This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
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:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I have completed the incomplete B Class checklist for WP:MILHIST without changing the assigned rating. The history of this article shows some disagreement (but no discussion) about whether this article should be rated START or STUB. I believe that this merits a discussion. I have not seen an article with so little information rated as START class. Most of the work seems to have been invested in the infobox, and beyond the lead paragraph there is little information in the article. Despite all the edits of the article, I have a hard time seeing it advanced beyond a stub. Some areas for improvement could be why the site was selected, why it is split from the MA Mil Reservation, some general information on Pave Paws, why is USA-193 notable enough to mention apart from other items tracked, when did the transfer of the 6 MWS and closure of North Truro AFS occur, what was the station named from 1979 to 1980, why is only one of the two units stationed there mentioned?--Lineagegeek (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Cape Cod Air Force Station. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed 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.
@Thx811: I think this is an interesting topic. There are next to zero references to JBCC from the Air Force, or even larger DoD, that I can find, so can we even consider this to be part of a self-declared state military base (in essence, a fake joint base)? It just seems beyond weird when it has no official standing or recognition. Especially on this base, I think it makes more sense to list it as part of Buckley Garrison, since that’s the larger (and official) Space Force construct that unifies its geographically dispersed missile warning locations. I’m also pinging @Buckshot06: since they’ve edited Buckley Garrison as well, and I think could bring a third perspective to this. Garuda28 (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@Garuda28:, it is a bit of a strange one. The way I was looking at it was that whilst JBCC might not have wider recognition, it is something which exists and CCAFS and the others (Otis ANGB etc.) do represent constituent parts of it. If the consensus is to remove it then I would have concern with having Buckley Garrison in the 'part of' field instead as that field is meant for bases that are physically part of a lager installation, rather than to show a command relationship. The 'controlled by' field would be be the best place to show the entity that is in command of CCAFS (I moved Buckley Garrison to that field in my last edit). The 'part of' field seems to have been used incorrectly in quite a few military base articles over the years. Thx811 (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we’ve really got two issues here:
1. If the part of field should be expanded beyond its initial usage.
2. Should JBCC be listed, even though it’s not recognized at all by the defense department.
On the first point, I actually think it’s okay to expand part of to Geographically separated locations. It makes sense, and fits in quite nicely, even if it wasn’t the initial intended use for it. The garrisons are kind of interesting, since they aren’t bases exactly, but do have some quasi-base status within the Space Force.
On the second part, I do agree with you that JBCC exists, but only as recognized by the state of Mass and the Coast Guard. I don’t think we can claim any of these other bases are constituent parts of it, if they don’t recognize it (which they don’t). I think it’s okay to treat Joint Base Cape Cod as a geographic place (succeeded the MMR), but I would argue we shouldn’t treat it like a military base (part of field) for bases that don’t recognize its existence (which is everyone except the coast guard). Garuda28 (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
