Template talk:Buffalo Soldiers

message: Shouldn't this only include those which the units took part in while they were still segregated?  BrokenSphereMsg me 22:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments above ... and that "Soldiers" section has also gotten out of control. — 00:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, what part did Buffalo Soldiers play in Battle of Monte Cassino that is "notable?" My father watched the bombing of Monte Cassino from the plains, but no units of the 366th Infantry Regiment, or 92nd Infantry Division for that matter, participated in that battle ... and I thought that it went without saying that the term died with the desegregation of the armed forces after WW-II, so WTF is Battle of Mosul (2004) doing in this template?? Are you going to unilaterally add Battle of Khe Sanh next? —72.75.65.41 00:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My apologies, Freechild ... it looks like my evil twin has been a Bad Boy and may have crossed a line ... I have removed the Battle of Musol, redirected the 24th Infantry Regiment to the correct article, and set the template's default state to collapsed ... that's about as much lipstick as I feel like putting on this pig, so it's time for me to MOVE ON as well ... Happy Editing! —72.75.65.41 15:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battles 

message: Well, I think we can agree that the era of the Buffalo Soldiers ended with the desegregation of the US military following WW-II, so we should not be including links for battles after that date ... OTOH, I think that this template should either be restricted to the units specifically referenced in that article, i.e.,The term eventually encompassed these units:
*U.S. 9th Cavalry Regiment
*U.S. 10th Cavalry Regiment
*24th Infantry Regiment
*25th Infantry Regiment
which would exclude the WW-II MOH winners as well, or else it should be opened to include the Tuskegee Airmen ... I don't mean to sound facetious, but we really do need to establish some limits, and they will either be very narrow, or very broad ... Happy Editing!  —72.75.65.41 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus and range of template 

message: Take a look at :Category:Black history in the United States military ... perhaps a :Category:Buffalo Soldiers would be more appropriate than a Template, although it might conflict with :Category:African Americans in the United States military unless there is a clear distinction that one is a subset of the other, like :Category:Tuskegee Airmen ... for one thing, a Category eliminates the redlink problem, but more importantly, it also eliminates creating a lot of links to articles that stretch credulity, like why a 19th century battle in New Mexico (Battle of Tularosa) shows up in "What links here" for a WW-II MOH winner (Vernon Baker), and vice-versa (or why both are reciprocally linked to Cathy Williams (Buffalo Soldier)) ... personally, I found :Category:African Americans in the United States military much more useful than this template, because I found Booker T. Spicely and Executive Order 9981 (which I had been looking for a few days ago while composing an earlier thread) ... Happy Editing!  —72.75.65.41 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "redlink problem"; redlinks help build the web. The reason why the Battle of Tularosa is linked to Vernon Baker, and why both are linked to Cathy Williams, is because they are all related to the topic of Buffalo Soldiers, which is the purpose of the template. For that purpose this template does well. If you disagree I hope you will take it to TfD so we can have more editors' opinions. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 04:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps a Category would be better than a Template? 

message: I used the info above to focus the template on the orginal Buffalo Soldiers units, the Medal of Honor winners up to World War I (only 1 then) and the battles up to World War I.
I did not cite Black MOH winners of the Civil War mainly because they were not in the direct lineage of the original units called Buffalo Soldiers. Adding more units, MOH winners and battle would make this template over-sized. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent Doc! Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: It was suggested that the template would be better in the closed or hidden or collapsed format.  I am unsure of how to do this. 
I though addiing "|state = autocollapse" what was needed.  Now I really just do not know.  Anyone have any ideas?
Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: How can this template be hidden (collapsed) in all articles?

message: Black Seminole Scouts were a part of the organization called United States Army Indian Scouts - while often associated with Buffalo Soldiers they were never US Army Buffalo Soldiers.  Scouts served all US units.  There is no documentaion that any US Army Indian Scouts were offically or documented by the military as "Buffalo Soldiers."  Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Black Seminole Scouts]]