Talk:Chaplain of the United States Coast Guard

message: Hi Eagle 4000.  I noticed you've reintroduced separate sections for the US Coast Guard academy and "prayers" linking it to a footnote on another article page, United States Navy Chaplain Corps.  I think these sections, and even the material itself, are actually out of place here in terms of relevance and notability, since the article itself is about the position of the Chaplain of the USCG.  Is there some reason why the material should be included here, rather than keeping it on the pages USCG Academy and US Navy Chaplain Corps? --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, AzureCitizen. I didn't realize I was reintroducing those sections. The reason I put them in was I was thinking of the Chaplain of the CG page as sort of a "USCG chaplain corps" page, but I realize now that it isn't; instead it is solely about the office of Chaplain of the CG. My mistake. I put the info back on the USN Chaplain Corps page. Semper paratus. Eagle4000 (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, all good.  I also noticed just now that the "See Also" section should probably be tightened to avoid clutter and highlight the Chiefs of Chaplains of the United States (rather than each individual Chief position listing, since they also appear in the navigation box at bottom); the Army/AF Chaplain Corps could be trimmed as well (if a reader follows the Navy Chaplain Corps link, it logically follows from there), plus the section should be re-ordered. This will help with clarity for folks who are unfamiliar with all this, so I will do that next. --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you won't trim the Army/AF Chaplain Corps very much, as I would view them as being independent of the Navy Chaplain Corps article. Not every user looking at the Army/AF articles would necessarily click on the Navy link. Also, although my relatives were in the Navy, I don't think Army and Air Force fans would like their articles being trimmed in favor of the Navy article .... If the Army and AF corps were subordinate to the Navy corps, it might be a different matter, as with the Chaplain of CG being part of the Navy. Eagle4000 (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there might be some confusion here... I didn't mean I was going to do any "trimming" in the Wikipedia articles on the Army and AF Chaplain Corps articles... I just meant I was going to trim the "See Also" section here in the Chaplain of the Coast Guard article so that it's pared down to what's most relevant, which I'm thinking are the articles on military chaplain, the Coast Guard, the Navy Chaplain Corps, and the Chiefs of Chaplains.  By including all the other "see also" links (i.e., the Army Chaplain Corps, the AF Chaplain Corps, each of the individual Chiefs of Chaplains articles, etc), we end up with too much clutter in the "See Also" section and new readers get confused about how it relates back to the original subject (in this case, the office of the Chaplain of the Coast Guard).  Does that make sense now?  :)  --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did misunderstand. Sorry 'bout that. And, yes, it does make sense (now). Happy Labor Day (if you're presently in the U.S.). Eagle4000 (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that. Rockhead126 (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled