Talk:Williamtown RAAF Base Group (heritage listing)

Incorrect capitalisation of "buildings"

@The Drover's Wife: Despite the claim in this move, "buildings" should not be capitalised as "RAAF Base Williamtown Buildings" is not a proper name. It's simply a description of a group of facilities, not all of which are buildings, on RAAF Base Williamtown. The Heritage Register does not even use this term. It lists the "Williamtown RAAF Base Group" and does not even mention "RAAF Base Williamtown Buildings". The source documentation contains a lot of capitalisation and other errors that needed to be fixed.[1] Such errors have been evident in other articles created by copying directly from the source. Here, such errors include use of "RAAF Base" instead of "RAAF base", "Base" instead of "base", "Headquarters" instead of "headquarters" and even "RAAF base Williamtown" instead of "RAAF Base Williamtown". Even the address was wrong. While Nelson Bay Road does pass the base, the base itself is on Medowie Road. The group of "things" covered in this article includes road networks, a grass parade ground, four underground fuel tanks, runways and taxiways, and the hard standing area (a concrete pad) none of which are actual buildings. Clearly "buildings" is being used as a generic term in the description to encompass buildings and other facilities that are not buildings. Given that the article title seems to be the decision of a Wikipedia editor, why is there opposition to moving to a title that complies with the Manual of Style? More importantly, why was the article not created using the name on the register? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I was interrupted by real world events when I was copyediting this article last night and did not get it finished so that's the simple explanation for some of the things you noticed. Things like the addresses being wrong are straight out of the heritage register (and for things that spread over a large area, there are often a number of possible street addresses that can be used and what the heritage register chooses to use can be a bit strange at times). The "Buildings" name is just a placeholder to distinguish it from the main RAAF Base Williamtown article. Sometimes two such articles can be easily combined, sometimes they can't. When in doubt, I create them separately using the Buildings as a temporary name until I've been able to make a better assessment of the new article's content and the merge ease/benefit. If we want to keep the articles separate (and I suspect we might as the readership for the two is likely to be fairly different), we can call this one "Group" or whatever. This heritage place is different for having lots of structures rather than lots of buildings which is the more usual situation I encounter. I am just not sure that the average reader will interpret "Group" as the heritage register does. It think words like "precinct" or "grounds" (which are also used by the heritage register) might be more readily understood by the reader than "group". Kerry (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

No objection here to using "precinct"; "grounds" usually refers to the not-building aspects of a place. Using non-proper name "buildings" is misleading as to what the article is about. The outraged WP:OWN attitude that someone who wasn't AussieLegend edited an article in Newcastle or Port Stephens is getting tiring: these things aren't fixed, names can be changed and content reorganised (with consensus), and many changes are obviously uncontroversial. I'm all for working with anyone who's got ideas about how heritage articles can be improved or wants to usefully rework content, but I don't have much patience for editing or talk page rants that are pure tanty because someone edited within "their" town. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: - At the time I moved the article, and when The Drover's Wife moved it back claiming that "Buildings" was part of a proper name, I hadn't realised that "RAAF Base Williamtown Buildings" wasn't used in the source and that it was just one of the many errors, which is why I mentioned the address, merely to highlight the number of errors in the source. I tend to agree that "Group" is not necessarily the best word to use but it's what the heritage register uses. The guidance at WP:AT and WP:COMMONNAME says we should be the common name but no common name exists because these random items are rarely referred to as an entity. In that case we really should be using the heritage register's name. That said, RAAF bases are referred to as "RAAF Base <name>" so using the register title would be inconsistent. For reasons that will become obvious in the section below, "facilities" is possibly a better option. Unfortunately, "RAAF Base Williamtown heritage listed facilities" is a bit wordy but omitting "heritage listed" makes the article too inclusive.

@The Drover's Wife: - Please comment on content, not the contributor. Remember, I moved this article based on policy while you moved it back based on a falsehood. As for the other articles, they're not really relevant here but I would direct any interested editor to my talk page archives for more information. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

So what we do call it. Another term used in the heritage register is "heritage precinct" or "historic precinct", not as wordy as "heritage listed facilities". Would RAAF Base Williamtown heritage precinct make everyone happy? Kerry (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

A precinct is usually a defined area and everything in it is part of the precinct. However, the items listed are literally scattered over most of the base, surrounded by many more things that are not heritage listed so precinct isn't really a good word. As "facilities" refer to individual items, RAAF Base Williamtown heritage facilities. I wasn't really a fan of just "heritage" over "heritage listed" but I could live with that. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

AussieLegend, you absolutely lost your shit when I titled an article according to the Heritage Register the last time someone was editing in Newcastle and Port Stephens. This time, you're losing your shit because someone didn't. It's pretty obvious that your problem here is not the source of the name for the title, and since these talk page tantrums/aggressive edit summaries making uncontroversial edits, seem to be repeated with different excuses any time anyone uses CC-BY content in Newcastle and Port Stephens, one can only conclude your issue lies somewhere in there. "Heritage facilities" is a ridiculous name, and I'm not okay with using contorted names for articles when either "buildings" or "precinct" would be absolutely uncontroversial anywhere else in the world purely because god forbid someone else edit in your two towns. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This really is not relevant here but, for the record, I did not "lose my shit" then, nor have I now. You did that when I deleted some redlinks that you had created. Let's stick to the facts here. You did not title the article according to the Heritage Register. The Heritage Register lists Tomago House & Tomago Chapel while your article was titled Tomago House and Chapel. The Heritage Register lists two items separately while your article listed them as one. Back to the topic. As I said, the items are listed as facilities on the base's official register so that makes sense. Many of the items are not buildings so that is inappropriate, as is precinct because there is no actual precinct defined. There are just a lot of often unrelated facilities in a general area, all of which happen to be on RAAF Base Williamtown. Within the "precinct" are places like a water tower, the post office, other roads, the base security building, Fighterworld and so on, none of which are heritage listed. Some of the facilities in the area, including a multi-storey building are not even complete. Calling it a heritage precinct just doesn't make sense because the vast majority of the area is not heritage listed. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Building numbers

The article is full of building numbers. I am guessing that when this heritage entry was created, it was accompanied by some kind of map which used these numbers. But the entry as it exists on-line does not include a map. Nor does a search of the web produce a map for the site which individual numbering of buildings etc. So I think the numbers are of no use to our readers without a map. So I will remove them (many of them were confused as being citations so they had to be cleaned up anyway. Kerry (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Each RAAF base maintains a register of base facilities (the term used to refer to all permanent infrastructure) and all of these would be listed in the "RAAF Base Williamtown Facilities Register" with a numerical reference. For example, the pumping station that is referred to would be building 186 and would be physically identified by a white tinplate sign with black numbering. The married quarters would not be identified this way but would still be listed. "M23-M33" would refer to 11 of the married quarters. The inclusion of the married quarters is rather confusing as they were all demolished many years ago with families moved into surrounding suburbs. I'm not even sure that the Officer Commanding still lives on base. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, the heritage entry dates back to 2004 and if they mention only M23-M33, then could it be those buildings are still in existence (albeit not used for married quarters any more) and the other M-numbered buildings were demolished? This 2002 report discusses redevelopment of the base. It says that the aircraft noise levels were too high for housing on the base (suggesting nobody was living there at that time) and that if they were to house new trainees there, they would have to build new accommodation that could cope with the noise and could not reuse the existing accommodation. It may be that the decision to heritage-list the base (probably triggered by talk of redevelopment, which I assume would not have thrilled the RAAF as it would constrain their redevelopment) might have led to some negotiation in which some of the older buildings would remain and be heritage-listed but the other essentially similar buildings could be removed. I have seen similar negotiations over old army bases here in Queensland. If we could find a source that definitively said nobody lived there permanently any more, we could add that to the article to make it clear that although there were accommodation buildings there, they were no longer used for that purpose. Kerry (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

For some reason that pdf is not opening for me but the married quarters were all demolished before 2000 when I worked on the base. (I spent well over 13 years of my RAAF career working there) The married patch is just inside the fenceline and it's very visible from the road. Until the recent JSF redevelopment works started, it was empty. The houses used to be on the other side of these trees. It's not a good view from the top of the Google Street View car's camera mast. In a normal vehicle it's virtually an unobstructed view all the way through the area. The demolition occurred after the Defence Housing Authority took over from internal RAAF ownership and management of housing. --AussieLegend (✉)

article title

@C: We never finished the discussion on the article title. What about RAAF Base Williamtown heritage structures? Kerry (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem is they're not all structures. The old parade ground, for example, is just a field of grass.[2] That's why the RAAF refers to them as facilities in the RAAF Base Williamtown Facilities Register, as explained above. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there any more discussion regarding this? --AussieLegend (✉) 19:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Current title is fine and lengthy attempts to find an alternative consensus failed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, @AussieLegend: I didn't notice your reply on 20 October. How about RAAF Base Williamtown heritage facilities then? 23:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It's an unnecessarily awkward title without much going for it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond and The Drover's Wife: The current title is not fine because, as has been pointed out several times now, many of the facilities listed are not buildings, so that's completely wrong. It's also vague as there are a lot of buildings at Williamtown and only a small proportion are heritage listed. GTESPO, for example, is a building but it's not heritage listed. I fully support Kerry's latest suggestion of RAAF Base Williamtown heritage facilities. This is the most logical title as facilities is a well established term. The title clearly identifies that the article is about heritage listed facilities not just any old building and not just buildings. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The current title serves the main purpose of distinguishing the article content from the base itself and of reasonably describing the vast majority of what is referred to. "Heritage facilities" is awkward bureaucratese - so much so it's not used for any other article on Wikipedia (and not all that regularly used outside of it either). You've rejected several other less awkward suggestions, so unless you've got a better idea it seems we're at an impasse. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The title should properly describe all of what is referred to, not just some of it, which is why "facilities" should be used rather than buildings. "Heritage" is necessary to differentiate between heritage and non-heritage facilities. Other suggestions have been fundamentally flawed. Kerry's latest suggestion is not. It's entirely accurate. Facilities is a common term so it's quite appropriate and note that consensus doesn't mean unanimous. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

And we have several alternatives that also have 2-1 support, they're just the alternatives in which you're the 1. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

To date the following names have been specifically suggested:

• RAAF Base Williamtown Buildings - Many of the facilities listed are not buildings, "buildings" should not be capitalised because it's not a proper name.
• RAAF Base Williamtown heritage precinct - Not a precinct, just a group of facilities spread around the base
• RAAF Base Williamtown heritage structures - Many of the facilities listed are not structures. e.g. the parade ground
• RAAF Base Williamtown heritage facilities (latest suggestion)

That's hardly several and, as can be seen in the summaries, each of the 3 has issues. However, at least Kerry made some suggestions. You haven't supported either the second, third or fourth. In fact you've specifically opposed them. The only one you support is the current name, which is clearly inappropriate. Kerry's latest suggestion is not flawed. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"Heritage precinct" is workable - it's clear and covers the topic. Most heritage precincts have non-heritage-listed buildings and structures within their remit. I could go with "heritage structures" if we're getting pedantic, as something that covers even more of the subject than "buildings". "Heritage facilities" is by far the worst of the lot for reasons described above. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a RAAF Base Williamtown precinct though. That's an OR suggestion because it simply does not exist. The things listed on the register are all over the base and not in one defined area as most heritage precincts are. Again, structures is no good either because a lot of the facilities listed are not structures. You support "heritage structures" but not "heritage facilities" so it seems your opposition is with "facilities" but that makes no sense because "facilities" describes everything on the list and is the proper name. The married quarters are facilities, the roads are facilites, the parade ground is a facility and so on. There's nothing on the list that isn't a facility so that is the most logical descriptor. I really don't understand your opposition to using the correct word. Perhaps it's just a term with which you aren't familiar? It is a commonly used term. For example --AussieLegend (✉) 07:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"Precinct" works fine - it's a bunch of heritage buildings in a defined area (the base), which is what that usually refers to. "Heritage facilities" isn't logical - it's bureaucratese and it's unclear - unless you're familiar with the internal RAAF usage, "heritage facilities" is meaningless and confusing, and could mean multiple things in different contexts. There's a reason it's an extremely rarely used term (and not at all on Wikipedia). The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

