, on 2 October, I was last talking about some great C-5 photos (56th Airlift Squadron) that the 97th Air Mobility Wing Historian (Mr. Guinan) had sent to me, as well as the last C-5 "flyaway" information. I also asked if a unit or base historian would be considered as a “reliable source.” (I wanted to add the “flyaway” info to a couple of articles.)

So, since I last wrote in the “The 97th Bomb GROUP (Stations and Aircraft)” section, and not realizing that you had written to me on the 8th, I went ahead and added the "flyaway" info to the article on the 56th Airlift Squadron. I added it on 4 October at the end of the “Airlift Training” section. And, in the “Edit summary,” I did add my source, “(per 97th Air Mobility Wing Historian, Altus AFB).”

I sure hope that doing so was OK. I was glad to get such detailed info from Mr. Guinan and add it to the article. Please advise.

Also on 4 October, I added the same “flyaway” info to the article on the 97th Air Mobility Wing. (At the end of the section labelled “The 97th: Re-Invented.”) Here, too, in the “Edit summary,” I did add my source, “(per 97th Air Mobility Wing Historian, Altus AFB).” Again, I really hope that adding the “flyaway” info was, and is, OK. Please advise.

I did indeed look over the Wiki article, “Wikipedia:No original research.”

Even though the “flyaway” info may not appear in a “reliable, published source” by the 97th AMW (I don’t know if it is or isn’t), AFHRA’s updated “Lineage and Honors History” for the 56th Airlift Squadron does corroborate the “flyaway” info. It reads, “The squadron finished flying C-5s in 2007, although the squadron did not inactivate until 2008.”

Also, AFHRA’s “Lineage and Honors History” for the 97th Operations Group corroborates the “flyaway” info as well. In the “Operational Components” section, it reads, “56 Airlift: 1 Oct 1992-30 Sep 2008.”  And, the “Aircraft” section reads, “C-5, 1992-2007.”

Oh, let’s not forget that we have the last C-5 “flyaway” photos to prove the “flyaway” info that I added to a couple of articles.

Trivia question: if someone, especially a Wing Historian, takes and/or emails photos to you, is that a form of “reliable publishing?”  Hmmm.

Well, kind sir, please share your thoughts when you get some time, OK? Thanks in advance.

Fingers crossed, Rob

P.S. As I have been “practicing,” I do plan to go back and start adding “inline citations” to “this or that” article in addition to my parenthetical notes in the “Edit summary.”  My first actual attempts are intended for this very “flyaway” info discussed above. I sure hope that we can keep this added info, and, that I am successful in making my first “inline citations" for them.

BeatlesVox (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Lineagegeek,

P.P.S. In terms of “reliable publishing,” something else “hit” me. That is, I would almost be willing to bet that the last C-5 “flyaway” from Altus AFB in July 2007 was “covered” by the base newspaper. (A photo or two may have appeared, also.) If need be, I can ask the Wing Historian or the base’s Public Affairs folks.

Oh, what about the local paper, too? Hmmm.

If the C-5 “flyaway” was indeed published in the base or local newspaper, it would go hand-in-hand with the other sources listed above.

So, of course, I hope that my revising and/or adding a “flyaway” sentence to the two Wiki articles listed above is still OK.

Fingers still crossed, Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Patrol Squadron One
Lineagegeek - I'm trying to create an article on VP-1, or Patrol Squadron One, and I'm confused how to write it. I found this document about the unit and it appears there are three different units who bore that designation. Two of them were VP-1 and were never redesignated. So, my question is, do I write all three units into one article or do I write different articles about each and separate them by year?--v/r - TP 05:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

First, I'm much more familiar with USAF unit history than USN. However, my understanding is that (at least until recently) the Navy treated its flying squadrons like its ships. There might be more than one USS Enterprise, but they are different ships: there might be more than one Patrol Squadron One, but they are different squadrons. I understand that currently, the Navy is more like the Air Force, where a unit can be inactivated, then activated at a later date and still be the same unit. Even with USAF units, there are several that are split based on separate notability in different wars: e.g. 13th Aero Squadron and 13th Bomb Squadron are both about the same unit.

That being said, I would be inclined to put all three units in a single article and deal with each in a separate section, based on notability, with the lead stating there have been three squadrons titled VP-1. If at a later date there is a consensus that one of the three (probably number five) is independently notable and deserves its own article, it can be split. Combining the three also avoids the requirement for a disambiguation page, and the addition of dates to each article to distinguish the three. Navy squadron pages seem to favor the VP-1 type titles, but Patrol Squadron One should be created as a redirect.

Gotta wonder what happened to the third and fourth squadrons. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!!!
Cheers! &#34;We could read for-EVER&#59; reading round the wiki!&#34; (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Contest scores
G'day Lineagegeek! Just a courtesy call to let you know I was just checking some of the contest entries from last month, and did change the starting class of a couple of yours. That's because the starting class (as reflected by the y/n in the banner against the B-class criteria) as at the last day of September was different from the class you had entered. In all cases, I think it was because the wrong class had been added to the class= field. Of course, when viewed as a talk page, the banner forces the correct class to appear, even if the banner field (in edit view) is wrong. Let me know if you think I've made a mistake here? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The 97th Air Refueling Squadron and 427th Aircraft Sustainment Group were both start category articles at the beginning of September. Both got rated C class in September, while I was in the middle of working on them, and rated B in early October, so it does look like I double count the C to B part on those two.  4730th Air Defense Group is my bad, I took it from stub to C in March 2012 and didn't change the descriptor when I changed the ratings.  Thanks for the double check.  --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, I hate reducing scores for anyone... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

October 2014 wikification awards.
Cheers!!! If I had to guess... (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)