Talk:330th Bombardment Group (VH)

Copyright Info

Zureks (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with table please

How do I place all of my aircraft serial numbers into a table: 17 Columns wide by 70 Rows?--B29bomber (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow - you have a ton of info on this subject! My thinking is that table might be too detailed for Wikipedia or at least for this article at this time. I don't think that's policy, but rather more of a custom. For help creating tables, see Help:Table or you could look at a page like this to copy the code, replace the elements, number of rows, columns etc.

I think a better approach is instead of heading into the details first, let's focus on the macro level and improve this article overall. When that's in shape, lets start adding details in sections. Just my €0.02 worth. Happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Help:Table is the page you are looking for. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that would be better listed in a separate article List of aircraft in the 330th Bombardment Group rather than the main article, along the lines of List of United States Coast Guard cutters which isn't listed in United States Coast Guard. Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Use this article to talk about the history of the Group, and split out all of the aircraft into another article (just cut and paste :). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted stuff

A user removed that stuff in this edit because it was not backed up by sources...do you know all of that (the song, aircraft list, etc.) from personal experiences or from books that you read/own? Somewhere else? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately i do not think that is in a book. It is on my website, which is the 'official' website of the bomb group. Does that help?B29bomber (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I do have tons of old paperwork from that time period. Old orders that indicate the aircraft info exactly as I have in this site. B29bomber (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Really...well, you can cite them, I'm sure - I just don't know the proper format. I've opened up a new section here asking what that could be. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 22:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, try this: <ref>info quoted directly from order</ref>

For what the <ref> and </ref> tags mean, see WP:REF. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, include such relevant things as (guessing, never seen a military order) order numbers and stuff so that someone could find it if they went through the National Archives or something. :) Thanks so much! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

I added a redirect on the article page to show where the article was moved to. The merge of the other information into the 330th Sustainment Wing was proper, so I wouldn't have a prob it the redirect was changed to that page, but this article page needs to be redirected to one or the other. GregJackP Boomer! 17:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Split

The current article size is 114KB, well above that recommended for maximum article size, per WP:SPLIT. The article should be split into two articles, one a list of the combat missions, the other the prose history. The only other option I see is to pare down the article to an acceptable size, and with all the work that has been put into it, I don't really want to do that. GregJackP Boomer! 01:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is over size because of unneeded content. For a start the List of aircrft can go as Wikipedia is not a collection of information. Secondly the mission detail is excessive. A table would be sufficient. Some of the text is verbose and written in a non-encyclopedia manner.GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the information on the missions is better than Wikipedia's current central articles on the bombing of Japan... As such, that content seems worth saving in some form (as a start to List of major Twentieth Air Force air raids on Japan, perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The content is good and worth splitting, though needs to be referenced. I agree the article is way to long, Nick-D's solution sounds reasonable. Sadads (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It also needs to be copy-edited, some of the language is unencylcopedic. I've started to work on some of that, such as changing "awesome aircraft" to "aircraft," etc. There is a tremendous amount of information and content (refs are still needed of course). I would hate to lose the work that the page creator put into this, we should just clean up and split, etc, so it isn't lost. GregJackP Boomer! 09:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's put the idea of splitting on hold until the article has had a good run through. No point in splitting and then having to work on two articles at once. Even if the list was split off, a summary of operations would be needed for the article. Are we happy with the article name - I would drop the "(VH)". GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I second GraemeLeggett. We have articles of over 160k (ask me about one I'm babying). This can be altered, modified, etc, and then if necessary we can consider a split later. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

While I'm aware that other stuff exists, that's not a reason to hold off on splitting the article. The other argument is much more compelling to me, to fix the problems first, then split if still needed. GregJackP Boomer! 12:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just adding my agreement to the above - although the authors have done a fine job of research, I think the article goes into much too much detail. It makes sense to trim what can be trimmed (which I feel might mean reducing much of the individual missions section to a few illustrative/significant/notable missions) and then see if a split is still required. EyeSerene^talk 21:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

330th Bombardment Group

The following discussion has been moved here from User talk:Toddst1. It belongs here. Toddst1 (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good afternoon,

It has been a while since you assisted me, but you helped me out in the beginning with the creation of the 330th page.., there is a gentlemen who moved the page I had created and renamed it and now if you search under 330th Bombardment Group you can no longer find my page. He is arguing against renaming it and i am not that skilled to do so.., I am asking assistance to 'undo' what he did as it is not helping matters in the least.

He is less than cordial in assisting me.