A precinct isn't simply "a bunch of heritage buildings in a defined area", and do I need to remind you again that many of the facilities are not buildings at all. As the article precinct says, it's a space defined by a line that may or may not be imaginary, and that's the problem here. Generally, a heritage precinct contains a large number of heritage buildings in the immediate area. That's not the case at Williamtown. It's original research to define something on Wikipedia that doesn't exist anywhere. As I've already said there is no RAAF Base Williamtown precinct, heritage or otherwise, mentioned in reliable sources. It's certainly not a term I've ever heard in the past 58 years. The only precinct is a proposed "defence precinct" near the base.

unless you're familiar with the internal RAAF usage - Absolute rubbish. Heritage is a common term and "facilities" wasn't invented by the RAAF. It's a common use word that the RAAF simply uses. Facilities are generally managed by a "Facilities Manager". You can see plenty of civilian jobs available for that position online.[3] Based on your response it appears that you are very unfamiliar with the term. I suggest you research its use. There are actually Wikipedia articles on it like Facility, Facility management etc. You really need to know what you're talking about. You can't simply make up stuff. You should know that the heritage register actually does identify certain places as precincts when appropriate, such as the Ingleburn Military Heritage Precinct and Mont St Quentin Oval.[4] It does not define Williamtown as a precinct, just a group, and there's a good reason for this. It's simply a group of random facilities scattered about the base, not a precinct at all. You're the only one who thinks that it is. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you having fun shooting down arguments I didn't make? "Heritage facilities" is meaningless bureaucratese - while the word "facilities" obviously has a definition, that phrase could refer to multiple things in multiple contexts and it's very unclear what it's meant to refer to (what facilities?). It could just as easily refer to some kind of heritage interpretative capacity rather than physical sites. I'm clearly not the only one who is fine with using "precinct", because I'm not the one who suggested it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not "meaningless bureaucratese" at all. It is, as I said, a common use and completely fits the situation here.

that phrase could refer to multiple things - In fact it does since there are multiple, different types of things listed in the RAAF Base Williamtown Group.

(what facilities?) - Quite obviously, all of the facities (note the wikilink) listed in the heritage register that are located on RAAF Base Williamtown.

It could just as easily refer to some kind of heritage interpretative capacity rather than physical sites. - No it can't since the register does not list any such thing. As I said, you can't just make stuff up. The article clearly is only about what is listed in the heritage register. I feel that you're clutching at straws here.

Furthermore if you define the "precinct" as a defined area (the base), that's redundant at best. The "RAAF Base Williamtown heritage precinct" is then just RAAF Base Williamtown because it is the same place. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not remotely a common use: the phrase "heritage facilities" does not appear in Wikipedia and only rarely in Google. Since you're deliberately trying to misinterpret me, let me be explicitly clear: it has multiple meanings. It is not at all clear from your proposed title what that actually refers to. Saying that "it can't because the register says no such thing" doesn't make sense because it isn't even clear from your title that it refers to physical sites - if you have to read the article to determine what it's supposed to be about because the title is unhelpful, that is a poor outcome. The "RAAF Base Williamtown heritage precinct" is just RAAF Base Williamtown, except it's impractical to discuss the heritage aspects of it in the main article so it needs a separate one, so it isn't redundant. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that "heritage facilities" is common use. I said that both words were common use, or more specifically that "facilities" is in common use. I did suggest RAAF Base Williamtown heritage listed facilities which is completely correct.

Saying that "it can't because the register says no such thing" doesn't make sense because it isn't even clear from your title that it refers to physical sites - By comparison "Buildings" doesn't make sense because it isn't even clear from that title that it refers to facilities other than buildings, or for that matter that general buildings on the base like the new guard hut at the new entrance aren't included. And, of course, there's the obvious capitalisation issue. And again, "precinct" is original research. I'm sure Kerry would be surprised by the extent of this discussion. It would be nice to hear from him on the matter. I've agreed to his suggestion of RAAF Base Williamtown heritage facilities so what is his current thinking? --AussieLegend (✉) 07:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

