Template talk:United States Air Force

Civil Air Patrol

It seems not all of us agree about the inclusion of the CAP. my argument is that being an auxilliary of the USAF, and thier strong association with the uniformed service, it merits inclusion somewhere. While it may not be a command of the Air Force, we could include is somewhere else. I had placed it under that section administratively because, well, I didn't know where else it fits. bahamut0013♠♣ 12:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree that it's association is significant in any command or administration, I have placed CAP in it's own Civilian Catergory. Neovu79 (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Air Force Blues

The link to the comic strip wiki page is not appropriate. It is a comercial enterprise seeking private donations. 173.5.175.130 (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not a reason not to include the article in this navbox. The comic is surely relevant to the culture of the United States Air Force. Simply not being an official history or tradition doesn't mean Wikipedia should remove it. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with its removal. There are probably many other non-official publications that could be listed, so why only this one? Air Force Times is a commercial enterprise, why isn't it here? - BilCat (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, The section of the template is titled "History and traditions". It's for WP articles that are about the history and traditions of the USAF. Air Force Blues is about a web comic; it does not tell the history, or decribe the traditions, of the USAF, hence it's inappropriate. The comic itself covers (parodies) USAF traditions, but the article isn't about those traditions. I doubt the comic has been around long enough to be a historical tradition, but if it is, it'll need a reliable source that says that. - BilCat (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you chose to revert it even after it was obvious that there was a conflict, and now 3RR comes into play; how very inconsiderate of you. But after the last altercation, I'm not particularly suprised. Your snide edit summary implies that you either don't care about avoiding an edit war or you are simply convinced that you cannot be wrong. Either way: bad juju. However, unlike last time, I'm not hobled by a lack of time to edit, and I will not be browbeaten by the gaming tactics you used before. I'm a reasonable man, but I don't take kindly to being told that it's your way or the highway; so I suggest you attempt to reach a conclusion with me instead of escalating a disagreement.

If you want to add Air Force Times, go right ahead. Simply because it's not there now doesn't mean it shouldn't be. But simply because it's a commercial enterprise doesn't mean it's not significant to the service in question. The navbox is simply an aid in navigation, and since all four of the Military Times newspapers are prettymuch the premier source of third-party news (and second in sources only to the published media of the military itself), I couldn't see any reason why the Air Force Times wasn't already listed.

Nothing about Wikipedia's coverage of anything is "official", and that shouldn't limit the navbox to articles about "official" things. For example, this incident has no name, but we gave an unofficial one to the article so that it had a title. Or the unofficial name of this little gem.

