Template talk:Aerospace Defense Command

__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Dincher-2010-05-22T16:28:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Benton_Air_Force_Station-2010-05-22T16:28:00.000Z","replies":["c-Dincher-2010-05-22T16:28:00.000Z-Benton_Air_Force_Station"],"text":"Benton Air Force Station","linkableTitle":"Benton Air Force Station"}-->

Benton Air Force Station

__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Dincher-2010-05-22T16:28:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Benton_Air_Force_Station-2010-05-22T16:28:00.000Z","replies":["c-Dincher-2010-05-22T16:28:00.000Z-Benton_Air_Force_Station"]}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Dincher-2010-05-22T16:28:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Benton_Air_Force_Station-2010-05-22T16:28:00.000Z","replies":["c-Dincher-2010-05-22T16:28:00.000Z-Benton_Air_Force_Station"],"text":"Benton Air Force Station","linkableTitle":"Benton Air Force Station"}-->

I recently created Benton Air Force Station. It was a radar facility. I really don't know anything about this sort of thing and was wondering if BAFS belongs on this template. I am going to be bold and add it, but won't be offended if it's removed. An explanation for it's removal would be helpful. Dincher (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-22T16:28:00.000Z","author":"Dincher","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dincher-2010-05-22T16:28:00.000Z-Benton_Air_Force_Station","replies":["c-Dincher-2010-05-30T18:44:00.000Z-Dincher-2010-05-22T16:28:00.000Z"]}}-->

I am assuming that it's fine to be included since it's been over a week since I asked. Dincher (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2010-05-30T18:44:00.000Z","author":"Dincher","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Dincher-2010-05-30T18:44:00.000Z-Dincher-2010-05-22T16:28:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Lineagegeek-2012-05-26T20:22:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Aircraft_Control_&_Warning_Groups-2012-05-26T20:22:00.000Z","replies":["c-Lineagegeek-2012-05-26T20:22:00.000Z-Aircraft_Control_&_Warning_Groups"],"text":"Aircraft Control & Warning Groups","linkableTitle":"Aircraft Control & Warning Groups"}-->

Aircraft Control & Warning Groups

__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Lineagegeek-2012-05-26T20:22:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Aircraft_Control_&_Warning_Groups-2012-05-26T20:22:00.000Z","replies":["c-Lineagegeek-2012-05-26T20:22:00.000Z-Aircraft_Control_&_Warning_Groups"]}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Lineagegeek-2012-05-26T20:22:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Aircraft_Control_&_Warning_Groups-2012-05-26T20:22:00.000Z","replies":["c-Lineagegeek-2012-05-26T20:22:00.000Z-Aircraft_Control_&_Warning_Groups"],"text":"Aircraft Control & Warning Groups","linkableTitle":"Aircraft Control & Warning Groups"}-->

The unit listing for groups does not include AC&W Gps. Some that were asssigned to ADC before 6 Feb 1952 have articles. Should they not be listed? There is some numerical overlap with Air Defense Groups, so it seems a separate sublist should be appropriate. Lineagegeek (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-05-26T20:22:00.000Z","author":"Lineagegeek","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lineagegeek-2012-05-26T20:22:00.000Z-Aircraft_Control_&_Warning_Groups","replies":["c-Lineagegeek-2012-06-17T19:46:00.000Z-Lineagegeek-2012-05-26T20:22:00.000Z"]}}-->

With no adverse comment, I have added the groups. I Wikilinked the 563d-566th groups, but since these were Reserve Corrolary units active for a brief time, I doubt they will ever have an article of their own.--Lineagegeek (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-06-17T19:46:00.000Z","author":"Lineagegeek","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Lineagegeek-2012-06-17T19:46:00.000Z-Lineagegeek-2012-05-26T20:22:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONDESKTOP__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Lineagegeek-2012-06-02T20:03:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Wings-2012-06-02T20:03:00.000Z","replies":["c-Lineagegeek-2012-06-02T20:03:00.000Z-Wings"],"text":"Wings","linkableTitle":"Wings"}-->

Wings

__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Lineagegeek-2012-06-02T20:03:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Wings-2012-06-02T20:03:00.000Z","replies":["c-Lineagegeek-2012-06-02T20:03:00.000Z-Wings"]}}-->
__DTSUBSCRIBEBUTTONMOBILE__{"headingLevel":2,"name":"h-Lineagegeek-2012-06-02T20:03:00.000Z","type":"heading","level":0,"id":"h-Wings-2012-06-02T20:03:00.000Z","replies":["c-Lineagegeek-2012-06-02T20:03:00.000Z-Wings"],"text":"Wings","linkableTitle":"Wings"}-->

The current list groups all wings together. Would it be clearer to divide them as Fighter, Air Defense, and Detection and Control (for the 71st, 73d, 551st, and 552d)?--Lineagegeek (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-06-02T20:03:00.000Z","author":"Lineagegeek","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lineagegeek-2012-06-02T20:03:00.000Z-Wings","replies":["c-Lineagegeek-2012-06-17T19:32:00.000Z-Lineagegeek-2012-06-02T20:03:00.000Z"]}}-->

With no adverse comment, Done. Might use a stronger dividing line between the wings and groups, though if anyone has more formatting experience than I do.--Lineagegeek (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-06-17T19:32:00.000Z","author":"Lineagegeek","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Lineagegeek-2012-06-17T19:32:00.000Z-Lineagegeek-2012-06-02T20:03:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->