I would like my 330th Bombardment Group page renamed back to what it was prior to 12 July 2010. He added chronological mission history which screws up the searches for the 330th.

Please assist.

regards, --B29bomber (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(tpstalker)Todd, I went to look at this and it is a mess. The original article 330th Bombardment Group was proposed for a merge to 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing and closed with no consensus. Then Bwmoll3 moved the article to 330th Bombardment Group - Historical Mission Chronology. There was no redirect left that I could find (I added that, and posted that to the article talkpage). B29bomber then posted a comment on Bwmoll3's talkpage requesting the article be moved back, stating "What did you do to my page?" implying ownership (as he also did above). B29 then moved the 330th Bombardment Group - Historical Mission Chronology article to Fred squawbasker and then to 330th Bombardment Group (VH). My personal view (based on normal WP:MILHIST practices) is that the original article should be merged with the current 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing, but that's neither here nor there at the present. I was going to try and clean it up, but it is beyond me how to approach it - too many problems. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 20:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't this be sorted out with a few well placed redirects? Toddst1 (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought so, but I couldn't get them to take for some reason. I also tried to move the article back to the original title, then to the Historical title, and couldn't get that to work either. Revert and undo similarly failed to work for me. It's probably just that I'm doing something wrong, but I couldn't get anything to work. The other issue is the Fred squawbasker redirect to the 330th Bombardment Group. First, a good deal of the edit history is on the Fred page, and I can't tell if the history is just duplicated or needs to be merged - it looks like there are some distinct entries in both places, and I don't know how to merge that (or even if I am able to). Of course, then the Fred page would need to be deleted also (and I have no clue what Fred has to do with any of this, but it didn't look like it was an article before this). GregJackP Boomer! 22:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I added the redirect from the old '330th Bombardment Group' to go to '330th Bombardment Group (VH)' I do not mind these small edits by some of these people, but what gives someone the arbitrary right to completely move a page with no redirects in mind. This Bwmoll3 is a real pain. Thank you for your assistance. Hopefully this 'fix' fixed this.--B29bomber (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, I apologize to User:B29bomber for distrubing "YOUR" article. However, as I wrote on your talk page, the information you provided is not "your page". Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Indeed, it's an excellent historical mission chronology of the 330th Bombardment Group in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II, but the fact is that the article fails to encapsulate the entire history. Which is why I renamed it as I did and put it in it's proper context in the history section of the current unit's page, which does have a list of the designations of the unit, the assignments, the squadrons, stations and aircraft which is also part of the unit's history. As the 330th Bomb Group is part of lineage and history of the current unit; that is where it was placed. I took a look a it and there is just no way I wanted to edit it. I wouldn't know where to start.

Another fact is that was I renamed it what it was; 330th Bombardment Group - Historical Mission Chronology, a historical chronology of the unit when deployed to the Pacific Theater during World War II. The fact also is that when I moved the article to a new name, a #redirect was left automatically as part of the move. I then repointed the #redirect to the 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing page. After B29Bomber left a note on my talk page complaining about the move, I noticed on my watchlist that the 330th Bombardment Group page was blanked by B29Bomber. I saw the blanking and decided to stay out of it; as clearly he was going to do what he wanted and I have no desire to become involved in a silly and pointless edit war. The fact remains that after I renamed "HIS" article, I placed a clear link to the renamed article in the 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing page as follows: "For an extended historical mission chronology of the 330th Bombardment Group in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II, see 330th Bombardment Group - Historical Mission Chronology" on t 12:42, 18 July 2010.

It appears that B29Bomber wants "HIS" pages left alone and if anyone in the Wikipedia Community does any sort of constructive editing to "HIS" page, then beware. Quite frankly, the unit is one of dozens of units I've been writing about for the past several weeks and whatever happens with "HIS" is perfectly fine with me, because he's going to do whatever he feels like doing with it no matter what. His writing on my talk page, and his childish whining here makes that perfectly evident. However, I did want to correct the record with regards to my editing of this page and why it was done in the manner in which I did it. Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In another comment B29Bomber wrote that I was "less than cordial" in my remarks made to him about this. When I went back to read what I wrote, I saw that he deleted my comments from his talk page. I leave it up to you about the cordiality of my remarks, as I've gone back in his history and found my deleted remarks. Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"The information you provided is not "your page". Ref: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. It's an excellent historical mission chronology of the 330th Bombardment Group in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II, but it doesn't include the lineage, assignments, stations and other historical information about the unit. The page you wrote is still there and I did not edit it in any way. It is clearly referenced in the 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing page; the current designation of the unit. Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)"