To your last point: sure, it's not an integral part of Air Force hitory or tradition, but that again doesn't preclude its inclusion. It would be worth taking off is there was an article such as Culture of the United States Air Force, but alas, no such page exists. I haven't the time or the resources to write it, and I'd bet that you're not going to write it in the immediate future, either, though such would be a pleasant suprise. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honenst, I don't like being told what to do anymore than you do, which Is why I blew my 2nd revert with that snide remark, after telling myself I wasn't going to revert you. And if you don't want to escalate a disagreement, there rest of what you wrote isn't the way to achive that. - BilCat (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand my position. So what do you think about the points I brought up? I'd like to resolve this in a more cooperative manner than we have in the past. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with BilCat on this, there is no way that this web cartoon is important enough to the history of the USAF to appear in the Navbox, any more than the (far more influential) Bill Mauldin should be at {{US Army navbox}}. The problem isn't so much that it is unofficial, as that it simply isn't important enough. Please find a more appropriate place to link this from - if Culture of the United States Air Force doesn't exist, why don't you create it?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with Jackyd. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Having not served in any military, I probably don't have the background to do a culture of USAF article without a lot of research, and I don't have the time or perseverance (health) for that kind of task at this time. However, I'll be happy to help out anyone who wishes to start one with the mundane editing tasks of preparing an article to go live. One option might be to create a list article of the articles that deal with the USAF culture, and include the webcomic, the AFA Magaize, AF Times, and others. A single link to this type of list could probably be added to the AF navbox without much fuss. - BilCat (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Dont think the Air Force Blues is that important to add to this navbox and certainly does not appear to be related to History and traditions. Just a fictional website/story not any more notable then loads of other fictional stories about the air force. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto what was already said, Air Force Blues isn't important enough to be put with all the other articles in this template. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Gonna concur with the vast majority here. It doesn't need to be put in the AF nav box. It isn't history and it isn't a "tradition". — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Generally agree with the positions above. It doesn't really fit in a navbox about the structure of the Air Force and isn't really a history or tradition. I agree with Jackyd and BilCat's ideas for a cultural article though, but it might be an idea to increase it's scope to other arms of service or even other countries. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The scope probably depends on how long such an article turns out to be, and if some sections of a commbined article would be so large that they need to be covered separately. THe UK section would be quite large, as it would have to explain how every American military tradition originated in the UK, or is a mis-application of a correct UK tradition, and that all UK military traditions are superior to US military traditions simply because they are UK traditions. ;) - BilCat (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Let's not make up things...after all, if the Brits hadn't screwed up the military traditions that originated in France, Rome, and Greece, the Americans wouldn't have to fix them. ;-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I wish I was making it up! ANd the Brits did make a big mistake not givng us taxation with representation - Our Congress had proven that it can be very successful - for them! - 19:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Naaw.. wish we would have had things like this when I was on active duty though Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that consensus is against me. I shall relent then. bahamut0013^words_deeds 23:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bahamut, let me be the first to commend you for a discussion well-thought out. Even though consensus went against you, you stuck to your guns and attempted to convince us otherwise. Lastly, excellent job recognizing when consensus wasn't in the cards (yet?) and graciously accepting consensus against what you wished. If more discussions were like this (civil and leading to a conclusion between reasonable people), WP would be a much better place! Once again, thanks! — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Canvass? As full disclosure I posted at MILHIST and WPAIR, the primary projects that this article would fall under, and thus genreally allowed. I know were suposed to state that on AFDs, but I didn't think it apllied to run-of-the-mill discussions. I did notify BQZip, a serving officer in the USAF last I knew, of the discussion, but he's the only person I personally contacted. Most of the others here are editors I've never encountered before. - BilCat (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I also see no canvassing here. Yes, BilCat talked to me and asked for my opinion, but I'm a fan of this comic strip and I've met the author (my favorite strip...the bottom one where Leia promises to wear "the outfit from Jabba-the-Hut's palace"). Seems like a nice guy and I find the strips to be a riot (I even posted a couple dozen printouts in our breakroom). I just don't see how they fit into this info box. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove the flags

We should remove the flags as per WP:ICONDECORATION, at 20px they are tiny blurs of flags that most people have never seen before Gnevin (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that the issue also pertains to the other four navboxes: {{US Army navbox‎}}, {{US Marine Corps navbox‎}}, {{US Navy navbox}}, and {{US Coast Guard navbox}}. I'd like to centralize the discussion here.

Personally, I'm not as adament on the flags as I am the seals. The seals are not mere icons or decorations, but the official summary image for each respective branch of service. The flags I could go either way on, but I'd prefer to include them as further distinguishing marks for each branch on thier respective navboxen. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the seals go, I don't think anyone is. The flags are tiny blurs and should be moved into the infoboxes below the seals or just removed .Gnevin (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a good compromise. There is plenty of vertical space in that part of the navbox. If Bill is OK with it, I'll execute this. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - BilCat (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's done. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Training Section

There are many more training courses that Airmen attend that could be added to the training section of this navbox (ALS, NCOA, SNCOA, ASBC, SOS, ACSC, AWC, Chief School, General School, etc). What's the best way to add them? We could list them all, add a link to the Professional military education in the United States Air Force article, or have the navbox link to a list of Air Force Training. What are some other ideas/opinions? Fightin' Phillie 16:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightin' Phillie (talk • contribs)

CAP

CAP should be moved into the command section as it is now considered to be part of the total force (http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2016/June%202016/June%2029%202016/ACC-Assumes-Authority-for-CAP.aspx) by the USAF. Does anyone disagree with this proposed move?Garuda28 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Propose rename

Propose rename to Template:United States Air Force. This would allign it with the full name of the service, along with the same title as the main page. Garuda28 (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Given no response I am going ahead with the rename. Garuda28 (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: template moved as requested, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Template:US Air Force navbox → Template:United States Air Force (corrected) – To unify the name with the main page United States Air Force, as well as unifying the name with the organization. I received no response when prompting the discussion a few days ago on the template's talk page, and I believe such a move would be uncontroversial. Garuda28 (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Garuda28 and AlexTheWhovian: Do you mean Template:United States Air Force for its rename? -- Alex^TW 20:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

That is correct. I apologize, I shouldn’t have made that mistake. Garuda28 (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - seems a reasonable idea. MilborneOne (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.