So, you've agreed that you're insisting on using a term that is not in common use, which makes it all the more bewildering that you're so determined that it must be that and only that. It does not serve our readers to pointlessly use vague and confusing descriptors when there are alternatives available. "Precinct" is not remotely OR: it is a collection of heritage-listed sites within a defined area, therefore meets the same definition as every other heritage precinct in the world. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Since you're deliberately trying to misinterpret me - Those are exceptionally hyprocritical words when you then have the audacity to say So, you've agreed that you're insisting on using a term that is not in common use. I have NOT said that at all. I said we should use a title that accurately describes the topic, which is undoubtedly heritage listed facilities on RAAF Base Williamtown, or do you disagree that's the case? "Precinct" is most definitely OR. There are no reliable sources that state the facilities are grouped within a precinct called "RAAF Base Williamtown heritage precinct". As I've already pointed out the heritage register identifies precincts while it merely calls the WLM facilities a "group". That you claim precinct is "a collection of heritage-listed sites within a defined area", which appears to be your own definition that does not match what precinct says, is really WP:SYNTH. There are no reliable sources that say explicitly say that the random collection of facilities are a precinct. It's clearly a bad term to use. Please, give Kerry the opportunity to comment. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You said, and I quote, "nobody is saying that 'heritage facilities' is in common use". You are insisting that we use that and only that wording. You've said it's uncommon, and it's uncommon because it's unclear: just like "banking facilities" doesn't obviously refer to physical structures (and related physical empty spaces), "heritage facilities" doesn't either. It's not used in relation to Williamtown and barely anywhere else. The precinct article doesn't refer to Commonwealth usage of the word at all, so that's a bit of a moot attempt at an argument. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You are insisting that we use that and only that wording. - No, not at all and I don't understand why you continue to state the opposite. I am simply saying that we should use a title that accurately describes the subject. "Buildings" (especially capitalised) does not and "precinct" is OR. You haven't provided any better alternatives. I've linked to Facility six times now. That says "An installation, contrivance, or other things which facilitates something; a place for doing something:". As if that isn't clear enough, all of the examples used are physical sites, which should satisfy your requirements. As I've also pointed out, these are heritage listed, not general facilities so that needs to be in the title. It's a descriptor, as is facilities. What is a better option? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)<ref>

You are literally insisting on using only this wording. I'm all ears if you've got any other suggestions, I've objected strongly to one for reasons stated at length above, but inevitably you just fall back on vehemently demanding that we use your one wording. The definition you cited again makes the problem with your wording clear: "an installation, contrivance, or other things which facilitate something" can refer to a whole bunch of things that are not what you're proposing it refer to, making its use here vague and confusing. Again, all ears if you've got a better idea. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere have I literally insisted that we only use this wording and I would really appreciate it if you'd stop with this absolute bullshit. I'm sorry, but there is no other way that I can see to describe what you're saying when you keep saying it despite all evidence to the contrary. It is certainly one of my preferred options but if there is a better one then I will support that.

"an installation, contrivance, or other things which facilitate something" can refer to a whole bunch of things that are not what you're proposing - For example? The article clearly uses only physical sites as examples.

all ears if you've got a better idea. - Instead of just listening, perhaps you can answer the question that I specifically asked in my last post, i.e. What is a better option? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Several other suggestions have been made, all of which would be preferable to your preferred wording in my book, and I'm open to hearing any others - but personally I'm out of ideas that you won't veto. As for "heritage facilities" being vague: you're just arguing against common English language usage at this point: "an installation, contrivance, or other things which facilitate something" clearly does not just refer to physical sites, and I've already given "banking facilities" as an obvious example of this playing out in practice. Every other proposal makes clear what at least the overwhelming part of the article refers to - only that proposal requires readers to read the article text to have any idea what it's about. The Drover's Wife (talk)

I listed the suggestions that had been made above,[5] one of which was RAAF Base Williamtown heritage structures. Given that you've said all of which would be preferable to your preferred wording (your words, not mine) please explain why "heritage structures" is better than "heritage facilities" given that many of the items listed are not structures, as has already been discussed. Also, why is use of "heritage" appropriate before "structures"? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"Structures" describes the overwhelming amount of items being referred to: I don't think it is terribly relevant to our readers that the parade ground, tennis court and runway aren't structures, considering the amount of structures included in this listing. I've discussed the problems with "heritage facilities" at length, I don't think it's helpful to repeat them for a fifteenth time. I don't have a strong opinion on including the word heritage: we've historically seen it as superfluous to these kinds of articles, but I'm not going to argue if someone is insistent about it. Another that I'd be happy with, in a pinch, would be RAAF Base Williamtown Group; though as Kerry noted it could be confusing, using the official designation is less vague than "heritage facilities". The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"Structures" limits the scope of the article. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA says that the title unambiguously identifies the article's subject. By specifically using "structures" in the title you are unambiguously limiting the article to just structures and not non-structures like the parade ground, tennis courts, runway, sewers, taxiways etc. One could argue that this would also exclude the married quarters as they no longer exist. This is exactly the same as any other article and is the problem that exists with "buildings". I agree with Kerry that "group" would be confusing. I expect that word was chosen because they couldn't think of anything else. It's a vague term at best. What exactly is a group of RAAF Base Williamtown? If you look at RAAF Base Williamtown#Units it becomes more confusing because there is listed the Combat Support, Air Combat, Surveillance and Response, and Capability Acquisition and Sustainment groups. And no, they're not physical sites. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of adding to a debate it seems as equally as time diverting as place names may I suggest: In line with the recognised official name, there is I believe widely accepted precedent for accepting primary source preference for naming its article, it should be Williamtown RAAF Base Group as odd, I agree, as group is, but it is the official register name for the heritage listing, but with redirects from each of structures, facilities, and buildings, each and all of which are much more likely to be used by people looking for such. This will achieve two things in line with wikigoals, content will comply with references, and readers can easily find material they are looking for. Aoziwe (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The name used in the register is certainly in the running but even it falls afoul of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA in that "group" is ambiguous without context. I certainly know what it means but what is a "Surveillance and Response Group" (don't look at the article.;) ) as mentioned at RAAF Base Williamtown? I really think there has to be a better option. At this point, even "Things at RAAF Base Williamtown that are listed on the NSW heritage register" seems an improvement. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I got here late, after reading the invitation at WP:AWNB#RAAF Base Williamtown Buildings. My thoughts:

• There is no reason that the last word of the article title should be capitalised
• "RAAF Base Williamtown Buildings" sounds like it is about all of the buildings, heritage listed or brand new mass-produced, and anything in between.
• "RAAF Base Williamtown Group" sounds like an oblique reference to Air Combat Group RAAF by someone who can't remember the precise title.
• The best term I can think of that accurately describes a distributed set of things that include a few scattered buildings, some roads, runways and a grassed parade ground is "facilities". "Constructions" is a clumsy term I would accept as every one of the items would have been "constructed" at some time in the past (yes, even a lawn can be constructed).

Actually, now that I have read most of the article, how about History of RAAF Base Williamtown? That seems to fit the actual content. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Ironically, I was looking at the article a few days ago and felt that the history section should really be removed and added to RAAF Base Williamtown. The history section of that article is somewhat lacking. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

History of RAAF Base Williamtown works for me as well. I should have thought of it earlier - it's another option we've used before with these kinds of articles where's there's an institution and a need for a separate heritage topic. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The history section of the base article is four paragraphs, three of which are about aircraft and only the first one about infrastructure. There's more about aircraft threaded through this article as catalysts for infrastructure changes, not standing on its own. This article could be linked by {{main}} or {{further}}, and the Base article might not need much other change as it is primarily about the Base today. Its history section seems to be about the same size as the history sections of other RAAF bases. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of that but while the history section seems comparable to other bases, that just means the other bases could do with some expansion of the history sections. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• See this raise AWNB - why are you arguing at all, the whole article is sourced from one reference there its called Williamtown RAAF Base Group since the primary source & only source used is that then thats the name is should be at, especially as its how its referred to in the Australian Heritage Database. If you think its needs a BAD to distinguish it from the operational Base then add (Heritage Listing). Gnangarra 07:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

It's now been 7 months since this was started. Does anyone have any objections to Gnangarra's suggestion of Williamtown RAAF Base Group (heritage listing)? --AussieLegend (✉) 02:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine with me. Kerry (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Obviously fine by me. Aoziwe (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Moved. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)