Talk:HMX-1
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Source
Awhile back, I added this: "The presidential and VIP flights fall under "whiteside." "Greenside" operations include support of Marine Corps Combat Development and operational test and evaluation, such as with the V-22 Osprey, a vertical take-off and landing aircraft."
The general distinction of greenside and whiteside I know from working in the squadron in 1981-1983. -- Maurreen Skowran Maurreen 16:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Tail Code
My source stated that HMX-1's tail code is MX, but I haven't been able to verify this... none of the photos I found of the squadron's helicopters, VIP or otherwise, had a tail code at all. bahamut0013♠♣ 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Move
It seems like this article should be moved to Marine Helicopter Squadron One, in accordance with both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ABBR. HMX-1 is pedantic and not widely known. ENeville (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- HMX-1 is in keeping with the naming conventions of all other Marine Corps helicopter squadrons which are much more well known by their HM designators then by their awkward official names.--Looper5920 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONNAME would indicate that the abbreviation would be the appropriate name. Most Marine aviation squadrons are referred to by thier abbreviations. The full names are too unweildy for common use, and usually are only spelled out in very formal usage. "HMX-1" is far more recongnizable than "Marine Helicopter Squadron One", which makes the latter pedantic, not the former. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not prepared here to challenge a whole category's naming convention, but I would offer that "HMX-1" is quite opaque to the typical Wikipedia reader. It looks like it could be a household cleaner, cellular protein, or UN cultural designation. WP:COMMONNAME would seem to support such a title only in the sense that for those who are aware of it "the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation." However, I don't think that it's plausible to hold that, for the totality of readers, most know of the subject by the abbreviation. BTW, I didn't mean to impugn the title by using the term "pedantic", I was simply quoting the wording from the guidelines I cited (FWIW). ENeville (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The system that the Navy and Marine Corps use to name and abbreviate aviation units is fairly complex and not very intuitive. For the totality of readers, either they are familiar with the system and would search the abbreviation, or they aren't and the distinction between the long name and abbreviation is meaningless anyway. The title wouldn't be especially meaningful to an uninformed reader either way. For example, VMA-311 makes sense to a Marine, but "Marine Attack Squadron 311" wouldn't mean a whole lot to an average reader unless he already knew what a squadron and attack aircraft were, also understanding that Marine here doesn't refer to the oceanic definition. You could add "group attacking aquatic animals" to the list of incorrect assumptions of the definition. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not prepared here to challenge a whole category's naming convention, but I would offer that "HMX-1" is quite opaque to the typical Wikipedia reader. It looks like it could be a household cleaner, cellular protein, or UN cultural designation. WP:COMMONNAME would seem to support such a title only in the sense that for those who are aware of it "the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation." However, I don't think that it's plausible to hold that, for the totality of readers, most know of the subject by the abbreviation. BTW, I didn't mean to impugn the title by using the term "pedantic", I was simply quoting the wording from the guidelines I cited (FWIW). ENeville (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONNAME would indicate that the abbreviation would be the appropriate name. Most Marine aviation squadrons are referred to by thier abbreviations. The full names are too unweildy for common use, and usually are only spelled out in very formal usage. "HMX-1" is far more recongnizable than "Marine Helicopter Squadron One", which makes the latter pedantic, not the former. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 15:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
53s turn into 22s
http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2011/apr/11/hmx-1-says-farewell-ch-53e-ar-965214/ HMX-1 will support operations with the CH-46E for the next two years, and the last of the squadron’s 53E’s will transition to the fleet next week, said Maj. Mike Lindblom. “At HMX-1, for us, we’ve added to our 46 arsenal to kind of fill the gap here for the next two years,” he said. The squadron is expected to receive its first V-22 Osprey aircraft in 2013, Lindblom continued. The transition from the 46s to the Osprey will take a little over a year.
- So the current mention of the 46s is somewhat incomplete. Hcobb (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Mission / Squadron Size
Article may leave a reader with impression ONLY current mission of the squadron in Presidential an VIP support. Should add a listing of squadron size - number of personnel assigned (officer and enlisted), then perhaps number of directly related contractors. Perhaps a listing of number and type of aircraft assigned. Originally squadron was involved in developing tactics and provide initial introduction to helicopters to Marines at training at Quantico. I believe this is the only squadron based/"homeported" at quantico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfoj3 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Reference does not exist
Is used in this article many times. However it just appears as a directory listing. Any idea on what happened? --That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)