Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed Category: United States Air Force numbered commands

This is a mostly historic category (much like "Category: United States Air Force divisions"), but I believe that it is still needed to fully represent the USAF organizational structure. The MAJCOMs (major commands, ie. SAC, TAC, MAC, ACC, AMC, etc.) are well represented, but commands such as the VII Bomb Command (I believe that's the name) really aren't. Suggestions, comments, etc. please? NDCompuGeek 13:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in any case, per the naming convention for unit categories, it should be Category:Numbered commands of the United States Air Force. My question, though: how many of these are there? Is a separate category necessary, in other words, or could we just get away with putting them directly into Category:Commands of the United States Air Force? Kirill Lokshin 13:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
err, yeah to the naming convention (oops).... Anyway, if my research serves me right (which, is of course, always suspect <G>), there is the possibility of quite a few. To quote from the US AFHRA page:
from http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/rso/organizations.html ; emphasis mine
Just adding more "fuel to the fire", hopefully encouraging thought instead of random pillaging.... -Dan NDCompuGeek 16:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
To answer the question, "How many of these are there?", according to [1], there are currently 18 active Numbered Air Forces. They are: 1st - Tyndall AFB, Fla., 3rd - RAF Mildenhall, England, 4th - March ARB, Ca., 5th - Yakota AB, Japan, 7th - Osan AB, South Korea, 8th - Barksdale AFB, La., 9th - Shaw AFB, S.C., 10th - Carswell ARS, Texas, 11th - Elmendorf AFB, AK, 12th - Davis-Monthan AFB, Ariz., 13th - Andersen AFB, Guam, 14th - Vandenberg AFB, Ca., 15th - Travis AFB, Ca., 16th - Aviano AB, Italy, 19th - Randolph AFB, Tx., 20th - F.E.Warren AFB, Wy., 21st - McGuire AFB, NJ, 22nd - Dobbins ARB, Ga. In addition, there are several that existed in the past but have been deactivated.
Roachmeister 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal Revision

To further separate, differentiate, and represent all the Air Force organizational commands (each with very different internal hierarchies), what about this revised proposal:

This would keep the organizational chain-of-command fully represented and intact for all the USAF unit types (both current and historic):

HQ USAF → Major Command → Numbered Air Force → Operational Command → Division → Wing → Group → Squadron → Flight
↑ Field Operating Agenties (to HQ USAF)
↑ Direct Reporting Units (to HQ USAF)

I know it's kind of a major reorganization of categories, but at least this way all the "units and formations" categories will be fully, entirely representative of the Air Force organizational structure, and all notable levels (except flight) will have categories. At least it will be correct until the AF decides to change things again....

Further thoughts? -Dan (NDCompuGeek 01:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

Well, I'm not a member of this task force, but I think your proposals make sense. Roachmeister 20:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks good. I would make sure however that all categories are within the Category:Military units and formations of the United States Air Force and that NAFs, OpComs, Divs, Wings, and Squadrons are sub-categories of Category:Commands of the United States Air Force to keep the hierachy in line. However the wikicategory tree may not let that work, in which case having them all under 'mil units and formations of USAF' should be just fine. Cheers

Buckshot06 06:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Buckshot, I would take your suggestion, but the history of some of these units is, um, rather jumpy at best. It seems that the Air Force sees to it that there is not any clear decendant line or ascendant line for just about any unit in their control. They units get bounced around so much it seems like there's some general somewhere playing ping-ping with little round units.... Except for the "brainiacs" at HQ USAF, I would take your advice. Thanks for the great suggestion though! NDCompuGeek 05:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: proposal completed - thanks for the input! NDCompuGeek 00:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Task Force Hawk

I planned on writing a extensive article on Task Force Hawk to suppliment the Operation Allied Anvil (1999 Bombing of Yugoslavia). This will be my first large article; I didn't see that there was any information on such an article being worked on. I just what to make sure that I wasn't duplicating someone else effort. Sam D Ware 14:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to the work in progress article. Task Force Hawk Sam D Ware 21:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

