Talk:Andrews Air Force Base

message: In order for this template to be displayed on this page we need to have some information pertaining to BRAC and this facility. Because their is no information on the page, I am moving the templete here until the information can be uploaded. For more information, click here. TomStar81 03:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Base Realignment and Closure, 2005

message: Not sure on dates yet, but the 89th Communications Squadron and the 789th Communication Squadron under the 89th Communications Group (under 89th Air Wing) have been reorganized.  The 89th is now the 744th and the 789th is now the 89th.  Not quite sure what that entails, but I did have to get a new hat.
--N3r0 13:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: Andrews AFB is now operated by the Air Force District of Washington (AFDW).  The 744th Communications Squadron (listed above) is now part of the 844th Communications Group under AFDW. Not quite sure if 744CS is in any way related to the 316th Wing other than by AFDW.  
--~ Sean Manning ~ 16:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Reorganization Information

message: THIS is an excellent picture of Andrews Air Force Base if someone wants to get it uploaded. ~ Rollo44 22:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is.  But it appears to be copyrighted info.  --rogerd 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to ask for someone to put a diagram of the runways, like the Edwards AFB article.  However, this photo is good.  Since it's copyrighted, I'll put a link under external links instead of stealing the photograph. Archtrain 17:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent Picture 

message: I live near Andrews, and enjoy photographing the aircraft as they fly over my neighborhood.
This article lists the C-20B/D as one of the types of aircraft assigned to the base. The Gulfstream III article lists a C-20C as a military variant that is a "C-20B with upgraded and "hardened" secure communications, often utilized as backup aircraft accompanying the VC-25A aircraft when it is operating as Air Force One". The Gulfstream III article doesn't show any photos of a C-20C, and this article doesn't mention the C-20C, but it seems to me that if there was a C-20C anywhere, it would be at JB Andrews, and it would look a lot like this[].
Shouldn't the list of aircraft assigned to JB Andrews also include the C-20C? TCav (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Aircraft Assigned: C-20B/D 

message: Why has this page been made, referring to it as Andrews Field when there is a Joint Base Andrews page already extant? "Andrews Field" is not a name commonly used to refer to Andrews or, to my knowledge, a common historical name.
For at least the last 20 years it's been Andrews Air Force Base. Not it's Joint Base Andrews Naval Air Facility Washington, which is a ridiculous mouthful, but hey.
So what's up with this? Is confusing and weird.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.32.19 (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that it is above the search return in Google to the page you refer to. I was just looking to see if anyone had any verification on a terrorist incident there. Was it a drill or what?
Weatherlawyer (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be a reference to the name Andrews Field. I'll work to try to move it to Andrews Air Force Base. Here's a current reference for AFB (http://www.jba.af.mil/Units/ and https://www.stripes.com/news/jon-stewart-helps-celebrate-uso-at-andrews-air-force-base-1.408213#.WbrioUhMHYU) Garuda28 (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrews Field? 

message: Under Tenant Units, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321 and Electronic Attack Squadron 209 are listed.
The wiki page for Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321 states "The squadron was decommissioned on September 11, 2004."
The wiki page for Electronic Attack Squadron 209 states "VAQ-209 relocated to Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Washington to begin their transition to the E/A-18G Growler."
Shouldn't these two units be removed from this page?TCav (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tenant Units 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Andrews Field. 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/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Andrews Field. 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/20130530200840/http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=9834 to http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=9834
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder2.census.gov/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder2.census.gov/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://factfinder2.census.gov/
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) 12:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Good evening Bilcat. I don't have long to chat. I read your up and talk pages. Frankly, after reading them, I'm not really inclined to chat anyway. You seem to me to like to threaten, bluster, and bully. I do not think that is Wikipedian, I don't care who you believe you are, I think it would be more in the spirit of WP if you went through and "cleaned up" you own UP. Why assume everyone is an enemy? It seems too aggressive to me. It sounds like you've been dealing extensively with dab in his heyday. I have not seen him now for a long time but he virtually owned WP, or thought he did. Do you think you own "aviation?" I don't expect a nice reply, but maybe you will surprise me. To the issues at hand. You've found a policy that supports your "see also" reversions. The help section makes it clear it is not a hard and fast rule, but a matter of judgement. I thought it would be nice to put together these articles on the same physical facilities. Your opinion is the opposite. Well, considering that you found a policy dealing with it, I yield to your judgement. I'm not going to fight over that one. Now, your "unnecessary section" judgement I can;t agree with, and you have not provided any supporting help section. A statement that the article was copied from somewhere is NOT a reference. It does not fit the numbered flow. If we have another numbered flow (or unnumbered flow) we put it in a different section. So, if you don't mind, quit reverting those unless you can find a policy that credible fits or can convince me by logic. By the way, exactly what is an unnecessary section? Who made you the arbiter of that? I notice you are hunting down my see also's. I don't think that is a good idea. You question my judgement on these see also's so you are going to hunt down every judgement I make on see also? It sounds like a witch hunt. Not a good idea. As for the "Attributions", well, I wouldn't expect to see any further reversions without due process - either find the help section if there is one, get a consensus, or convince me that you are right. By the way, on these service articles I'm only tidying up some end sections  and putting most of my work into picture sorting. I intend to get back to classics at some point. Sorry to bore you with this this long-winded speech. If there was any other way I'd take it.Botteville (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Can you please concisely state your complaints and what you'd like to address on this article?Garuda28 (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Bilcat's Reversions of Botteville's changes