Talk:348th Tactical Electronics Group

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 348th Tactical Electronics Group article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article Title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move So, everything has been moved, so I'm going to non-admin close this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

This article contains the addition (World War II) to the unit designation. This is true of a number of WW II United States Army Air Force Fighter Wings. In some cases, this is required because another United States Air Force unit carries or carried the same designation. In others, including this, there is no need to disambiguate the article title. I believe the articles should be moved to what is now a redirect page, as 9th Fighter Wing.--Lineagegeek (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of pages

– The parenthetical for these pages are not needed because no other wings with these designations have existed in the United States Army Air Forces or United States Air Force. Eliminating will simplify and bring these pages into agreement with other USAF articles. Also similar articles use 72d rather than 72nd for ordinal designation of units ending in “2” Lineagegeek (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC) --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'd like to see the names in Category:Fighter wings of the United States Army Air Forces standardized, and this is the way to do it. Don't disambiguate if there aren't title conflicts. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation. Powers ^T 22:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment do no other countries have numbered wings? -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK the USAF is the only current air arm to have Wings. In earlier years the Commonwealth air forces also had Wings, but IIRC they were designated "No. xx Wing" etc. I Support the renames. YSSYguy (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the difference between "9 Wing", "No. 9 Wing" and "9th Wing" is big enough. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what one's POV on this issue may be, there are thousands of articles on en.wikipedia about US air units and almost none have an identification of their nationality. The only one I am aware of is Far East Air Force (United States). --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that evidence of WP:Systematic bias? I note that WPSHIPS have things called shipindexes, perhaps such things should be implemented for military units, since they are name the same way in many countries. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Bwmoll3 (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question - where a later unit had similar name would the appropiate method of disambiguation be (for example) 1st Fighter Wing USAAF and 1st Fighter Wing USAF? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two instances where disambiguation is required for fighter wings, and the wings are not on the list for renaming. They are 8th Fighter Wing and 8th Fighter Wing (World War II) plus 86th Fighter Wing (a redirect) and 86th Fighter Wing (Air National Guard). In both these cases, I believe the page creators accurately identified one of the wings as the primary article and used the addition of the parentheses for the less notable unit. I think other units should be handled on a case by case basis. For example, I have just created 1st Reconnaissance Squadron (disambiguation) because all five units that have held that designation have Wikipedia articles, although the current one is clearly the main article.--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, I've gone ahead and moved everything that I can, since we have had similar discussions to this effect years ago and they have all been unanimous support in that direection. This includess the 9th, 10th, 60th, 61st, 87th, and 312th. The 55th, 63d, and 66th all have to have the redirects nuked so they can be moved. The 67th currently exists in two places, so I will take care of that. The only one that I currently have issue with is the 84th, as the requested target redirects to the 84th Combat Sustainment Wing page, so we need to figure out if they are the same before we can go forward. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the 84th Combat Sustainment Wing is the inheritor of the line of the WWII 84th, someone searching for the 84th Fighter Wing would be better served by the 84th Fighter Wing (World War II) article than the 2005-onwards unit. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they aren't the same, but everything else now has been moved. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment I think this move is procedurally faulty, since you should wait the specified one week before moving it, not two days. Once the RM has been formally opened, we should follow the proper procedure, which is to allow a 1-week discussion period. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]