Talk:352d Tactical Fighter Squadron

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 352d Tactical Fighter Squadron 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

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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

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 articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion 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
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing this per WP:ANRFC#1 because it seems obvious that there is no consensus to merge. Kkmurray (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging the 652d Bombardment Squadron. Squadrons have been merged,and 652d article remains a stub. --Lineagegeek (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my arguments here: [1] --Kkmurray (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which are basically WP:I just don't like it. Clearly, the current article on the 652d falls under WP:FAILN. There is no evidence of the unit's notability in the article, and if unsupported matter was deleted the article would evaporate. The article is little bigger than the WP:SIZERULE that would call for its merger on the basis of size alone not only does WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME call for the merger, but the merger shows the relationship between the units, which separate stubs do not per WP:NOPAGE. Your comments on the the 622d Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron are inappropriate here -- there is no demonstrated independent notability as in the example of the 30th Bombardment Squadron and the United States Air Force Thunderbirds.--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the application of WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME to merges based on lineage. I don’t think that there is consensus on this issue (e.g. here [2] and [3][4]) and I don’t think that it is appropriate to continue these merges lacking a consensus. The way forward is to establish a broad consensus regarding these kinds of merges and clearly delineate it in WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME so that articles can be developed within a consensus framework based on some reasonable application of era and lineage. --Kkmurray (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - A change of mind, I oppose the merge as it would detract from coverage of US military units--Petebutt (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.