Talk:28th Bomb Squadron
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Merger with 28th Aero Squadron
editIt has been suggested that this predecessor unit article be merged into this, it's current unit. Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
*Oppose*. The 28th Aero Squadron was written as a child article, with this as it's parent. The 28th Aero Squadron is a significant article in its own right, and is significantly greater in size to this parent article. It would monopolize the information about the current-day unit and diminish the information already written in this article. The 28th Aero Squadron has a significant World War I combat history of its own. Suggest to keep this article split under the two different names that currently exist. The two organizations have been historically linked by the Air Force, in both pages, but keep them separate. Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have expanded the 28th Bomb Squadron article today with history about its time in the Philippines betewen World War I and World War II, and it's singular history during the 1942 Battle of the Philippines. From 1943 onward, there is no real difference between its history and that of its parent 19th Bombardment Group (until 1983). That will address the size issue I was concerned with.Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Support In terms of it being a long article, I don't think it is particularly long in its own right, since the bomb squadron one was on the low end of mid-sized to begin with. In terms of length, I think it isn't too long, and if it gets to that point when you add the Philippines information, it probably won't be extreme in that regard as well. I would really only worry once it started passing 60K, which it is very far from at the moment. Regardless, it is the same unit, and the histories should all be on one place, regardless of weight. I'm sure that down the road, we will find information on their now-current operations, and will be able to add it so that it balances out. I'm actually confused as to why you want to merge these, as a few weeks back you proposed merging SAC and GSC with similar rationale as I am using, but the opposition used the same rationale as you are using now. If you are all for keeping similar heritages in one place, then your earlier arguments are quite valid, and this split makes no sense. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think the SAC/Global Strike Command comparison is apt. In this case, two years (1917-1919) is split off from a 90 plus year history of the unit, while SAC was active for 46 years. A more equivalent comparison would be having a separate article for Continental Air Forces with a hatnote to see Strategic Air Command for everything except the first two years. While I generally support articles about military units being complete and unified, because of the extensive material in this article I remain neutral on the combination. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - the 28th Aero Squadron looks in reasonable shape and suffices as a child to this parent. Merging it into this article would not be constructive. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - same unit, no size worries, let's keep it all in one place. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 28th Bomb Squadron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914090054/http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=11738 to http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=11738
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914090054/http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=11738 to http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=11738
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914090054/http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=11738 to http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=11738
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Edmonds Sourcing
editHello all. I've just been trying to find the appropriate citations in the Walter Edmonds book ('They Fought With What They Had') for some of the facts in this article - namely the story of the ground echelon being turned into infantry and captured in Japan. But for the life of me I can't actually find any reference in Edmonds to any of the events listed, and it's the only cited source (but with no page numbers). Many of the places listed - Alanib, Bosok, etc. - don't actually appear in the book at all.
I have found reference to the fact that the 28th's ground echelon were retasked as infantry here, and to their capture at Alanib here, but that's about it. There's also this personal account from one of the soldiers involved (but would that count as a primary source?)
Basically, half the references to Edmonds aren't actually accurate and need reworking - possibly with a rewrite of that whole section of the article. Thoughts on approach?