Talk:Air supremacy

message: "Future
Today, air supremacy is a key first goal of United States military operations and the United States has a military research budget greater than any other nation to maintain this in any future conflict."
Is that necessary? Sourced? Even if it isn't, I don't really think it's written in the correct style for Wikipedia. Besides, is it even a fact? We don't know, for example, how much the CCP (PRC Government) is spending on military research. The U.S. themselves doubt the official published figures. 144.124.16.28 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future section in the article 

message: I saw that this page once had an article but was then merged and redirected to air superiority.  I think that air supremacy needs its own page not just because of it's significance, but more importantly because civilians often make the mistake of thinking the two are the exact same thing, which they are not.  While they both relate to control of the skies, air supremacy is a completely different level of control and hopefully having its own page will help show this. JW 02:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  un-redirecting 

message: I've done a little I hope to correct it but for the main this article is really an article about Air superiority fighters rather then air superiority or air supremacy.KTo288 (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus

message: Is there consensus to use British or American English in this article? I need to know so I can do the copyedit properly. (Per MOS:ENGVAR, articles should use only one variety.) Best wishes, RainCity471 (whack!) 14:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there's been no input on this question for a week, I assume it's uncontroversial and I'll go with what was generally used before: American English (implied from spelling) with DMY dates (explicitly stated in template).  This does seem a bit odd to me (DMY dates are European), but there's no discussion on this talk page and I don't feel the urge to dig through years of history to find out.  Note this is not a proper decision by consensus, so please don't take this into account if there is further discussion here.  RainCity471 (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  English variety 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Air supremacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120921071227/http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/data/a/2245.html to http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/data/a/2245.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Air supremacy. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/374F7380_1143_EC82_2E436D317C547F5B.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303201526/http://nsa.nato.int/nsa/zPublic/ap/aap6/AAP-6.pdf to http://nsa.nato.int/nsa/zPublic/ap/aap6/AAP-6.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.warbirdsandairshows.com/aircraftvictorieswwii.htm
*Added  tag to http://news.walla.co.il/item/384730
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) 19:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "air superiority" is arguably the more generally used concept (that includes air supremacy). Yet, it is not even mentioned by the lede.
Apparently consensus is that supremacy should have its own article but superiority should not, which to me says too many military expert editors and not enough general language editors. But whatever, I won't contest that. 
However - the lede should definitely discuss air superiority. For one thing, the redirect is to the article, not just into a section. So air superiority should be defined in bold right away by this article. 
CapnZapp (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  air superiority 

message: The general concept being described here is "Control of the Air" (sometimes called "Air Dominance," especially in US English).  Air Supremacy, Air Superiority, a Favourable Air Situation, Air Parity, etc are all differing degrees of Control of the Air.  I propose a move to "Control of the Air" as the doctrinally correct overarching term. Greenshed (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Control of the Air