Talk:3d Air Division (Bombardment)

(Move)

This move was made because the wiki article titled "3d Air Division (Bombardment) (World War II)" provided duplicate information already posted at 98th Bombardment Wing (World War II). There was a 3d Air Division during WWII, but this was not it. During World War II, the 3d Air Division was a B-17/B-24 component of the Eighth Air Force with no connection to the B-26 98th BW that after the war took on a nearly identical designation. Confusion arises because both were in the 8th AF at the same time in 1942-43:

• the 98th as the "3rd Bomb Wing" (a B-26 organization) and
• the World War II 3d Air Division as the "4th Bomb Wing" (B-17s).

The actual 3d Air Division (Bombardment) (World War II) --the organization referenced in the moved article title--was the latter, not the former. The 4th BW had grown to an unwieldy 7 groups and three "provisional wings" and was reorganized into the 3d Bomb Division in Sept 1943, then renamed 3d Air Division in Jan 1945. It eventually became the USAF 3d Air Division of USAFE/SAC.

The B-26 wing was renamed and transferred to the 9th AF at approx. the same time. After the war it was assigned to the Air Force Reserve and reverted back to its 3rd Wing designation (3d Bombardment Wing [Light]), but in 1948 when a new 3rd Bomb Wing (Light) (successor to the 3d BG) was created, the AFR organization was then given the designation "3rd Air Division (Bombardment)" to differentiate it (couldn't go back to 98th BW because a new 98th BW was created too).

Since an article already exists in full at "98th BW (WWII)" that covers the AFR designation, I created the disambiguation page that accounts for both 3d ADs and avoids an unecessary merge of "3AD(B)(WWII)" and "98th BW (WWII)".--Reedmalloy (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• The Dab pg was as clear as mud, and still is, but i at least decluttered it. And i don't at the moment have the patience to decode what appears above on this talk page, but should not need to be understood to write or use the Dab page.
  Did the name "3d Air Division (Bombardment)" ever apply to the two units at the same time? If not, you're talking about that name designating, in one period, something that is the topic of one article, and in another period, something that is the topic of the other, and

-- you need to state one of the respective time ranges in the Dab entry for each of the corresponding entities.
-- what either of those entities did when it did not bear the name "3d Air Division (Bombardment)" has no place on the Dab page: the Dab exists only to get someone who is currently interested in one of the two entities called "3d Air Division (Bombardment)" to the article about that entity. They may be interested as well in what the entity did and was called earlier or later, but that info interferes with the navigational task, rather than helping it, and it belongs in the article, not on the Dab page.

In the event that they had the same name at the same time, you're in deep SNAFU and need to address that directly, but it seems too unlikely to anticipate.
Focus on the task: the Dab gets the ignorant user to the right article, and any information on the Dab pg that is unnecessary to that task interferes with that task. The two articles may even ignore each other's existence, but once the user gets there, the navigational task should (and had better) be complete, and the user is ready to listen to the complexities of the nature of the (almost certainly) single "3d Air Division (Bombardment)" article they are interested in (or of the one they are going to have to focus on first before going on to the second).
No doubt the intrusion of an ignorant shit like me into this highly technical area is annoying, but bear in mind that an encyclopedia article exists for the ignorant unwashed to read, not for the cognoscenti who can write it to admire.
--Jerzy•t 09:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page Not Required

This disambiguation page only has two articles. Created a HatNote at 3d_Air_Division, as this may be the more likely of the two required. --Haruth (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps. But i assume "3d Air Division (Bombardment)" was an official military name, and that "(Bombardment)" is not a disambiguating suffix added by WP eds to the presumably (also?) official military name "3d Air Division", just to distinguish the two articles that each refer to a different entity that had the official name "3d Air Division" at different times or in different contexts. What do you envision happening with the existing Dab pg 3d Air Division (Bombardment) (which BTW i can probably make happen, if it makes sense)?
  --Jerzy•t 10:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  

Hmm. Good question. I originally placed a WP:PROD removed by User:B.Wind while he was cleaning up after me - something to do with double-disambiguation. I haven't taken the time to check out the multi changes (always a useful learning exercise when an Admin clears up after you ;-)), so not sure why it's still here. When I get a chance, will try to get a handle on B.Wind's changes and see if the Dab is still needed. --Haruth (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• That sounds to me like B.Wind construed the " (Bombardment)" suffix as invented by WP, in contrast with what 3d Air Division implies about "3 Air Division (Operational)". That understanding would normally lead Dab-cleanup saavy editors to claim that the Dab pg 3d Air Division (Bombardment) should be merged into 3d Air Division (disambiguation), or be obviated by a HatNote Dab if 3d Air Division were an article rather than a Dab.
  I'll dig up a ref on such situations, twd furthering this discussion, and i assume i'll quickly locate exactly what B.Wind said.
  --Jerzy•t 22:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  
• I hate this kind of research, but the language of Wikipedia:DAB#Double_disambiguation has barely changed since its creation as Disambiguation of a disambiguation 5 years ago -- tho i haven't looked for talk-page background to the matter. So far i don't understand it enuf to be sure that it isn't what i thot it would be, and the reference to WP:AT feels worthlessly vague. More thots soon, and hopefully more productive ones, or a request for clarification to our colleague.
  --Jerzy•t 10:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)