Talk:Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

message: The Wright-Patterson Air Force Base#History section has been chronologically overlapping, for many years of edits and in great detail, the content at the articles for Wilbur Wright Field & Fairfield Aviation General Supply Depot, so I propose the detailed WPAFB article history begin with the official ceremonies opening Wright Field (i.e., within a "Wright Field" subsection).  Of course a background summary--with a few sentences between the History section header and the Wright Field subsection header--is suitable.  30 SW (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History scope

message: Wright-Patterson is not the largest USAF base. I believe Eglin AFB has long held that distinction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.207.22.210 (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to check facts 

message: The heading "Wright and Patterson fields" is present on the TOC and in the source, but missing from the actual page. I tried a few things to get it back but to no avail. Does anyone understand why it's missing and how to restore it? Kidburla (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea - I played with it too. I think it has something to do with the table, as the heading shows up if I put it above the table, but for the life of me I can't figure out what the issue is - table looks like it is properly formatted... Ckruschke (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems fixed now. Pleasenothankyou (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What on earth is going on with the headings? 

message: No mention of Hangar 18? Seems like a pretty big omission. It is a popular subject in UFO lore and even had a movie made about it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no mention in this talk-page's archives. Be bold. Pleasenothankyou (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. There are a number of references in popular culture (i.e. a Megadeth song and a movie) that should probably be added too.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If the In Search of.... episode isn't reliable enough (and I have no idea why).....perhaps the History Channel series UFO Files is? (See the episode "Hangar 18: The UFO Warehouse".) For this article to not mention the persistent rumors about Hangar 18 at Wright-Patterson (that have been echoed in popular culture for years) is odd. This is not endorsing any of these theories.....it's reporting them. That's the job with these articles.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

text: This may have to go to RFC. I can't imagine having a Wright-Patterson article and not mentioning this. If not under the UFO heading than the Popular culture one.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

text: And by the way, I'm pretty much the last person that would endorse these theories. (I've argued with UFO buffs for years.) But to not mention this is sort of like not mentioning the supposed "crash" in 1947 in the Roswell, New Mexico article. So we need to get a discussion going here before rolling over to RFC. cheers.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your source because it was a likely copyright violation per WP:YOUTUBE. It also does not seem to be especially notable. After a quick google search of hanger 18, I am mostly finding a band, New York Times article from 1980, and the movie. This seems hardly notable enough to mention, taking into account WP:PROFRINGE.Garuda28 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand how it isn't notable. In Search of... was a nationally syndicated program that ran for 6 seasons. This has also been mentioned on the History Channel series I mentioned (UFO files) as well as other publications and broadcasts. If all that doesn't make it notable.....I'm not sure what does.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: UFO Files and In Search of... (TV series) are dedicated to conspiracy theories, and frankly this is not a very popular one. We have a section dedicated to actual UFO studies done by the Air Force. Frankly adding a rate conspiracy theory that is obviously WP:Fringe and has undue WP:WEIGHT given "Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects." This statement applies to Wright-Patterson AFB, which unlike Area 51, almost never has conspiracy theories mentioned in reliable sources. I'd like to ping  to see if they have anything to add, but I strongly disagree with the addition of what is a minor conspiracy theory. Garuda28 (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a judgment call. But virtually all the UFO books mention it. Unsolved Mysteries (the NBC series) mentioned this as well in a few episodes. This seems to be a reoccurring subject on wiki. (I.e. when is fringe too fringe?) I appreciate your replies. (And any forthcoming ones from others.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a bunch of unscientific crap that's what I think.  This is an article about a US Air Force base, not some fringe theories about aliens. I think one paragraph about UFOs is more than sufficient.  Sorry, but you asked me my opinion.  --rogerd (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't sugar coat it. :) Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMO any mention of Hangar 18 should be a link to fringe UFO nonsense since this is an article about the base and not crackpots. BTW I work here and there is no Hangar numbered "18". Bldg 18 is an office complex and the only Hangars that are numbered less than "100" is Hangar 4 which is part office bldg and part storage for the USAF museum. I've been in it - its a junk drawer of parts out in the open - they aren't hiding anything there but rat droppings... Ckruschke (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to emphasize (again) that I do not endorse any of these theories (as I am quite a skeptic on the subject of UFOs).....I just thought it was notable enough to include.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Hangar 18? 

message: The Based Units section has become a gigantic wall of words with every unit on base. Is this what we want? What is the definition of Military "Units" for Wikipedia. If its every sub-organization, as is currently shown, I'm not sure where that will stop.  My 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we going to list every single organization on base