Talk:3rd Special Operations Squadron

Opening heading

If you have doubts about the official name please reference 3d SOS at AFHRA. EagleWSO 21:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

An updated official reference is here (the main page ref), where the unit is officially designated as '3 Special Operations Squadron' and the unit crest has '3rd Special Operations Squadron'. Loopy30 (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3d Special Operations 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/20131020075647/http://www.cannon.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=12751 to http://www.cannon.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=12751

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) 20:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Title

This article should be moved to 3rd Special Operations Squadron. That is what it is known as, what the patches denote, and consistent with other articles. There have been discussions concerning "rd versus d" (see: Talk:2nd Bomb Wing#"2nd" vs. "2d"). -- Otr500 (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

---

3d Special Operations Squadron → 3rd Special Operations Squadron –  per MOS:1ST - wolf 04:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC) This is a contested technical request not really contested as such - in the original request the source and target were the same (permalink). Dr. Vogel (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you mean to change a "3d" to a "3rd"? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Or "Third"? Pending consultation of sources, I would suggest "Third". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

US military units are Arabic-numbered in their ordinals, generally. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I've had a look into this, and I've found:

• all the other squadrons are numbered 1st, 2nd, 17th, etc. This one is the odd one out out of all the squadrons, so the article should probably be named "3rd" to be consistent with all the others
• we probably shouldn't process this as an uncontroversial request, because it's been moved between these 2 names, as well as others, multiple times

So, if you agree, I think we should open an RM and propose turning the "3d" into a "3rd".

Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I suppose that would be the conservative course. Personally, I think it's a good suggestion. The emblem has "3rd". Note that there is also some discussion of this on the article talk page and at Talk:2nd Bomb Wing#"2nd" vs. "2d". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support move - this should've been done awhile ago, to be line with every other article that uses ordinals (eg: US military units) as per MOS:1ST. The specific example used in the guideline is use "2nd Battalion not 2d Battalion". - wolf 10:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per my prior comments above. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.