Template talk:Aerospace Defense Command

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation This template is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation Military history: Aviation / North America / United States This template 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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]