10th Mountain Division History Links

I've placed the official World War II history of the 10th Mountain Division over on Wikisource,

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

with a two-way link to the 10th mountain Division article. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 01:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Khe Sanh

There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Khe Sanh that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

USSPACECOM

I'm sorry if this has been discussed before, but as a current member of USSTRATCOM and a former member of USSPACECOM, I'm disappointed to find that the USSPACECOM article has been redirected to USSTRATCOM. Yes, SPACE merged into STRAT in 2002, but USSPACECOM existed on its own for 17 years, so it seems a shame to relegate it to 2 1/2 paragraphs in the History section of USSTRATCOM. Any thoughts about recreating the USSPACECOM article to stand on its own, as a fairly significant Joint Command? Roachmeister 18:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know the concensus has been to name unit articles by what they were known as most recently. USSPACECOM has been known as USSTRATCOM most recently, so that's why it's been redirected there. I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a subsection under the command history dedicated entirely to USSPACECOM considering it was a different entity that was merged, rather than just changed its name, but I don't know enough about its history to add it myself. If you care to add a new section and write/cite even more about SPACE, I would think that would be a great idea. Anybody else? --ScreaminEagle 16:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Shoulda looked at the article before commenting--duh. So it already has its own subsection, but you can add even more sections within that subsection, too. I don't know that there's really a max on the length. I would think that if the article section got long enough, it could justify a summary within STRAT, which is then directed to another article about SPACE. Thoughts? Anyone? --ScreaminEagle 16:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree in theory, but in the case of USSPACECOM, it wasn't a simple renaming of the command. USSPACECOM existed on its own for 17 years, and then was merged into USSTRATCOM. As a related example, I notice that there is still an article for the United States Army Air Corps. This was "renamed" US Air Force, but the Air Corps is still considered important enough to have its own article, even though it no longer exists. In my opinion, USSPACECOM deserves the same. Roachmeister 18:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I realize it was merged instead of renamed, as I said above. But just because it existed for a certain number of years doesn't necessarily mean it automatically goes in a new article. For example, the Defense Mapping Agency existed for 24 years before it was merged with the Central Imagery Office, the Defense Dissemination Program Office, NPIC, plus a number of other bits and pieces of other agencies. However, the only place on Wikipedia that DMA has a blurb on it is a short paragraph within the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency article. I would think 24 years would deserve more than two sentences, and it probably does (I would think, even though I never worked for them so I'm just assuming here). But obviously no one else thinks so, so perhaps it's just a matter of interest. --ScreaminEagle 19:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that we could probably avoid the entire philosophical debate here by treating the issue as merely one of article length. If the USSPACECOM material were to cause the USSTRATCOM article to become unduly long, there would be nothing unusual about condensing it down to a short summary with a {{details}} link pointing to a broken-out article on USSPACECOM specifically. The real issue is whether there's actually enough material on these commands to make for two good articles. (I'm guessing that there is, and it just hasn't been added; but, at least in the current version, there's only a few sentences on what USSPACECOM actually did—the bulk of that section is a discussion of the merger into USSTRATCOM.)
In other words: breaking out a decently long USSPACECOM article should work; but breaking out a two-paragraph USSPACECOM stub doesn't seem as sensible. Kirill Lokshin 20:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I second what Kirill said - I believe there's definitely enough information for a separate article, it's just a matter of breaking out the section on the old article and writing a new one. I also would like to nominate Roachmeister for this job, seeing as how he seems to know the most about USSPACECOM!  ;-) NDCompuGeek 20:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I also second Kirill's opinion. He's right that info should be added to the USSTRATCOM article until there is enough for a separate article. As for me doing the job - well, I'm willing, but not necessarily able. I never actually worked directly at USSPACECOM, just for its subordinate units. But I'll see what I can dig up. Roachmeister 20:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This category for deletion discussion may be of interest to us

Venona by Haynes and Klehr It's a bit out of my field, but perhaps someone here can shed some light. It looks a like a can of worms which must be dealt with. Can anyone here add some perspective? BusterD 13:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Portals

I couldn't help but notice that the United States Navy has a portal, the United States Marines have a portal, even War has a portal, but there is not a portal for the United States Air Force, nor for the United States Army. Oversight, preference, favoritism, or something else? -Dan AKA NDCompuGeek 21:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lack of someone to maintain the things, I suspect. Most well-maintained portals tend to have a handful of maintainers—sometimes even one—who do the bulk of the work; I'm guessing none of the people willing to do that have had an interest in creating those portals.
(Portal:War, incidentally, is pretty much the obvious central portal for the entire project; I'd be somewhat shocked if one didn't exist at this point. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Second what Kirill said. The easy part is creating the Portal. The hard part is maintaining the thing and keeping it active. The Portals might one day be created when their are enough interested editors to maintain them.--Looper5920 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
OK - I understand now, and thanks for the crash course in "Portal-ology". 8^) As for interest and maintenance, I'd like to put my name into an "I'm interested and willing" list for the USAF portal.... -Dan AKA NDCompuGeek 01:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
To reduce the workload from large numbers of separate portals and to widen the scope, might a 'Military of the United States' portal be better instead? My two cents. Cheers Buckshot06 06:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
You mean sort of like this recently featured one? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 06:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: There is now an Air Force portal. >trumpet fanfare< Everyone and anyone interested please check it out and lend a hand! It will be closely tied to this task force - the stated goal of the portal is to increase awareness and involvement with Air Force articles, which (hopefully) will also increase involvement in the US military history task force! The USMC portal, Navy portal, and Coast Guard portal are "brother" portals - hopefully they will all be able to work together for this goal! NDCompuGeek 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice! :-) Kirill Lokshin 18:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for Military brat (U.S. subculture)

There's a new request for A-Class status for Military brat (U.S. subculture) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Portal:United States Navy

There's a new peer review request for Portal:United States Navy that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 22:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Air Force category tree reorganization proposal

Before any of this goes on the CFD page, it needs to be discussed it with the task force. Please comment! I also propose a little "blurb" or intro on category pages to instruct and inform what each category is for and how to use it.


Category: Flights of the United States Air Force

Category:Flights of the United States Air Force (under Category:Military units and formations of the United States Air Force)

  • Tenuous add to include historic and current USAF flights (under squadrons in the USAF heirarchy)
    Comment: not sure how useful or how populated this cat would be.... - NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Closed facilities of the United States Air Force Category:Defunct United States Air Force bases to Category:Closed facilities of the United States Air Force

  • Rename per US MilHist task force standard naming convention, also to include facilities that have been closed that are not considered bases (stations, depots, etc.) - NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Facilities of the United States Air Force slated for closure

Category:United States Air Force bases slated for closure to Category:Facilities of the United States Air Force slated for closure

  • Rename per US MilHist task force standard naming convention - NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Facilities of the United States Air Force slated for realignment

Category:United States Air Force bases slated for realignment to Category:Facilities of the United States Air Force slated for realignment

  • Rename per US MilHist task force standard naming convention - NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Stations of the United States Air Force

Category:Stations of the United States Air Force (under Category:Facilities of the United States Air Force - after move)

  • Add to include operating locations that are not full bases - NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
completed add NDCompuGeek 01:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Personnel of the United States Air Force

Category:United States Air Force personnel to Category:Personnel of the United States Air Force

  • Rename per US MilHist task force standard naming convention - NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Enlisted personnel of the United States Air Force

Category:United States Air Force airmen to Category:Enlisted personnel of the United States Air Force

  • Rename per US MilHist task force standard naming convention, also disambig
    Comment: the 'average Wikipedia user' (if there is such a thing) might not know that "Airman" is the 'proper' way to address enlisted USAF personnel - NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • This should eventually go to using "enlisted personnel"; but I suggest waiting for the project to move further on standardizing the entire Category:Military personnel tree before changing the names here. Kirill Lokshin 19:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Chief Master Sergeants of the United States Air Force

Category:Chief Master Sergeants of the United States Air Force (under Category:Enlisted personnel of the United States Air Force - after move)

  • Add to include people who held / hold this most senior enlisted rank - NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Officers of the United States Air Force

Category:United States Air Force officers to Category:Officers of the United States Air Force

  • Rename per US MilHist task force standard naming convention - NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: General officers of the United States Air Force

Category:United States Air Force generals to Category:General officers of the United States Air Force

  • Rename per US MilHist task force standard naming convention, also disambig (include all general officers, not just 4-stars) - NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The convention is to use "generals" as a category name for all general officers (the distinction among them being too subtle to use for categorization, particularly as different countries set up the levels differently), so this should indeed be Category:Generals of the United States Air Force. As above, though, I suggest waiting for the project to move further on standardizing the entire Category:Military personnel tree before changing the names here. Kirill Lokshin 19:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Graduates of the United States Air Force Academy

Category:United States Air Force Academy graduates to Category:Graduates of the United States Air Force Academy

  • Rename per US MilHist task force standard naming convention - NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Graduates of the United States Air Force Academy

Category:United States Air Force Academy graduates to Category:Graduates of the United States Air Force Academy

  • Rename per US MilHist task force standard naming convention - NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Pilots of the United States Air Force Thunderbirds

Category:United States Air Force Thunderbirds pilots to Category:Pilots of the United States Air Force Thunderbirds

  • Rename per US MilHist task force standard naming convention - NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Enlisted ranks of the United States Air Force

Category:Enlisted military ranks of the United States Air Force (under Category:Military ranks of the United States Air Force)

Category: Officer ranks of the United States Air Force

Category:Officer military ranks of the United States Air Force (under Category:Military ranks of the United States Air Force)

Category: Recipients of United States Air Force Medal of Honor

Category:Air Force Medal of Honor recipients to Category:Recipients of United States Air Force Medal of Honor

Category: Recipients of United States Distinguished Flying Cross

Category:Recipients of US Distinguished Flying Cross to Category:Recipients of United States Distinguished Flying Cross

Category: United States Civil Air Patrol Category:Civil Air Patrol to Category:United States Civil Air Patrol

  • Rename for disambig (does only the US have a civilian air authority?) and US MilHist task force standard naming convention - NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Units and formations of the United States Civil Air Patrol

Category:Units and formations of the United States Civil Air Patrol (under Category:United States Civil Air Patrol - after move)

  • Add for further categorization and growth - NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

mass additions under Category: Units and formations of the United States Civil Air Patrol

Category: Rank and appointments of the United States Civil Air

Category:Rank and appointments of the United States Civil Air Patrol (under Category:United States Civil Air Patrol - after move)

  • Add for further categorization and growth - NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Category: Awards and decorations of the United States Civil Air Patrol

Category:Awards and decorations of the United States Civil Air Patrol (under Category:United States Civil Air Patrol - after move)

  • Add for further categorization and growth - NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


AND - as a reminder, the USAF portal needs your help! Please stop by and see what and where you can contribute. The same goes for the USCG portal, the USMC portal and the USN portal, which is going through a review process now. Be bold and contribute! NDCompuGeek 19:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for USS Missouri (BB-63)

There's a new peer review request for USS Missouri (BB-63) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 01:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Doris Miller

There's a new peer review request for Doris Miller that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Edson's Ridge

There's a new peer review request for Battle of Edson's Ridge that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for F-84 Thunderjet

There's a new request for A-Class status for F-84 Thunderjet that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for F-105 Thunderchief

There's a new request for A-Class status for F-105 Thunderchief that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Edson's Ridge

There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Edson's Ridge that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Civil War veterans

Why is there no Category:American Civil War veterans, but rather only one for various organizations related to that war? Gene Nygaard 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but there's a proposal to get rid of the "veterans" nomenclature in categories entirely that may be applicable here. Kirill Lokshin 21:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request for Military brat (U.S. subculture)

There's a new peer review request for Military brat (U.S. subculture) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 06:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Linebacker II

There's a new request for A-Class status for Operation Linebacker II that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A-Class review for B-17 Flying Fortress

There's a new request for A-Class status for B-17 Flying Fortress that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:US State Related Ships nominated for deletion

Category:US State Related Ships has been nominated for deletion; you are invited to comment (positively or negatively) at the CfD discussion page. --A. B. (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for USS Texas (BB-35)

There's a new peer review request for USS Texas (BB-35) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Igloo White

There's a new request for A-Class status for Operation Igloo White that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Pontiac's Rebellion

There's a new request for A-Class status for Pontiac's Rebellion that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Linebacker

There's a new request for A-Class status for Operation Linebacker that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 14:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for HM-15

There's a new peer review request for HM-15 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 23:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for William C. Rogers III

There's a new peer review request for William C. Rogers III that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying to find an American Revolution Battle

Hi, I am writing an article on Ann Eliza Bleecker. Sources [1] say she was displaced by the Saratoga Campaign in 1777, and again in 1779. I know the Saratoga Compaign ended in 1777. Do any of you know of a battle that took place in or near Albany or Saratoga in 1779? Please see the Early Modern Task Force talk page for some information as well. Epousesquecido 19:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Operation Rolling Thunder

There's a new peer review request for Operation Rolling Thunder that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Jehu Eyre

There is currently a dispute at Jehu Eyre, described as a veteran in the French and Indian Wars and Revolutionary War. His family is linked with several hoaxes, but the editor has come up with some sources that seem to support notability and verifiability, such as National Guard Magazine. The opinions of editors with knowledge of the subject area and/or who can offer thoughts on the validity of sources are sought. - BanyanTree 21:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for United States Navy enlisted rate insignia

There's a new peer review request for United States Navy enlisted rate insignia that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks!

A-Class review for Operation Rolling Thunder

There's a new request for A-Class status for Operation Rolling Thunder that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Operation Igloo White

There's a new peer review request for Operation Igloo White that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Edwin Taylor Pollock

There's a new peer review request for Edwin Taylor Pollock that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for 1st Infantry Division (United States)

There's a new request for A-Class status for 1st Infantry Division (United States) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for P-38 Lightning

There's a new peer review request for P-38 Lightning that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 13:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Edwin Taylor Pollock

There's a new request for A-Class status for Edwin Taylor Pollock that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Igloo White

There's a new request for A-Class status for Operation Igloo White that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Lochry's defeat

There's a new peer review request for Lochry's defeat that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War

There's a new peer review request for Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Operation Barrel Roll

There's a new peer review request for Operation Barrel Roll that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Template Organization

The system of requesting articles is being doled out to the task forces now. That means no massive communal list of requests any more, and much larger/longer lists within the task force templates. This task force already has a substantial list of requested articles, and they do not appear to be in any particular order. It would be a great help if anyone who was so inclined could take it upon themselves to put these into an order (preferrably some variation on alphabetical). Those of us who are moving the request list into the task forces (and you all are welcome to help with that as well) will of course do our part to aid in this process. Thank you. LordAmeth 13:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Barrel Roll

There's a new request for A-Class status for Operation Barrel Roll that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 03:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Benjamin Franklin Tilley

There's a new peer review request for Benjamin Franklin Tilley that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 22:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Operation Menu

There's a new peer review request for Operation Menu that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Iowa class battleship

There's a new peer review request for Iowa class battleship that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 11:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Armament of the Iowa class battleship

There's a new request for A-Class status for Armament of the Iowa class battleship that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Khe Sanh

There's a new request for A-Class status for Battle of Khe Sanh that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for American Civil War

