Talk:306th Fighter Wing
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Andrewa in topic Requested move 24 October 2016
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 306th Fighter Wing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 24 October 2016 edit
- The following is a closed 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: not moved. None of the various moves proposed below have gained consensus, or seem to have any chance of it. If I'm wrong on that last point, suggest a fresh RM. Andrewa (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
306th Fighter Wing → 356th Special Operations Wing – WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME I erroneously created the target page first to categorize it, foiling my plan to move this after information was included that did not pertain to the old designation as 306th Fighter Wing. Lineagegeek (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Shouldn't be at a 'paper' designation that was never active as a unit/formation. 656 SOW would be my pick. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Buckshot06: I'd agree, but the 656th SOW has no article of its own, and I think its notability level fits better in a unified article under the most recent name. This contrasts with 333d Special Operations Wing, where the 333d Bombardment Group and 633d Special Operations Wing both meet notability requirements that merit articles of their own. I'm not sure the 656th SOW does this. Its only operational units were attached and it managed to be one of the few (the only?) unit in SEA to avoid getting decorated. I'm open to other suggestions, but this seemed like the best way (with appropriate redirects) to handle the problem. If you think more discussion is needed, move it out of the technical moves category. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, in my view, because of WP:COMMONNAME, it should not be at a paper designation with which it has never been active. In my view, this supersedes the most-recent-name rule of WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. I believe the article should be either at the World War II designation or at the 656 SOW designation, whichever is the most notable. Indeed this article should not be in the technical move category. Best regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Then, I'd say leaving it where it is would be the best place for it. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, in my view, because of WP:COMMONNAME, it should not be at a paper designation with which it has never been active. In my view, this supersedes the most-recent-name rule of WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. I believe the article should be either at the World War II designation or at the 656 SOW designation, whichever is the most notable. Indeed this article should not be in the technical move category. Best regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Buckshot06: I'd agree, but the 656th SOW has no article of its own, and I think its notability level fits better in a unified article under the most recent name. This contrasts with 333d Special Operations Wing, where the 333d Bombardment Group and 633d Special Operations Wing both meet notability requirements that merit articles of their own. I'm not sure the 656th SOW does this. Its only operational units were attached and it managed to be one of the few (the only?) unit in SEA to avoid getting decorated. I'm open to other suggestions, but this seemed like the best way (with appropriate redirects) to handle the problem. If you think more discussion is needed, move it out of the technical moves category. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- 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.