"My reason for renaming the 330th Bombardment Group Page was that each and every time I'd try to link a page to it; it was going to the chronological history page. Which I stated before was well-written and quite comprehensive. However the purpose of the link was to link one of the squadrons; one of the assigned organizations, and other wikipedia pages to it. The page which you contributed is part of the history of the unit, but not the entire history. Which is why I renamed it as I did and put it in it's proper context in the history section of the current unit's page, which does have a list of the designations of the unit, the assignments, the squadrons, stations and aircraft which is also part of the unit's history. As the 330th Bomb Group is part of lineage and history of the current unit; that is where it was placed. Now it's history in the Pacific War is there along with the history of the unit being a heavy bomber training unit; as well as the part it played in the Korean War. Another reason was that I did not want to try and edit the fine page which you created, it being easier to leave it as it was and simply rename it; then link it prominently in the current unit's page. If you know of a better way to encapsulate the unit, then please make things better Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)"

I also don't seem to understand the rationale for any of this. It appears that B29Bomber is making up nonsensical pages and acting very childish because I moved "HIS" Page.......

Revision history of Fred squawbasker

1. (cur | prev) 13:27, 21 July 2010 B29bomber (talk | contribs) (42 bytes) (←Redirected page to 330th Bombardment Group (VH)) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 13:19, 21 July 2010 B29bomber (talk | contribs) m (69 bytes) (moved 330th Bombardment Group to Fred squawbasker) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 12:57, 21 July 2010 GregJackP (talk | contribs) (69 bytes) (add redirect) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 12:42, 21 July 2010 B29bomber (talk | contribs) (empty) (←Blanked the page) (undo)

(cur | prev) 12:43, 18 July 2010 Bwmoll3 (talk | contribs) (45 bytes) (merged into 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing page) (undo)

Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Mate, Plenty of people with good intentions have edited the 330th BG's page over the last couple of years. No one has taken it upon themselves to be so bold as to rename the entire page. You are above the rest of us.

Folks, I'm moving this discussion from my talk page to Talk:330th Bombardment Group (VH) where it really belongs. Please continue it here. Toddst1 (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would advise the article be moved to plain 330th Bombardment Group and incorporate the Cold war action (or lack of it) up to 1952 when the name changes to Sustainment. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Content and copyright and plagiarism

Notwithstanding the note above to the extent that material from http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ny330bg/missions.htm etc can be used in the article, at the moment a lot of the text is verbatim from the site. I believe this to be against policy, so I want to flag it here. As we already have comments that the article needs some rewriting, this should be less of an issue after a while, and after correct attribution of the source. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is also, in my opinion, a problem in citing to that source as a reference for the material that is copied. First, I'm not sure that it is a WP:RS, and second, it means the cite goes to the same material that is now in Wikipedia, not to mention labeling it as the "official" history of the 330th BG. IMO, an "official" history is one published by the USAF, not by a website. It would probably be better used as an External link, and divested of the appearance of being the "official" history. GregJackP Boomer! 17:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above.., i own the 330th website.., this is not copyrighted material as I wrote all of it. I went through all of this years ago when I first published this on wikipedia in Feb 2009.

Copyright Info

This article is the subject of a request emailed to the Wikimedia Foundation:

Issues identified are: Permission is given for use of materials from the website http://www.330th.org/ under the license CC-BY The OTRS ticket number is 2009020410051373

Zureks (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I went through all of this back then.., I do not wish to go through this again.--B29bomber (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That may be, and I don't have a problem with the use of the text, but it is clearly inappropriate to cite that website as a reference to the quoted material. It fails the standards of reliable source. I have removed those citations as they are self-published. You mentioned that you are the owner of the site you are citing, in effect, you are citing your own work. See also online sources. I have left the external link, as it is appropriate. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 22:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dubious facts in list of missions

I can't do it now (the article is too big to edit on my phone), but one of the sources I've looked at contradicts the information shown in at least one of the missions, in re targets, number of planes and bomb load. The mission as currently written is not referenced. If there is a reliable source for the info in the missions, let me know, otherwise I'll start a rewrite to the published source. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Commanders

I have (twice) deleted the entry for Notable Commanders

Only one of the commanders listed commanded the group. Squadron commanders may appropriately be listed in the articles for the squadrons.

There is no justification given for the notability of the one listed group commander (see Wikipedia:Notability (people).

Mission list

New to this article and note the mission list far to detailed with trivia and non-encyclopedic detail, can it be trimmed down to any that are really notable or summarised in some way? MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)