Talk:2d Bomb Wing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2d Bomb Wing article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] "2nd" vs. "2d"

Is it typical to truncate "2nd" to "2d" in military use? Sure, the Barksdale site does it, but practically everywhere else does not. --AlexWCovington (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is usually customary in the USAF to write 2d as 2nd. Not sure why all the -2nds are identified the way they are here. ELH50 09:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the official Barksdale website lists it as 2nd, not 2d. There's been at least one user renaming articles from 2nd→2d and 3rd→3d, although that's not what the official unit designations say. See here for more info. Nathanm mn 21:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The official Barksdale website uses both on just about every page. http://www.barksdale.af.mil/units/ says "the 2nd Bomb Wing participated in" and then right below it is "Read the 2d Bomb Wing's mission statement here." Recent news articles such as [1] and [2] use 2d. This one uses it for the squadron level: 2d Logistics Readiness Squadron. --Pmsyyz 02:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point, it is used rather inconsistently. There's more discussion on the talk page of the person who's been systematically changing article names from 2nd→2d and 3rd→3d. I don't think it's helpful in any way, and my own research has been inconclusive. But it's clear that in general usage, 2nd is the most common ordinal form of the number 2. Nathanm mn 18:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Senior Surprise" encyclopedic?

The section about Senior Surprise violates at least 2 Wikipedia policies. Information "provided directly to a wikipedia editor" is original research by anyone's definition, and not verifiable. Besides, does a detailed sortie list by tail number and crew name belong in an encyclopedia? Neither the Doolittle Raid nor the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki list every individual crew member, and they're surely more significant historical events than Senior Surprise. Nathanm mn 06:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the article's gotten even worse (less encyclopedic) since I posted the above. The dates of every little transition and the list of every assignment and commander is extraneous. Why copy the entire lineage page from the Air Force Historical Research Agency? It's already linked from the article, there's no need for so much duplication. It makes the article look rather sophomoric. Nathanm mn 18:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)