Talk:VMFA(AW)-225

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States Start‑class

This redirect 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

Start

This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

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 met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

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

Command element section

I am reluctant to keep the CE section that was added. It will forever be changing, if it is done for one it should for all and I just don't think it is feasible. I understand the importance of the XO and SgtMaj to a unit but as far as encyclopedic knowledge is concerned I feel that CO is the only one that is truly important. Interested to hear other thoughts.--Looper5920 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the problem is that it is known in advance that this information will be incorrect within a reasonably short period (i.e. a few years at best) and after that, unless diligently updated, will provide misleading information to anybody checking this entry. I could see that one would want to keep a historic record of the CO of a unit, in which case the years of command should be indicated. ThreeBlindMice 03:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]