There's a new request for A-Class status for American Civil War that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Actions along the Matanikau (September – October 1942)

There's a new peer review request for Actions along the Matanikau (September – October 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Actions along the Matanikau (September – October 1942)

There's a new request for A-Class status for Actions along the Matanikau (September – October 1942) that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for American Civil War

There's a new request for A-Class status for American Civil War that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Igloo White

There's a new request for A-Class status for Operation Igloo White that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons

There's a new request for A-Class status for List of United States Marine Corps aircraft squadrons that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 04:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Cambodian Incursion

There's a new peer review request for Cambodian Incursion that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 05:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for List of African American Medal of Honor recipients

There's a new peer review request for List of African American Medal of Honor recipients that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Warrant Officer (United States)

This is more your lane than mine, with my not being a member of the task force or project, but I have a situation where an editor just comes in and rearranges the sections without adding anything and now claims that it was better written when it was a section of the Warrant Officer article. I won't disagree that the article has a lot of room to grow, but just rearranging the sections is annoying and counterproductive to actually accomplishing improvement for the article. I is one (Army and intentional grammar error), so I don't think I'm impartial enough to continue as civilly as may be necessary if this conflict continues, because of my attachment to the article. Would love to get some help getting a consensus as to where this article needs to go, especially as I have tagged it to be a part of your task force and because it is in some bad need of a good treatment of the history of US Warrant Officers.

Much appreciated! --Born2flie 16:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Treaty of Versailles

There's a new peer review request for Treaty of Versailles that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance Category B

Hi. I've put a prod tag on Maintenance Category B which, or so it seems, is concerned with some sort of classification of maintenance for US Navy ships. I'm not sure there's much there to save but if anyone knows, it will probably be from this project. Thanks in advance for any help. Pascal.Tesson 03:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be merged with United States Navy reserve fleets, since it discusses the maintiance category of ships in that fleet. Thats my two cents. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. In any case, it probably should wind up as a redirect to something, as it is a term that people are likely to search for. Kirill Lokshin 03:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Cambodian Campaign

There's a new request for A-Class status for Cambodian Campaign that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for First Command, Inc.

There's a new peer review request for First Command, Inc. that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 23:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Robin Olds

There's a new peer review request for Robin Olds that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 09:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Benjamin Franklin Tilley

There's a new request for A-Class status for Benjamin Franklin Tilley that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Pontiac's Rebellion

There's a new request for A-Class status for Pontiac's Rebellion that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 22:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Operation Lam Son 719

There's a new peer review request for Operation Lam Son 719 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines

There's a new peer review request for 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for B-52 aircraft crash at Fairchild Air Force Base

There's a new request for A-Class status for B-52 aircraft crash at Fairchild Air Force Base that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 10:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

NEW ITEMS FROM THE US ARMY INSTITUTE OF HERALDRY

As you may know, the US Army Institute of of Heraldry is the developer and custodian for all official US Heradic designs and devices. Here is a list of new items from this source.

  1. | U.S. Naval Ships Coat of Arms
  2. | U. S. Coast Guard Organizational Insignia
  3. | U. S. Coast Guard Cutters Coats of Arms

Please note that these items are lists of items, and are constantly under developemt

-SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Found site with lots of public domain war images

I apologize if everyone knows about this site already, I just found it. It contains more than 1,000 US Government images from US military history, from the Civil War through the Korean conflict. Some of the pictures I hadn't seen before. It's at: [2]. Cla68 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for First Command Financial Planning, Inc.

