User talk:Nathanm mn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Official USAF unit names

Nathanm mn, If you need to have a reference to the correct way to name a unit, the USAF publishes a Handbook names AFH33-337, The Tounge and Quill. In it on page 326 it specifically explains how to write a number for a unit. They use 2d and 3d in place of 2nd and 3rd, just as you do for a 2d Lt, not a 2nd Lt. This AFH is not always referenced by unit prior to creating a fact sheet that is then posted on the public web. If you have questions please ask. --EagleWSO 21:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are really in the Air Force as your profile claims, you should know how their publication system works. At the top level of the publication hierarchy, Air Force Policy Directives (AFPD) give a broad overview of a functional area, which are detailed by Air Force Instructions (AFI), Air Force Handbooks (AFH), Air Force Manuals (AFM), and Air Force Pamphlets (AFPAM). However, not all publications are authoritative. For instance, while most (if not all) Air Force Instructions are authoritative, Air Force Handbooks and Manuals aren't authoritative unless they state COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY on the front page.

AFH 33-337, The Tongue and Quill, has never been an authoritative Air Force publication. It's merely a guide to help airmen write and communicate better. Besides, it does not specifically explain how to write a number for a unit on page 326. The point it's making is completely orthogonal to your point. It falls under the heading: Capitalize the proper names of colleges, universities, organizations, committees and agencies, but not the common nouns that refer to them. Then there are two notes under that heading, the first one being the one you refer to:

NOTE: When using the abbreviated form of a numbered organization (e.g., ABW versus Air Base Wing), do not use th, st, or d with the number. When writing it out in its entirety (Supply Squadron versus SUPS), add the th, d, or st to the number.

What they're trying to explain is just to use cardinal numbers (1, 2, 3, 4...) instead of ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th...) when abbreviating unit names. Its choices for abbreviations are merely examples, not an imperative statement. I've noticed in the past that some of the examples (particularly memos) in The Tongue and Quill were completely wrong as to formatting, addressing, and other issues. The problem is that it's rarely updated. Many of the examples were just holdovers from previous Air Force policy.

There's another Air Force publication concerning written correspondence that is authoritative, AFMAN 33-326, Preparing Official Communications. Hopefully you noticed the reference to this publication on the title page of The Tongue and Quill. Unfortunately, however, it has no applicable examples.

Another Air Force publication (an authoritative one), AFPD 38-5, Unit Designations, does have applicable examples:

• 2nd Bomb Wing in A1.2.1 (page 3)
• 3rd Wing in A1.2.3.2 (page 4)

Now, I'm not going to claim these examples prove this is the one true method of abbreviating unit names. They're merely examples, like the ones in The Tongue and Quill, even though the actual stated purpose of this publication is about unit names and numbering.

On the AFHRA Research Division website, the only place it uses ordinal numbers is the pull-down menus, which were probably written by the website designer, not an Air Force historian. If you go to the lineage page of an individual unit, they avoid using any ordinal numbers and instead use only cardinal numbers. For example, see the lineage for the 2 Bomb Wing or the 3 Wing [sic].

To see what abbreviation is the official double plus good one for any particular unit, we'd need a copy of the unit's activation orders, but like the AHRA's lineage pages, they may not even list it.

I'm not convinced there even is an official method for abbreviating ordinal numbers in USAF unit names. My research thus far is inconclusive on that point. However, it's clear that your method is not any better than the more common abbreviations, which brings up the Wikipedia policy on naming conventions. It includes this paragraph:

Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

On that note, 2nd is clearly more common than 2d, as well as 3rd more than 3d. In addition, 2d is easily mistaken for 2D (2 dimensional), and 3d for 3D (3 dimensional). If nothing else can resolve the conflict, Wikipedia has a page about naming conflicts, which although it's mainly about using controversial names, may help in this situation.

Cross-posted at EagleWSO's talk page. Nathanm mn 17:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Clarke

Re: this edit. Please look at my edit summaries and at the discussion on the talk page, which I noticed you have not participated in. It is uncivil and inaccurate to call that edit "vandalism." It was clearly explained in talk and in the edit summaries, and a consensus of editors participating in the discussion supported the edits. Please participate in that discussion before starting an edit war over this. Thanks. csloat 06:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit summaries were clearly explained, but deliberately misleading and inaccurate. As to the first edit I reverted, the sentence may have been weird, but it was legitimate criticism from notable sources. Rather than just delete the sentence and its two references, it should have been edited for clarity. Criticism shouldn't be censored because somebody disagrees with it.

How was the second edit I reverted bizarre? It described an error that may seem minor, but has severe implications for the book's credibility. The small details Clarke purportedly remembers lend an air of legitimacy to his account, but falls apart under closer scrutiny. Maybe such minute criticism belongs in the main article for the book, but there should be at least a mention of criticism in the section. And this point isn't yet found in the book's article. Nathanm mn 06:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I responded to you on my talk page. If you have a point to make about these edits please discuss them in the article talk page like everyone else does rather than claiming "vandalism" where it doesn't exist. csloat 19:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)