Talk:McChord Field

The 2005 BRAC had major repercussions on McChord AFB; the first of which is that they and Fort Lewis are now to merge and become one installation. I've PCS'd from McChord so I don't have the apropos information handily available to me anymore. Anybody there? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, one installation yes and no. From my understanding, there will be a joint operating agreement for facility maintenance. But weather they will completely merge is still a little up in the air. I hope not, Fort Lewis is a dump. 75.172.37.99 (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just curious as to why the emblem gallery was removed from the article. Srobak (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

As there has been no response yet further edits to the article by the contributor, I will be restoring the image gallery if nothing further is heard in 24 hours. Srobak (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

removed image gallery as per WP guidelines. If you want to set up a gallery for McChord AFB, you can set one up over on Wikimedia Commons, then link it to the page for the base if you like... - Bwmoll3 (talk) 11:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The emblem galleries are actually functional, instrumental parts of all the base wp articles, and I don't believe therefor qualify as an actual "image" gallery. Can you please cite the specific guideline you basing this upon? Srobak (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article has been renamed twice in a matter of moments - and is currently reflecting an incorrect name. The base is now named "Joint Base Lewis-McChord", and the article needs to reflect that. Srobak (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please ping User:Ktr101 – I only got involved to the extent of deleting a redirect and moving the article on top of that page after Kevin told me it was the correct name. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, from the looks of it, there is a trend to create a separate page for the joint base. This is only because there is a problem of having two separate bases, merging them, and having one be "the base". The problem with that is that it causes a problem as one page is moved and the other is not. Preferrably, these things would not even be "joint bases" as it is a pain in the butt with the history when one is supposed to be at a name but it cannot be. Keeping two separate pages would keep the names, and allow for flexibility in all of this. If you look on the page though, there is already a page for the base so there is nothing wrong with that. Additionally, I moved it because military bases in the country don't have acronyms in their official name. This is all weird and I wish the Pentagon didn't merge these bases as it messes up everything, but that's the way it is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you on the confusion part, and I am also not indicating that it should acronymed - rather named "Joint-Base Lewis-McChord" as designated by DoD, and should be the principle article. In addition - articles for "Fort Lewis" and "McChord Air Force Base" and "McChord Field" could redirect there, and the history section updated to reflect the re-designation. Just my $.02 I will go one step further on your wish about the merge - I wish BRAC had never been formed, as it has been constantly de-militarizing our country since, and closed a lot of very good bases. I got to help close KI Sawyer, and I go back every year as I have family, and it is just gut-wrenching to see what has become of the place. I can only imagine for other bases that have suffered the same fate. </soapbox> :) Srobak (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not advocating merging the articles as that should never occur because they are different and people would revert it instantly. Besides, we aren't hurting anyone with three articles anyways so I don't see the issue with that. Since the articles are huge anyways, people would say that they would be better as two separate entities. I can see where you are coming from though but the categories and stuff like that would confuse the average reader. You should though add information to the base closing at K.I. as that would be incredibly interesting I would think. I do agree that BRAC is bad, but I guess people wouldn't want many bases when there is no massive enemy at the moment. Some of their rationale is crazy though like how moving F-15's from the base a few miles away to over one hundred miles inland will somehow save money. I'm thinking that we'll get an enemy within the next twenty years or so as China ramps up and Russia is regressing to their old ways. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Of course it is no longer "McChord Air Force Base", but within JBLM, the Air Force part is OFFICIALLY "McChord Field". Warped War (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Should this page (and perhaps the squadron pages as well) is current Commanders? Also, please see my Talk comment on the 4th AS article's Talk Page Warped War (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McChord Field. 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/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply