Talk:3rd Special Operations Squadron

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

On 13 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from 3d Special Operations Squadron to 3rd Special Operations Squadron. The result of the discussion was moved.

Opening heading[edit]

If you have doubts about the official name please reference 3d SOS at AFHRA. EagleWSO 21:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An updated official reference is here (the main page ref), where the unit is officially designated as '3 Special Operations Squadron' and the unit crest has '3rd Special Operations Squadron'. Loopy30 (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3d Special Operations Squadron. 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/20131020075647/http://www.cannon.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=12751 to http://www.cannon.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=12751

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

This article should be moved to 3rd Special Operations Squadron. That is what it is known as, what the patches denote, and consistent with other articles. There have been discussions concerning "rd versus d" (see: Talk:2nd Bomb Wing#"2nd" vs. "2d"). -- Otr500 (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 October 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3d Special Operations Squadron → 3rd Special Operations Squadron – per MOS:1ST - wolf 04:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC) ~~This is a contested technical request~~ not really contested as such - in the original request the source and target were the same (permalink). Dr. Vogel (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to change a "3d" to a "3rd"? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Third"? Pending consultation of sources, I would suggest "Third". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US military units are Arabic-numbered in their ordinals, generally. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look into this, and I've found:

all the other squadrons are numbered 1st, 2nd, 17th, etc. This one is the odd one out out of all the squadrons, so the article should probably be named "3rd" to be consistent with all the others
we probably shouldn't process this as an uncontroversial request, because it's been moved between these 2 names, as well as others, multiple times

So, if you agree, I think we should open an RM and propose turning the "3d" into a "3rd".

Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would be the conservative course. Personally, I think it's a good suggestion. The emblem has "3rd". Note that there is also some discussion of this on the article talk page and at Talk:2nd Bomb Wing#"2nd" vs. "2d". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support move - this should've been done awhile ago, to be line with every other article that uses ordinals (eg: US military units) as per MOS:1ST. The specific example used in the guideline is use "2nd Battalion not 2d Battalion". - wolf 10:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my prior comments above. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.