Talk:527th Space Aggressor Squadron
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | ||||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
Using or not using a suffix depends on a number of things. In my experience it depends on where you go and in what context the unit is being referred to. For example, unit hats tend to read as 373 TRS while letterhead reads 373d TRS and peronnel biographies read 373rd TRS. Additionally, the AFHRA uses multiple methods; for instance, their unit lineage information uses both methods. However, since the majority of Wikipedia articles use the suffix method I will change the 527 SAS article accordingly.
As for the the merging issue, it may be that the 312th BS and all subsequent iterations are chapters of the same book. But they are separate chapters and should be produced as such. Each iteration had a wholly different mission from the previous one. Keeping the articles seperate allows these differences to be clearly defined, allows for greater detail when dealing with each iteration and, to a lesser extent, doesn't confuse the reader when they search for 312th BS and get 527th SAS.
- reverendlinux
While I understand your points about both issues, I still think that -
The 527th way of posting would maintain that way all the other units in the USAF in Wikipedia have been posted. Why confuse the issue with outside the US since as far as I can tell on the RAF designates their units without the "th", "d". I also have never seen a U.S. unit not use the "th" in any form when the name is written out in long form (e.g. 527th Space Agressor Squadron versus 527 SAS).
As for the merging of the two pages. What you really have is seperate chapters in the same book. Many units change missions, name and roles without lossing their history. That being said, it would actually make better reading and put the sqdn into a more complete context with its entire history on one page instead of confusing the issue. If you were to include the 312 BS, would you post it under a third history?
EagleWSO
> Why post under the 527 Space Aggressor Squadron instead of the correct 527th Space ...? Two reasons: 1. No matter which one I use (527 or 527th), someone else wants to (or actually does) change it. This has been done on other articles several times. The best I can gather is that the proper way in the US is to annotate with th, nd, etc while outside the US these are not used. 2. The Air Force Historical Research Agency uses both interchangeably.
> what about combining the 527 SAS with the 527 TFATS since they are the same sqdn in reality? Although in name the units are similar and they share a lineage on paper, in mission and function they are wholly separate. The 527th TFATS was a US unit that trained US pilots during the Cold War in air combat tactics. The 527th SAS is a US unit that trains pilots in space combat tactics from any country. Semantics, I know, but enough to warrant two seperate articles (in my opinion).
--- reverendlinunx ---
Why post under the 527 Space Aggressor Squadron instead of the correct 527th Space ...? also what about combining the 527 SAS with the 527 TFATS since they are the same sqdn in reality?
[edit] Merge done, & dates
I've done the move, automatically replacing the redirect. Incidentally, dates that include [day month] [year]should always be completely wikified so that user's preferences can take effect. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