There's a new request for A-Class status for First Command Financial Planning, Inc. that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Lam Son 719

There's a new request for A-Class status for Operation Lam Son 719 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for USS New Jersey (BB-62)

There's a new peer review request for USS New Jersey (BB-62) that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

CfD for cruiser category

There is a CfD ongoing for Category:United States Navy heavy cruisers that may be of some interest to members of this task force - input from knowledgeable editors has been requested, and any comments would be welcome. You can find the discussion here. Carom 05:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please also check out the umbrella CFD for the rest of the newly-created US cruiser subdivisions here. TomTheHand 12:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance: Thomas Pickering (Revolutionary War soldier)

I invite any editors interested in American history, particularly those with access to print sources, to take a look at the article Thomas Pickering (Revolutionary War soldier). One would think that the individual is notable, but the single source in the article seems to be the only information about the subject that is available online. For more details, please see the article's talk page. Thank you, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The creator of the article was fooled by a misprint. The mysterious "Thomas Pickering" is actually the well-known Timothy Pickering. Curiously, a Google search reveals that it is not unusual for people to mistakenly type "Thomas Pickering" when they mean "Timothy Pickering"; sometimes they even use both names on the same page, such as here and here. Perhaps they vaguely confuse his name with another Revolutionary figure, Thomas Pinckney. The article Thomas Pickering (Revolutionary War soldier) should simply be deleted or redirected to Timothy Pickering. —Kevin Myers 14:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If it's a common mistake, a redirect is probably best. Carom 14:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Robin Sage

Hi,

Even though this is not history i hope you guys could help out. I have started an article on Robin Sage Can people please add somethings to it.

Thanks ExtraDry 07:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Charles N. DeGlopper

There's a new peer review request for Charles N. DeGlopper that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of Attack on Sydney Harbour

I've just started a peer review for the Attack on Sydney Harbour article, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Attack on Sydney Harbour. As this falls under the grounds of United States Military History Taskforce (as several American vessels were in Sydney Harbour at the time of the attack, and USS Chicago (CA-29) was the primary target), I'm requesting that members of this group come forward and find the flaws in the article before it makes a run for A-class review, and hopefully Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. -- saberwyn 06:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for 37 mm Gun M3

There's a new request for A-Class status for 37 mm Gun M3 that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Fort Kearny (Washington D.C.)

There's a new peer review request for Fort Kearny (Washington D.C.) that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 23:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Easter Offensive

There's a new request for A-Class status for Easter Offensive that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision

There's a new request for A-Class status for Ehime Maru and USS Greeneville collision that may be of interest to editors here; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 02:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fleet Sonar School

Have created this stub. Please improve it, thanks Willy turner

US ARMY IS CHANGING ITS WEBSITES

The US Army is changing its websites, and you may not gain access for a while. Most sites retain their former web addresses, but some will change. They will go down and come back up one or more at a time. but the pattern is unannounced. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Hugh Boyle Ewing

There's a new peer review request for Hugh Boyle Ewing that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 03:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for John Watts de Peyster

There's a new peer review request for John Watts de Peyster that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 03:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Attack on Sydney Harbour now open

The A-Class review for Attack on Sydney Harbour is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Johnston de Peyster

There's a new peer review request for Johnston de Peyster that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 01:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Korean War

There's a new peer review request for Korean War that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 13:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

U.S. ARMY ADDS NEW HISTORICAL RESEARCH WEBSITE

We have a new location to do subject research: The U.S. Army Heritage and Education Center

It is located at this linkU.S. Army Heritage and Education Center, which I've also added to our list on the project page. The center is at Carlise Barracks. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 14:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Fort Stanton (Washington, D.C.) now open

The A-Class review for Fort Stanton (Washington, D.C.) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle for Henderson Field

There's a new peer review request for Battle for Henderson Field that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 15:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle for Henderson Field now open

The A-Class review for Battle for Henderson Field is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 15:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request for Battle of Dak To

There's a new peer review request for Battle of Dak To that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Kirill 21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Barton S. Alexander now open

The A-Class review for Barton S. Alexander is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 01:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Dak To now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Dak To is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 16:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments requested

I could use some comments at Talk:Battle of Fire Support Base Ripcord#Casualty list?. I'm not sure if I should put any more work into this, and there is one somewhat sensitive issue that turned up. - Crockspot 18:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/United_States_military_history_task_force/Archive_3&oldid=1148629301"