Talk:Aeronautical Division, U.S. Signal Corps

message: G'day, I've only had a quick look but this looks like quite a well developed article, which would probably only need a little more work to take it up to B or GA class. Good work so far! Anyway, one thing that lept out at me is that there is a repeated section: "Lineage of the United States Air Force" appears as both the first and eighth sections. I don't think that this is necessary. I'd remove one of them myself, but I'm not sure where it is best included. Would one of the article's more established contributors please take a look and adjust accordingly? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd, but I never noticed.  When I rewrote this article many moons ago, I placed a lineage section at the top to show the Air Service's place in the scheme of things and have fine-tuned it since.  The same section appears in all the articles on the USAF antecedents.  At some point someone moved it to the bottom (app. feeling that was more in keeping with an encyclopedic context?) and I app. just assumed it had been deleted above.  The odd part is that I often come to the article for tweaking maintenance but app. forget about the top section by the time I scroll down to the bottom.  Anyway, I deleted the upper one.--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

text:   Actually, the lineage is a little more complex than stated.  Official USAF sources oversimplify in order to show a lineal progression from the Aero Div, SC to the USAF, but there are some twists on the road (including disconnects, overlaps, and a split operation for a while during WW I).  But, an excellent article only a tweak or two away from a Higher Assessment (Surprised you haven't already self assessed for WPMILHIST). --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're too kind. :)  Actually, imho the "overlaps and disconnects" are so murky in this era that the oversimplication is needed as framework to understand the issues and politics involved. It's not something of recent vintage by the Air Force but arguably goes back at least as far as the "AAF Historical Studies".  Once done, it became impossible, literally, to rewrite history. The schizophrenic operation of WWI was repeated in the second half of the 1930s with the Air Corps (this time deliberately by the Army to reign in the ambitions of airpower proponents). However Arnold (and others) learned from history and thus were not doomed to repeat it.  He made certain the AAF operated as a unified force working cooperatively with one aim. The plum for achievement of that aim was the USAF, which thankfully he lived just long enough to see. Even so, the sublimation of the AC into the AAF bears more than a passing resemblance to what happened to the Aeronautical Division vis a vis the "Aviation Section" (a term actually more of a descriptive generalization than an actual organizational component). As to higher assessment, my nature usu. steers me away from that.  I'm leery of that because of the self-promotion aspects.  I am content to try to make sense of the convoluted history and express that to readers trying to make sense of it themselves, something of a purist in that regard, while conforming to the OR, POV, and documentation requirements of wiki. All of the articles I "mother" (including this one) are filled with endless tweaks, grammar, suppression of loquaciousness (often my own), and a constant reassessment of what's relevant and what's not.  Excuse all this grandiloquence, but I was born when the Air Force was born, and into it because my dad made the USAF a 30+ year career after being an aerial gunner in WWII. If ever people talk of "Old Air Force" (as in "Old Army"), we are Old Air Force. I left the USAF after a single enlistment, but I owe literally everything in my life to it, and editing these articles is my small repayment. That's my motivation.  Again, thanks for the kind thoughts.--Reedmalloy (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate section

message: I notice this name apparently listed as a fatality in a Curtiss F on Nov. 27, 1912. Is it a different Chandler than Charles DeF. Chandler, the first head of the Aero Division? His dates are shown as 1878-1939. If someone different (as I presume), a first name or other identifying term would clear any confusion. DonFB (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Different people.  Captain Chandler eventually became Col. Chandler, in charge of balloon activities.  The aviator killed was Lt. Rex Chandler, Coast Artillery, killed when Brereton crash-landed.  Entry modified, Thanx for suggestion.--Reedmalloy (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chandler 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aeronautical Division, U.S. Signal Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313132536/http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090601-130.pdf to http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090601-130.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified